On Saturday, 7 October 2006 at 0:51, Dennis Schridde wrote: > Am Samstag, 7. Oktober 2006 00:11 schrieb Christian Ohm: > > On Friday, 6 October 2006 at 17:44, Ari Johnson wrote: > > > I'd put them on GNA. I thought we were of the opinion that the data > > > is covered by the GPL until and unless told otherwise by the copyright > > > holders. > > > > Yes. Keep everything including the data there unless we get an actual > > complaint. > Ok, can someone tell me what we do or do not assume now? > GPL or simply "as is and use it"? Or something different? Nothing? > Everything? > Data on GNA or not? Data in installers or not? Data in distros or not? Write > Eidos a letter or not? Do something else? Do anything at all? > I am confused...
OK. My take on this matter: - We add a LICENSE.txt containing the original readme.txt and a few quotes clarifying the intent of the release. - Thus we are allowed to modify and distribute the data (as nobody has complained about that in the last two years). From the readme.txt we have two possible licenses for the data: No restrictions or GPL. Since the GPL is more strict we use that to be safe. - We leave the data on gna.org. That might not be really correct, and if someone wants to ask them (and relocate the data in the case they say no) go ahead, but I don't think we are putting any risk on them by keeping the data there. - Why no data in installers? - The distros have to decide for themselves. - Writing Eidos... hmmm... I'd wait for an answer from Pivotal/Alex before writing them. (That just leaves the question how long to wait...) - And the most important last step: Take a deep breath, empty your brain of everything to do with licenses and do something useful, dammit! -- The more crap you put up with, the more crap you are going to get. _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
