Am Samstag, 7. Oktober 2006 13:43 schrieb Linas Žvirblis: > Dennis Schridde wrote: > > Ok, I hope I got the general idea. Object if you see problems. > > What I write should be considered as my opinion, and not as something > 100% official. > > > 1. Write a LICENSE.TXT where is stated that the sourcecode (everything > > but data/) is GPL > > In Free software universe it is common practice to include licensing > information in COPYING file. Including both may confuse people. LICENSE.TXT was merely used as a placeholder by me. (See my question on 1 for ref.)
> > 2. Write there also that the data is distributed under the GPL and we are > > not the copyright holders, but are coordinating with them "to ensure > > continued availability under the GPL" > > 3. Supply the original readme.txt and reference it in the LICENSE.TXT > > I suggest separating the data (it is a good idea no mater if they are > GPL or not) and including a COPYING file saying something like this: Doesn't sound bad, especially to avoid confusion. Distributions would probably have to seperate the data anyway, because I think most distribution systems / package managers assume one license per package. > ------ > > The content of this package was originally released under the following > terms: > > Text from the original "readme.txt" here. > > Explanation that the licensing terms are unclear, and that the data is > assumed to be released under the GPL, until it can be clarified. > > Text of GPL license here. > > ------ Minor change: 1. Explanation, with ref to the readme.txt 2. readme.txt 3. GPLv2 > > 4. Wait if Frank/Virgil/Rman can make Mr. McLean say something > > As much as I hate the current status, that may take forever, so waiting > doing nothing is not an option, in my opinion. That's why I asked "How long?". I'll have some questions to him anyway, perhaps they speed it up. > > 5. Else write Eidos a mail > > Yes. > > What you should do is: > > 1. Write a letter (on paper) stating that the data files are > being distributed under the GPL. > 2. Include a paragraph saying that no reply within a month > (or so) will be considered as a permission. (the legal > status of this is rather funny, but oh well) > 3. Scan it and publish it online. Also make a paper photocopy > for yourself. > 4. Send it to all involved parties (Eidos, Pumpkin etc.). > 5. Continue development of Warzone 2100. > 6. If there _is_ a reply, well... do whatever it says. Sounds good. Like what I had in mind, too. (I'd have send the copies via mail to others, but hey...) > > 1: Shouldn't this LICENSE.TXT be part of the current COPYING file? Or > > should we really split that into a GPL file, a ORIGINAL_README and a > > LICENSE file? > > As I have already mentioned: > > Source package - only GPL text inside COPYING file. > Data package - GPL and original readme.txt inside COPYING file. Can we all agree on this form of distribution? I'd still supply the Linux and Windows installer with everything included, just the "raw material" would be seperated. > As for the Debian packages, if the data and source packages are > separated in a way they can be built separately, we could distribute > them in separate sections of the archive by including the data in > "non-free". Of course, if that is fine with you. Yes, is ok for me. > > There is no need for an installer, because the data is at least > distributable, which is implied by "as is", no matter how you look at > it. Whether it can be modified is a totally different issue. > > Regards, > Linas > > P.S. I noticed that Per Inge Mathisen already replied while I was > writing this message, so please consider this message as an addition to > what he said. And I just noticed that you also sent a mail when I allready answered to Per's... ;)
pgpksMLzqHmMt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
