Giel van Schijndel schreef: > Dennis Schridde schreef: > >> Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 10:37 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: >> >> >>> Dennis Schridde schreef: >>> >>> >>>> Am Montag, 13. November 2006 20:27 schrieb Dennis Schridde: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Updates on Warzone Licensing. >>>>> >>>>> As you can read in the forwarded mail Virgil is still in touch with Alex >>>>> McLean and I am optimistic that there will be good results for us. >>>>> >>>>> As we probably don't want to wait with the 2.0.5 release till February >>>>> (even though it was delayed for loooong allready), I think it is best to >>>>> get some readme's and license files written, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> which say that we are in touch >>>>> with Alex and working on getting the clear statement from him that >>>>> everything released on 06.12.2004 in that file is GPLed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Per meant on IRC that it would probably be better to not say anything >>>> about that in the readme/license for now, but give it as a present when >>>> it happens that we get the statement. >>>> >>>> Sounds reasonable so far, question is what do we want to tell instead? >>>> Some distros were unsure whether to include the data or not due to the >>>> legaly unclear state, so it probably won't help if we say we distribute >>>> it under the GPL even though we can't be sure it is, would it? >>>> >>>> Do we want to inform them of our doings in this case or just wait till we >>>> get a response from Alex? (And hope we get it at all, otherwise we are in >>>> no clearer position as before, besides the fact that we know we >>>> distributed something as GPL which till then is not.) >>>> >>>> --Dennis >>>> >>>> PS: Sorry Christian that I forgot to write this earlier and you allready >>>> worked out a proposal. :( >>>> >>>> >>> I think we should inform everyone that the current legal state of the >>> data is unclear. Simply because this is the truth. We should not claim >>> it is legal to distribute it under GPL while we aren't sure that it is. >>> >>> >> So you proposal for the license file? >> > I was at school at the time of writing that mail so didn't had a lot of > time. > Attached however I have a proposal. > > If you have any form of (constructive by preference) criticism on it, > please do say so. > > PS My keyboard is dying so there might be some typos in there > (especially the b and n characters, independently from case that is). > > -- > Giel > Ahum, I forgot to attach the file: here it is.
-- Giel
The source code of Warzone 2100 is released and distriuted under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License (see [GPL-filename-here] for details). note: The original release of Warzone 2100 explicitly states that the sources are released under the GPL. The data files however are mentioned in the document releasing the sources under GPL, it however does not explicitly states that the data files are released under the same conditions. Thus this leaves the legal state of these uncertain. It is however generally assumed that the intention of Pumkin Studios (the original developers) is to place both under GPL conditions. The Warzone2100 Resurrection Project is currently working on receiving clarity regarding this subject. Original readme document: [Insert here]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
