At least it looks like a clear strategy. And we have in good faith reckoned that the data is also distributed under the terms of the GPL, right? So a "relicensing" must mean that everything that make up the game as a whole, is GPL, which in turn means that we need no special disclamer. It's all just GPL, nothing more, nothing less. That's how I read this "relicensing" in a nutshell: just remove the disclamer about the data and how we interpreted the readme.
We don't need to consider contributors because all contributions are already GPL, and we don't need to consider Game Company X, because *they* messed up the licensing and releasing, and *they* are the reason that we need to interpret and reflect on the terms and conditions (T&C), and *we* have done everything in our power to both clarify and live up to their T&C, and thus *they* must be at fault if we, in their oppinion, don't live up to their T&C, because *they have had the oppotunity to clarify, but they didn't use it!* That's how I see our status quo: it's all just GPL. 2006/12/2, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Forward from the forums: xpanthom Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues « Reply #41 on: Today at 03:55:51 pm » I had a discussion with DevUrandom last night about not worrying too much about these licensing problems. As I said earlier, the WZ team can be said to be in good faith since you have made your interpretation of the readme, acted accordingly and not heard from any of the original proprietors. You have also tried to get a clarification from the original proprietors, which means that the requirements for good faith – "did not know and did not have any reason to believe" – are met. A disclaimer has apparently been written where the WZ team states that it has chosen to interpret the readme as putting also the data under the GPL. This could be a good idea, although not necessarily. The whole concept of good faith is that it never actually comes into use unless someone brings a lawsuit. Writing out that there are problems with the interpretation could have an adverse effect if the original proprietor is bought by another company and they start investigating their assets. Basically you open up for malicious interpretations by saying that you aren't sure. Maybe a new, clear, basic GPL license would be the best way to go about this – a license without the ambiguity of the readme and without the disclaimer. Actually you should relicense WZ, because the readme is about how the WZ team got it, but it doesn't really fit as a license that concerns the end-users. I strongly suspect that you will never be quite sure of the status of the data. There will be no definite "yes" or "no". But as more and more time passes, the stronger the assumption of GPL:ed data grows. You need to continue with the project as before, because there's nothing else you really can do. DevUrandom Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues « Reply #42 on: Today at 04:19:06 pm » Doesn't relicensing depend on the fact that the relicensing person(s) own(s) the copyright? How do you think that "new, clear, basic GPL license" should look? A modified GPL with special Warzone paragraphs? Won't probably be possible, for the same reason as the above. xpanthom Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues « Reply #43 on: Today at 05:08:24 pm » Hmm. You may be right there. I'll look into it. Just ignore the paragraph about relicensing for now. _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
-- "All good software releases were accidents corrected in the next version."
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
