2006/12/3, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2006 10:52 schrieb Christian Vest Hansen: > 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. Sounds like an idea, but how do we tell that the distributors without adding a "disclaimer" or whatever else you call the text stating our interpretation? ;)
If it's all GPL, then the license file is all they need.
Those wishing to find out *how* we came to the conclusion that it was GPL are free to ask on the mailing list, the forum, or we could write an entry in the wiki. If it's all GPL, then a disclamer about how we came to that conclusion will only confuse, as we have seen. -- "All good software releases were accidents corrected in the next version." _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
