bugs buggy schreef:
> On 6/13/08, Per Inge Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 6:00 AM, bugs buggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'll get back to the other parts, but I would like to know why the
>>> extremely short gestation period for the new contract/readme ?
>>> You blink,  and you miss everything.
>>> I left the issues about this on the forums, but I rather like to know
>>> why it wasn't made public before hand, and only after the fact it was
>>> revealed.
>>> I for one was quite shocked at the exception part.
>> I worked on getting the FMVs and soundtracks released as GPL through
>> Pivotal. The new README with the exception was pushed by the wz2200
>> people who were talking directly with the EIDOS person who showed up
>> on the forum. We managed to get some input on the README that made it
>> better than what we had (confirmed GPL v2 *or later*, as well as a
>> more official confirmation of the GPL release of all the data), so on
>> the whole I am happy with it, although I am less than enthusiastic
>> about the exception itself. Note that our code and our version does
>> not contain the exception, so this means that wz2200 cannot use any of
>> our code now - but I told them of this consequence and they were happy
>> with it.
> Thanks for the explanation.
> But how would one know if the code was used from a GPL project, if it
> is closed source?

I assume that you mean this exception?

> 3. Following exception to the GPL is granted:
> Linking Warzone 2100 statically or dynamically with other modules is
> making a combined work based on Warzone 2100. Thus, the terms and
> conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole
> combination.

Ok, thus far I understand...

> In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of Warzone
> 2100 give you permission to combine Warzone 2100 with code included in
> the standard release of libraries that are accessible, redistributable
> and linkable free of charge. You may copy and distribute such a system
> following the terms of the GNU GPL for Warzone 2100 and the licenses of
> the other code concerned.

Erm what? Did they just grant us permission to add code that has no
monetary cost to Warzone 2100? Isn't that (and more) covered by the GNU
GPL already?

> Note that people who make modified versions of Warzone 2100 are not
> obligated to grant this special exception for their modified versions;
> it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License
> gives permission to release a modified version without this exception;
> this exception also makes it possible to release a modified version
> which carries forward this exception.

This part seems obvious as well; they allow us to ignore this exception

But now my question, which I cannot get answered by rereading that
particular piece of text: what the heck is the exception that's granted
on the conditions set by the GNU GPL?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Warzone-dev mailing list

Reply via email to