On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 14:34:43 +0200, David Philippi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Freitag 13 April 2007 schrieb Bruno Wolff III: > > If he knowingly contributed the music to the project it would be gpl > > licensed and he wouldn't be able to rescind that (at least in some places). > > Who says so? I can contribute something to a GPL project saying: you may > distribute it along with your package but usage for other projects requires > my approval. There's no obligation that everything in a project stays under > the same license.
This may be definitional. I consider a project gpl if the whole project is distributed under the gpl. Other people might consider calling a mixed license gpl, even if some of the code isn't distributed under the gpl. However, while the copyright owner(s) can certainly redistribute under another license, the gpl license that they already have released under still applies (at least in some significant juristrictions) and they can't tell people who got it that way, taht they can't reuse it in other projects if they change their mind later. In the case at hand it is possible, that the copyright owner didn't realize what licensing under the gpl really meant and didn't intend to do that. _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
