Why are wesnoth graphics/audio asset contributors only asked to accept the GPL-ing of the contributions? Instead there could be a preset bundle of licenses, eg GPL + CCsomething.
If an asset is not based on an old (GPL-licensed) asset, the contributor would have to approve the asset to be licensed for all the licenses of the bundle; if an asset is based on a GPL-licensed asset, the contributor would have to approve his improvements to be licensed by all the licenses of the bundle. Also old assets' creators could be bugged to license their assets under more licenses than before. I do not think the considerations a potential contributor has towards licensing his contributions to GPL+CCsomething are different from the considerations he has towards licensing his contributions to GPL only. Of course it would be a slow process; but in the long run, the advantages (having the graphics&audio assets under a license suitable for having such assets under) greatly outstrip the work (slightly longer "do you understand & agree" speeches for new contributors than they are now; mailing past contributors; maintaining separate directories of GPL-licensed and bundle-licensed assets). _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
