On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Ignacio Riquelme Morelle < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > Some time ago, I noticed some concerns over whether our graphics, sounds, > and > music assets are provided specifically under the GNU GPL version 2, or any > version of the GNU GPL starting from version 2. Furthermore, I detected a > conflict of language surrounding the game's license in the source > distribution: > > * The /README file claims that the game's license is the one provided in > the > /COPYING file without going into any specifics about it. > > * The /copyright file claims that "this program" (presumably the Battle > for > Wesnoth) is provided under the terms of the GNU GPL version 2 or (at our > option) any later version. This is consistent with all GNU GPL'd code > under > src/. > > * It is a fact that some files under src/ are provided under open-source > non- > GPL licenses. For example, the Native Client thing for Chrome is > provided > under a BSD-style license (the "Native Client" license, found in > /NaCl-LICENSE), while the Lua library is provided under the MIT license. > > After consulting Ivanovic on the matter, I decided to amend the language in > the /README file so it matches /copyright _and_ takes into account the > differently-licensed source code files. [1] [2] The relevant language is > now > found in the second and third paragraphs; note that the commits in question > also change other contents of the README file. > > [1] http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/wesnoth?view=revision&revision=55260 This commit is somewhat misleading: you can not mix GPL code and non-GPL code. TL;DR: the proper test should says something like "The game's source code is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2, or (at your option) any later version. Some portions of the code can be used under different licenses - see source references for details." Why is that? All code in GPL project must be licensed under GPL license. And all means ALL. No exceptions. This is clarified in paragraph 3 of the GPLv2 (complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable) and in paragraph 1 of the GPLv3 (the “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities). Note the word "code" there, BTW: GPL is not trying to extend it's reach on artwork or project documentation, but it should cover all the code. This raises the question: how can the GPL project ever include code under any other license? The answer: it should be possible to add the GPL license on top of file and redistribute the result. For example LGPLv2.1 says so explicitly in paragraph 3 (You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License.). Other licenses (like aforementioned BSD license or MIT license) don't say about this explicitly, but they don't preclude such an operation, too. And indeed if people want to extensively modify the BSD or MIT codebase they sometimes relicense the result under GPL. But if you don't plan to radically redesign piece of code then such an activity is frovned upon (see the followin article for more details: http://lwn.net/Articles/247872/). The end result is as I've stated above: the whole can be only used under terms of GPL (v2 or later), but some components can be used under different, less restrictive, licenses.
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
