On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 07:25:58PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 13:09 +0200, Rudolf Polzer wrote: > > Well, can it then still be one single download package? > > > > Can "the game" consist on multiple differently licensed parts? > > > > Can these then be provided as one download (and with an included text file > > defining the licenses of the parts)? > > > > The thing is - does the GPL even allow combining with non-GPL data in such a > > way? > > No way to know until it goes to court. The test is that if distributing > the game executable alongside its data creates a derivative work or not. > I would guess that it does not, but who knows what a court would decide.
Ah, so better not go there yet... and instead wait if anything will happen to other games doing the same (like Warsow, Tremulous). On a related note - does the GPL-2 even require that the source code release be under the GPL-2 too? The wording seems to indicate that a GPL-2 conforming source release is not even required: | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: | | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, So, only Sections 1 and 2 have to be fulfilled for the source code release! This basically means: the source release does not have to be covered by the full GPL, but only two clauses of it - one of which does not even apply to an unmodified source code release. Therefore, one might think about releasing e.g. a .mmpz project file (from LMMS) together with audio samples which are licensed under CC-BY v3.0. Or does this violate a term of the GPL elsewhere? This kind of looks like a small loop-hole in the GPL, which seems fixed in the GPL-3, which changed the source requirement to: | You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms | of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the | machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, | in one of these ways: It clearly says "under the terms of this license", and no longer "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2". However, I cannot imagine how this could be "exploited" in the world of software. > > > > Well, because of the source requirement, CC probably is not DFSG-free > > > > then? > > > > > > Not requiring source distribution doesn't mean a license is not > > > DFSG-free, for example BSD-licensed software is DFSG-free. > > > > However, DFSG require source distribution. BSD licensed software can be > > binary-only, but is not DFSG-free then. > > Right. That is a problem with any software though, BSD, GPL or whatever. > Nothing ensures that upstream authors are sane about releasing code. Well, the GPL at least requires a source release in some way from the author. > PS: not sure why you moved this off-list? An accidental user error, nothing more. Best regards, Rudolf Polzer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100404153311.gb2...@rm.endoftheinternet.org