Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 20:53, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Gabucino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on Linux market, as far as I know. That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law. So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it wrong for someone to infringe on a patent which isn't being enforced. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] My weblog doesn't detail my personal life: http://me.woot.net
[OT] Suing for hot coffee [Was: Re: UnrealIRCd License (Click-Through issue)]
Don Armstrong wrote: 1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court judges out there. Most of those settlements (the Mc-D's coffee one for instance) are often overturned or reduced in the appeals process. Contrary to popular belief, the McDonald's coffee case was not frivolous. http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
Re: Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera. IMO, that isn't Free Software, either. There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see how it isn't free software.
Re: Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera. IMO, that isn't Free Software, either. There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see how it isn't free software. Sure there are. If my neighbor asks me for a copy of it, I burn it to a CD-R, and ask him for a quarter to recoup the cost of the blank CD-R, I've just violated the license. That's why you include on the CD the following shell script, echo.sh: #!/bin/sh echo $* Then you are selling echo.sh plus bitstream vera fonts, which is not a violation of the license.
Re: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 17:28, Branden Robinson wrote: Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user. This violates DFSG 1 and arguably DFSG 5. It might skate through DFSG 1's backwards-bent wording if the sentence stopped at part of a product or program. I believe that the above paragraph, minus the last four words, is DFSG-free, since it doesn't actually restrict what you can do. See the discussion on the Bitstream Vera font license for more discussion on this. But it doesn't stop there. You can't redistribute this code unless you develop with it. This requires distributors to be software developers, not ordinary joes who've never written a line of code in their lives. However, with the last four words included, it seems to say that you must write some form of a program yourself (and then throw in the RPC code) in order to distribute the RPC code to anybody else, which fails DFSG 5 as Branden mentioned. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] My weblog doesn't detail my personal life: http://me.woot.net
Re: Bug#68256: License problems with TinyMUSH
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 18:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:21, Joel Baker wrote: * TinyMUSH 3.0 Copyright * * Users of this software incur the obligation to make their best efforts to * inform the authors of noteworthy uses of this software. Fails the desert island test (though the desert island test originally was modifications, so this may be even worse). Err, if your best effort is um, no phone, no internet access, no ability to inform anybody I don't see how this fails the desert island test. It doesn't say you have to inform: it says you have to make your best effort.
Re: MySQL licensing and OpenSSL linking issues
On Saturday, June 7, 2003, at 02:08 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: Except that the LGPL permits use of the code in ways that MySQL does not want to allow. Well, what do they want to allow, and what don't they want to allow? I think it's pretty clear they're looking for a Sleepycat arrangement; free for Free Software, go to them if you want alternate arrangements. So, why not just use the Sleepycat license?
Re: Packages with non-original copyrighted sounds
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: I looked only at 4 programs and all contains non-original sounds! I am sure that there are many more... but that not only affect to games. Something that I've had on my mind for some time is the default message received sound from gnomeicu, which is from the game Duke Nukem 3D. It's probably less than a second long, and I can't vouch that 3DRealms didn't filch or buy it from somewhere else, but I think the highest likelihood is that that particular sound bite is not covered under the license of gnomeicu and thus should not be distributed with it.
Re: Bug#188158: ITP: libjta-java -- JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM
On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 11:57, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:36:30AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: Description : JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM I'm not sure you need to place `TM' after Java or Sun, so i'm Cc-ing -legal. pisces:~$ apt-cache search linux | wc -l 1146 pisces:~$ apt-cache search linuxtm | wc -l 0 Regardless of whether it's necessary, it seems we don't do it. (Linux is Linus' trademark.) -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee
Re: GNOME Font Copyright
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 19:03, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: Jeff Licquia wrote: Apparently, the fonts donated to GNOME by Bitstream are now available. The current beta-test license is clearly non-free [...] Why is GNOME getting involved with non-free software at all? Why not just get involved when Bitstream is ready to distribute Free Software fonts? Probably because Bitstream refuse to operate under any model but this one (i.e., to not let substandard fonts get used as the official ones), and they're more interested in getting things done than in blue-sky idealism? We're talking about a temporary step on the way to fully Free fonts. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee
Re: GNOME Font Copyright
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 16:08, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: Why didn't GNOME choose to get involved with these fonts when Bitstream releases them as Free Software fonts? Because GNOME negotiated with Bitstream to make these fonts free, which Bitstream is going to do. That is to say, GNOME's involvement is the reason these fonts are free, not the other way around.
Re: Is this license permittable into debian 'main'
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 16:23, Glenn Maynard wrote: Desert island scenarios and so on. (Most of these are you must send changes upstream, and not you must make them available on request, but I don't think there's any real difference.) I don't see anywhere that this fails the DFSG. Asking that someone must hit such-and-such a web page with changes (and its moral equivalents) I will buy as a violation of DFSG 5; I can't see where being forced to provide source code (under the QPL) when asked fails, though. (If you're on a desert island, you never get the request and so can't give it to them.) -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee
Re: New MP3 License Terms Demand $0.75 Per Decoder
On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 16:59, Martin Schulze wrote: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/27/1626241.shtml New MP3 License Terms Demand $0.75 Per Decoder [snip] As a Canadian, and also the author of an mp3 player (though not the decoder itself), can I be legitamitely hounded for money? (Ignore the fact that I distribute mpg321 via the sourceforge page for now. I'm not sure if the fact that I maintain mpg321 for debian means I'm the distributor there too.) Keep in mind that other distributions, such as Red Hat, have distributed mpg321 in the past. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee
Re: [Fwd: Re: font licensing]
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 00:52, Michael Cardenas wrote: Please review the license below and let me know if it meets the dfsg. I think it does, but I'm unsure of this clause: 3] A modified font can be included in any non-profit and for-profit software package as long as it's done free of charge with the rules above met. The person(s) who modified the font may not profit from the modified font whatsoever. Fails DFSG 3. The license must allow modifications to be placed under the same license as the original font. (As well, the new license fails at least DFSG 5.) Other than that, I think this is OK. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee
Re: [Firebird-devel] Warning: readline is GPL - incompatible with MPL
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote: Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL FAQ, it does) Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee
MP3 decoders' non-freeness
A long while ago Adrian Bunk filed bugs such as #65797 saying that MP3 decoders, in addition to encoders, were patented. Discussion at that time went along the lines of Prove it, and nothing ever happened. No mp3 decoder was ever moved to non-free, to the best of my knowledge. Has there been any resolution of this issue? Is it safe to close these bugs? -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 16:12, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: There most certainly are patents on mp3. I won't comment on enforceability or relevance. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the violator of the patents, as they have already been granted. http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html Do these patents also apply to programs (like libmap for example) that have been written from scratch, just using the ISO/IEC standards? Yes. That's the point of patents: they are more restrictive than copyrights because they cover the process, not the implementation. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#154027: libgnomevfs2-0: links in libssl, which violates the license of GPL'd programs linked against it
Package: libgnomevfs2-0 Version: 2.0.1-1 Severity: serious Tags: sid [Sorry if this ends up arriving twice.] pisces:~$ ldd /usr/lib/libgnomevfs-2.so [...] libssl.so.0.9.6 = /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.6 (0x40249000) libcrypto.so.0.9.6 = /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 (0x40275000) [...] Linking anything licensed under the GPL against libgnomevfs-2 and distributing the result violates the GPL'd program's license, as the libssl license is incompatible with the GPL. Note: This *isn't* a violation of the libgnomevfs2 license, but gnomevfs can cause us to violate other packages' licenses. It would be best if libgnomevfs-2 was not linked against libssl at all, or ported to gnutls or some other GPL-compatible library. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux pisces 2.4.18 #1 Sun Mar 17 19:08:08 EST 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US Versions of packages libgnomevfs2-0 depends on: ii gconf21.2.0-1GNOME configuration database syste ii libbonobo-activation4 1.0.2-1Bonobo Activation Framework -- run ii libc6 2.2.5-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libglib2.0-0 2.0.4-3The GLib library of C routines ii libgnomevfs2-common 2.0.1-1The GNOME virtual file-system libr ii liblinc1 0.5.0-1library to simplify creating netwo ii liborbit2 2.4.0-1Libraries for ORBit2 - a CORBA ORB ii libssl0.9.6 0.9.6d-1 SSL shared libraries ii libxml2 2.4.23-1 GNOME XML library ii zlib1g1:1.1.4-2 compression library - runtime -- no debconf information -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#154027: libgnomevfs2-0: links in libssl, which violates the license of GPL'd programs linked against it
reassign 154027 gnome-vfs2 merge 154027 153642 thanks On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:44, Joe Drew wrote: [Sorry if this ends up arriving twice.] As Junichi Uekawa pointed out to me, he had previously filed a bug on gnome-vfs2, #153642, which also includes a (preliminary) gnutls patch. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MMIX License
On Sun, 2002-03-31 at 11:25, Pablo S. Torralba wrote: I have been reading the license, that I send attached, and I cannot figure exactly why this decision was made. This license doesn't explicitly allow distribution of binaries produced from modified source files; it seems to me that therefore it fails section 4 of the DFSG. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please encrypt email sent to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: need sponsorship for sphinx
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:16:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote: i was going by the Open Source Definition (www.opensource.org/osd.html). i wonder why the debian definition is different. the dfsg and the ossd are nearly exactly the same. In fact, upon perusing the OSSD I came across the following: 4. [...] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software You must have misread it.
Re: need sponsorship for sphinx
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:28:02PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote: i'm sure many of you noticed the release of CMU's Speech to Text as 'Open Source' today on slashdot. after carefull inspection of the license, i found that it isn't exactly free. What isn't free about it? /* * Copyright (c) 2000 Carnegie Mellon University. All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in *the documentation and/or other materials provided with the *distribution. * * 3. The names Sphinx and Carnegie Mellon must not be used to *endorse or promote products derived from this software without *prior written permission. To obtain permission, contact *[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * 4. Products derived from this software may not be called Sphinx *nor may Sphinx appear in their names without prior written *permission of Carnegie Mellon University. To obtain permission, *contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * 5. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following *acknowledgment: *This product includes software developed by Carnegie *Mellon University (http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/). * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY ``AS IS'' AND * ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, * THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY * NOR ITS EMPLOYEES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT * LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, * DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY * THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE * OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. * * * */ As far as I can see, it complies with the DFSG - looks like standard BSD-type fare. Comments?
Re: need sponsorship for sphinx
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:06:24PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote: As far as I can see, it complies with the DFSG - looks like standard BSD-type fare. Comments? see part 3, derived works. that violates the open source guidelines. that doesn't mean i'm not brimming with glee that we have access to it of course. * 3. The names Sphinx and Carnegie Mellon must not be used to *endorse or promote products derived from this software without *prior written permission. To obtain permission, contact *[EMAIL PROTECTED] cf. BSD license: 4. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. BSD is DFSG-free - how is the Sphinx license not?
Re: Not for commercial use - non-free?
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 06:11:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:22:52PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote: THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF PARALLAX SOFTWARE CORPORATION (PARALLAX). PARALLAX, IN DISTRIBUTING THE CODE TO END-USERS, AND SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREIN, GRANTS A ROYALTY-FREE, PERPETUAL LICENSE TO SUCH END-USERS FOR USE BY SUCH END-USERS IN USING, DISPLAYING, AND CREATING DERIVATIVE WORKS THEREOF, SO LONG AS SUCH USE, DISPLAY OR CREATION IS FOR NON-COMMERCIAL, ROYALTY OR REVENUE FREE PURPOSES. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE END-USER USE THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN FOR REVENUE-BEARING PURPOSES. THE END-USER UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES TO THE TERMS HEREIN AND ACCEPTS THE SAME BY USE OF THIS FILE. COPYRIGHT 1993-1999 PARALLAX SOFTWARE CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Non-commercial, royalty or revenue free - the end user shall not use the computer code for revenue-bearing purposes. Well, that qualifies it for non-free, but we can distribute it, right? You dog, I was working on this one. /me drops a smart mine in Joe's path Grin. Take it ;) All I care about is that it's available. (Working on d1x too?) And is it legal?
Not for commercial use - non-free?
THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF PARALLAX SOFTWARE CORPORATION (PARALLAX). PARALLAX, IN DISTRIBUTING THE CODE TO END-USERS, AND SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREIN, GRANTS A ROYALTY-FREE, PERPETUAL LICENSE TO SUCH END-USERS FOR USE BY SUCH END-USERS IN USING, DISPLAYING, AND CREATING DERIVATIVE WORKS THEREOF, SO LONG AS SUCH USE, DISPLAY OR CREATION IS FOR NON-COMMERCIAL, ROYALTY OR REVENUE FREE PURPOSES. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE END-USER USE THE COMPUTER CODE CONTAINED HEREIN FOR REVENUE-BEARING PURPOSES. THE END-USER UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES TO THE TERMS HEREIN AND ACCEPTS THE SAME BY USE OF THIS FILE. COPYRIGHT 1993-1999 PARALLAX SOFTWARE CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Non-commercial, royalty or revenue free - the end user shall not use the computer code for revenue-bearing purposes. Well, that qualifies it for non-free, but we can distribute it, right?
Re: Not for commercial use - non-free?
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 02:44:13PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: Aren't there GPL PIC assemblers and programmers? Probably, but this is actually the license for Descent 2.
non-us and Canada
I've been looking into lsh, the GPL'd implementation of the ssh 2 protocol. I might be interested in packaging it (perhaps for potato+1, if it's not currently usable) but I'm wondering what the legalities of it are. Specifically, as a Canadian, can I legally export encryption software to the non-us servers? And, if not, wouldn't OpenBSD be in trouble?
Re: Lxdoom, ability to package, copyright
On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 03:23:33PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: The problem with lxdoom (Joey Hess had it in Debian at one point) is that the license on the original xdoom source is so non-free it's not distributable. Granted, this is not what John Carmack intended, but it's what has happened. When this was discovered we had to pull it. From id's DOOMLIC.TXT: 3. Prohibited Uses: Under no circumstances shall you, the end-user, be permitted, allowed or authorized to commercially exploit the Software. Neither you nor anyone at your direction shall do any of the following acts with regard to the Software, or any portion thereof: Rent; Sell; Lease; Offer on a pay-per-play basis; Distribute for money or any other consideration; or In any other manner and through any medium whatsoever commercially exploit or use for any commercial purpose. [...] The sticking point, you can se, is 'Distribute for money or any other consideration.', which clashes with Debian's need to be distributed for copying costs. And then, further down... 4. Copyright. The Software and all copyrights related thereto [...] are owned by ID and is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Id shall retain exclusive ownership and copyright in and to the Software. [...] You must treat the Software like any other copyrighted material. You may not otherwise reproduce, copy or disclose to others, in whole or in any part, the Software. You may not copy the written materials accompanying the Software. [...] This is undoubtedly the worst part. Legally, by downloading the archive which contained that license, I was violating id's license. NONE of the doom ports can be packaged until such time as the issues are resolved WRT the original xdoom source license. If that happens it's perfectly acceptable to put doom in contrib or if you can come up with a free iwad (new textures, new levels, new sounds, new everything) you could actually put it in main. Assuming that the new license that id gives us qualifies as Free, which I doubt would happen. I'm going to e-mail Carmack either way, though. Still, it all comes back to the license iD has given us, which makes every single doom port out there a Copyright violation. = If you can convince the people at iD to notice you long enough to get them to fix it, all would be nifty---you can package lxdoom and I'll package lindosdoom. = What I'm wondering about is how that will work. id can't change licenses retro-actively - however, in lxdoom, it's referenced as follows: // This source is available for distribution and/or modification // only under the terms of the DOOM Source Code License as // published by id Software. All rights reserved. In theory, at least, id could change the Doom source code license and have it still apply. Couldn't they?
Re: Lxdoom, ability to package, copyright
On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 07:44:49PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: It's all bad to wrose. I'm pretty sure iD would be happy to fix the license if we show them there's more than a couple people who still care, enough to make it worth the effort. Well, I mailed John Carmack already, and you say you will, so that's a couple, at least. I alerted him to the fact that id's license makes what's going on currently illegal. What I'm wondering about is how that will work. id can't change licenses retro-actively - however, in lxdoom, it's referenced as follows: Change, no. Offer under different terms additionally, sure they can. They own full Copyright after all. I just checked lxdoom's src directory. The only file that isn't (C) id is l_musserver.c, which is GPL. I don't think it's linked into the lxdoom binary, though - it is for the music server, and as far as I can see it's not referenced in the makefile.
Re: Lxdoom, ability to package, copyright
On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 08:19:03PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: I just checked lxdoom's src directory. The only file that isn't (C) id is l_musserver.c, which is GPL. I don't think it's linked into the lxdoom binary, though - it is for the music server, and as far as I can see it's not referenced in the makefile. It's not in xdoom's source which is what iD has to concern themselves with. Well, I suppose since id owns the copyright to both lxdoom /and/ xdoom, they can change both. At least, Bruce says that they can retroactively change the license.
