On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:16:43 -0400 Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Am Donnerstag, 21. September 2006 01:04 schrieb Christian Ohm: >> On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 18:36, Christian Vest Hansen >wrote: >> > Forgot to mention that I think this: >> > >The readme says: "provided as is with no guarantees." >> > >Can't we use that as a license? >> > >> > sounds like the obvious thing to do, provided it is GPL >compatible. >> >> Why GPL compatible? The data could have another license (but for >> practical reasons, see below). >> >> > And since it impose no restrictions that the GPL does not >impose, >> > chances are that it is GPL compatible (though I'm not the one >to >> > guarentee this!!!) >> >> That was my interpretation as well. The next step I'd take is to >> actually use the GPL for the data (as there are no restrictions >imposed >> we can just relicense it to GPL), with a little clarification of >how to >> apply it to the data (since the GPL is mainly written with >source code >> in mind). >> >> Why the GPL for the data? Because there is a hazy line between >source >> and data in Warzone. Are the scripts the engine uses data or >source >> code? Another point that wasn't clarified in the README. And for >general >> consistency, else we need to decide on what license the data >should >> have, if we accept contributions with other licenses... too much >hassle >> in my eyes. >> >> Clarification on using the GPL for data: Data is (generally >speaking) >> just a binary blob without a defined "source code". So, if we >get, for >> example, a PNG file, that file can be modified and distributed >with no >> further restrictions, and, unless we also get the layered Gimp >file (or >> whatever was used to make the PNG), the file has no source. >> >> Of course we should encourage people to also share their source >> material, but that's no requirement in my eyes. (For example, >there are >> image libraries where you are allowed to use the images in you >own work >> (composites) which can be freely resistributed, but you are not >allowed >> to distribute the images themselves.) >> >> Thinking about it, that sounds suspiciously like the "I want to >use a >> closed source library" question, and it is getting close to the >limits >> of the GPL, but as you can edit a PNG file without any problems >> (contrary to a compiled program), I think it's still acceptable >(we just >> define the PNG file to be its own source - contrary to a JPG, >that needs >> a version without lossy compression as source). > >I don't know how good the GPL is for data... >And if we want to change it to be suitable for data, then we need >a lawyer to >write us the license additions / changes... (so they are >waterproof) >*sigh* > >--Dennis
Too bad they didn't say this was public domain. That would mean that they don't care what we did with the data, but I think then the (c) is invalid. Or they could have done: This material is provided "as is", with absolutely no warranty expressed or implied. Any use is at your own risk. Permission to use or copy this software for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided the above notices are retained on all copies. Permission to modify the code and to distribute modified code is granted, provided the above notices are retained, and a notice that the code was modified is included with the above copyright notice. Software = source + data I think. We got: These source and data files are provided as is with no guarantees. No permission to do anything with it really. Is explicit permission needed? Whatever "as is" turns out to mean is what we are stuck with unless Eidios/Pivotal can save the game once again. :) Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
