On 10/7/06, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I hope I got the general idea. Object if you see problems.
1. Write a LICENSE.TXT where is stated that the sourcecode (everything but
data/) is GPL
Everything but the original data. Any newly contributed data should be GPL.
2. Write there also that the data is distributed under the GPL and we are not
the copyright holders, but are coordinating with them "to ensure
continued availability under the GPL"
Can I suggest something along the lines of:
"Concerning the license on the original data files:
The literal meaning of the release statement is ambiguous in the case
of the original data that is included in the released package. Despite
several attempts to get a clarification, we have received no response.
We have chosen to interpret the original release statement as putting
the original data under a GPL license. Since in the absence of a
license the released data could not be distributed, we find that
interpreting the license for the data as being under the same license
as the source to be the best interpretation to fit the intention
behind the release.
Eidos, the game publisher, has been informed of our interpretation of
the license."
3. Supply the original readme.txt and reference it in the LICENSE.TXT
4. Wait if Frank/Virgil/Rman can make Mr. McLean say something
5. Else write Eidos a mail
Sounds good.
1: Shouldn't this LICENSE.TXT be part of the current COPYING file? Or should
we really split that into a GPL file, a ORIGINAL_README and a LICENSE file?
COPYING should be the master license file, if we follow the GNU style.
Then add COPYING.GPL and COPYING.WARNING, perhaps? In the latter we
could put a warning about the status of the data license, and a copy
of the original readme.txt.
- Per
_______________________________________________
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
