On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 16:15 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > 2008/9/18 Jamie Jones <hentai_yagi@yahoo.com.au>: > > > Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to > > checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the > > data will be in non-free and the game in contrib, but that is not unlike > > GFDL licensed documentation that isn't free enough for main. > > I wasn't referring to non-free data, but instead of DFSG-data with a > license not-compatible with GPL. Such as GPL'ed engine and CC-by-sa > 3.0 data. They should both go to main, as both would be DFSG-free, but > with not-compatible licenses. I didn't say it must be non-free, just that the license on the data may be. > > The scenario you're describing wouldn't be suitable anyway either if > you consider them to be a whole as Arc is saying, because the licenses > would be incompatible no matter in which repository you place them. I believe only the copyright holder can really claim if it is a whole or not. The rest of us get to speculate. > > > I'm certainly familiar with the GPL and know you could apply it to code > > and data, but, you need to consider - 1) people will make replacement > > game data anyway regardless of license (and that isn't necessarily a bad > > thing) - 2) We may not wish the data to be as "free" as the code. > > Perhaps we want to have our names attributed to our work on a prominent > > place (eg it could help with our careers to be known for "awesome game > > data" in "cool opensource game"), perhaps we don't want it to be > > commercially distributed by non-copyright holders, perhaps we don't want > > it to be modified. > > That's a different situation you're describing, as you're talking > about non-free data. In any case, you would also have the same problem > of non-redistributability depending on how you interpret GPL, but I > was meaning a situation in which data was free. I don't just talk about non-free - I talk about different restrictions, my first example was the by attribution clause. > > > If you really want to change these license on the data files, I'd > > strongly suggest you contact the copyright holders (and there may be > > many of them in some projects) and find out why they picked the license > > they did, and once you have done that, see if they would be interested > > in relicensing it to match the code. > > If upstream is using a third party GPL'ed engine (say quake, for > example) and Arc's extreme interpretation of GPL was right,they > wouldn't legally be able to distribute the game themselves. It is > nothing Debian-specific. I'd argue that the engines are like word processors. They can, and do load other data, so I don't think you can apply Arc's extreme interpretation of the GPL (which is why I responded in the first place). Speaking of game engines, I was more into the DooM engines, and trying to get the Heretic/Hexen code relicensed under the GPL by Raven so I could sort out the licensing for the DooM engines I enjoyed playing - they did ultimately relicense the code, but not the content, and I don't think they would have done it if Arc's interpretation is correct. Anyway, I should go back to upstream lurker mode on this list, I only piped up because I thought the all works distributed with something under the GPL, must be GPL argument needed a rebuttal. Regards, Yagisan -- Jamie Jones Email: jamie_jones_au@yahoo.com.au GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209 Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part