Re: EDICT, GPL
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 01:20:28AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> It's much easier if you provide some context when you CC like this.
I forgot to link the license:
(or in the non-free package "edict", I assume.)
> No. Look, for example, at Quake. It's GPL, but at least for a long
> period of time (and arguably still today) there is only one useable data
> set, and it was non-free. The license of the data could forbid use with
> a GPLed program, but could not prohibit the GPLed program, as that's a
> seperate entity.
Did it actually do this? It had distribution restrictions, of course
(which could bump the game itself in contrib, lacking any free datasets),
but are there also restrictions on what kinds of programs can use the
data, as there are here? (I don't have the Q1 license handy.) It'd be
rather odd for id to GPL the source to the game, but not allow their own
dataset to be used with it, though I could see the publisher causing that
kind of thing.
> What exactly was the question here?
(c, i) "Permission is granted: ... to use these files as part of software
which is distributed free-of-charge ..."
What's necessary to allow a program to use the EDICT? If a GPL program can
use the EDICT freely, that'd seem to indicate this clause is unenforcable, at
least in this case; the program might end up being distributed commercially.
(How do restrictions like this work? How could it be satisfied if I placed a
program that uses the EDICT in the public domain?) edict-el appears to be a
plain GPL program that uses it; there seems to be nothing stopping commercial
distribution. There are examples of GPL programs that use the EDICT
with and without this restriction added, though in the cases where it
was, I don't know if this was the reason.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org