[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: License evaluation sought



* Tore Anderson

 >  >  * You are permitted to modify the game as you like, and also
 >  > distribute such versions under the same license as the original
 >  > work, if they are clearly marked as being modified versions.

* Joe Wreschnig

 >  The GNU GPL version 2 has a clause that words this very well. Is
 > there some reason that upstream isn't using it?
 >
 >  The license also doesn't explicitly allow you to do things with
 > the source; you might want to consider adding "in source and/or
 > binary form" everywhere that you mention distributing or modifying
 > the software.

  Well, it's not really a source+binary distribution, more general
 "data" (compare it with a jpeg wallpaper, for instance).  So I don't
 really see any reason to make the distinction.  Indeed, the reason why
 upstream doesn't use the Artistic license is because his lawyer advised
 against it, on the grounds of it being too source-code oriented (which
 applies to the GPL as well).

  Anyway, section 2 of the GPL does indeed put it much more eloquent
 than I ever could.  I'll ask upstream to add a similar clause.  Thanks
 for the tip.

-- 
Tore Anderson



Reply to: