Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons
2008/9/18 Jamie Jones <email@example.com>:
> 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.
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'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.
> 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