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

Re: Alternatives to Creative Commons

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

> 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.


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

Reply to: