Re: Distribution of media content together with GPLv2 code in one package?
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 07:25:58PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 13:09 +0200, Rudolf Polzer wrote:
> > Well, can it then still be one single download package?
> > Can "the game" consist on multiple differently licensed parts?
> > Can these then be provided as one download (and with an included text file
> > defining the licenses of the parts)?
> > The thing is - does the GPL even allow combining with non-GPL data in such a
> > way?
> No way to know until it goes to court. The test is that if distributing
> the game executable alongside its data creates a derivative work or not.
> I would guess that it does not, but who knows what a court would decide.
Ah, so better not go there yet... and instead wait if anything will happen to
other games doing the same (like Warsow, Tremulous).
On a related note - does the GPL-2 even require that the source code release be
under the GPL-2 too? The wording seems to indicate that a GPL-2 conforming
source release is not even required:
| 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
| under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
| Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
| a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
| source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
| 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
So, only Sections 1 and 2 have to be fulfilled for the source code release!
This basically means: the source release does not have to be covered by the
full GPL, but only two clauses of it - one of which does not even apply to an
unmodified source code release.
Therefore, one might think about releasing e.g. a .mmpz project file (from
LMMS) together with audio samples which are licensed under CC-BY v3.0. Or does
this violate a term of the GPL elsewhere?
This kind of looks like a small loop-hole in the GPL, which seems fixed in the
GPL-3, which changed the source requirement to:
| You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
| of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
| machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
| in one of these ways:
It clearly says "under the terms of this license", and no longer "under the
terms of Sections 1 and 2".
However, I cannot imagine how this could be "exploited" in the world of
> > > > Well, because of the source requirement, CC probably is not DFSG-free then?
> > >
> > > Not requiring source distribution doesn't mean a license is not
> > > DFSG-free, for example BSD-licensed software is DFSG-free.
> > However, DFSG require source distribution. BSD licensed software can be
> > binary-only, but is not DFSG-free then.
> Right. That is a problem with any software though, BSD, GPL or whatever.
> Nothing ensures that upstream authors are sane about releasing code.
Well, the GPL at least requires a source release in some way from the author.
> PS: not sure why you moved this off-list?
An accidental user error, nothing more.