From: Kreuvf <kr...@wa...> - 2012-06-13 19:28:13
|
12.06.2012 05:35, Paul Wise wrote: > Hi all, > > I was curious about the legality of mixing Creative Commons and GPL > licenses in games. Since warzone2100 was one game I knew that did this, > I mentioned it as an example to the FSF licensing address. I thought you > might be interested in the response, see the attached message. Generally speaking, here is how I understand/see it: * If you are the author, you can use any licence you wish. You are even free to publish your stuff under different licences in parallel as long as none of these licences forces you to use this licence exclusively. Seeing this often on Wikipedia where people publish their stuff under three or more different licences (including the one Wikipedia uses). * WZ (the original source code release and the media files etc. = anything from Eidos/Pumpkin Studios) is exclusively available under the GPL. Anything derived from that and published must also use the GPL. * Single image files which are not derived from the original WZ stuff (and do not force you to use some other licence per se) are also not derived from WZ just because you use it with it/usually ship it with WZ. The image file can exist outside WZ just fine, it does not need it at all to be useful in the sense that you can work with the image itself. Therefore any other licence which WZP finds acceptable for general distribution can be used by the artist and this additional information is also shipped with the game package(s). * The Micro Star case mentioned is not applicable to image files which can be used in WZ. Any sane judge would recognise the striking differences between a whole game derived from a game engine (in other words: data which can only be used with a certain product) and a generally usable image file (in a pretty widespread format as well) shipped with a game. Without looking at that case any further I find that decision wrong. Thanks for asking the FSF and letting us know, pabs. Regards - Kreuvf |