Kacen wrote:So basically this means that we finally can use the original videos?
Need I say more?
I think you are incorrect, Chojun and you are also going towards a deadly trap with this, and i think you seriously need to consult a good lawyer that knows a lot about GPL.Chojun wrote: Please allow me to refute the irrefutability upon which you lean: Again, you are incorrect in assuming that any part of Warzone is being rewritten using a closed-source license. This is false. Think of it this way: A library (VisiRaptor) is being created outside of and apart from Warzone, which will be used with Warzone.
I am not a dead horse O_OEvilGuru wrote:Or better still; stop beating a dead horse.
Well done.Chojun wrote:SoofMan: Thanks, but I am very aware of the licensing restrictions stipulated by the GPL.
Also, for those of you who have been following the issue specifically related to VisiRaptor, you may be pleased (or dismayed) to learn that I have decided to release my efforts under a dual license, which will likely be GPL 2 (that's right, GPL and not LGPL).
This is enough to shut my face, thank you.Chojun wrote:Also, for those of you who have been following the issue specifically related to VisiRaptor, you may be pleased (or dismayed) to learn that I have decided to release my efforts under a dual license, which will likely be GPL 2 (that's right, GPL and not LGPL). Read about it here:
http://www.warzone2200.com/modules/newb ... 8&forum=22
* You need to further expand your education on this topic because your statement is indeed confused. The copyright holder can absolutely do what they have done and neither you (or anybody else) can dictate what they choose in this regard.I've read through the entire thread now, but I'm still a little confused... if Eidos/Pumpkin/Whoever released the code under the GPL in the first place, surely no one is allowed to add an exception (except them as they own the copyright to the original code). Even if Eidos/Pumpkin did want to add an exception they could only add it to the original code, not anything that's been contributed since.
* Ditto to the max.It seems at some point in the thread that the exception is only going to be applied to code submitted from now... but surely keeping track of two different licences in the same file is going to be impossible.
* Ditto. For your information there is at least to TWO independent Projects at work on the source.
Is it not best to just keep everything under the GPL to ensure the best possible future for the project?
Yes. They added that expection, and everyone starting from the original source is free to use non-free libraries. This project always was pure GPL without exception, and will thus stay that way.viciouslime wrote:Even if Eidos/Pumpkin did want to add an exception they could only add it to the original code, not anything that's been contributed since.
What is your definition of "software"? A program, or source code? People seem to confuse that a lot when talking about free software.Chojun wrote:However, why call software 'free' unless it really is.. free?