-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
/
LICENSE.important.txt
121 lines (99 loc) · 6.57 KB
/
LICENSE.important.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
All the content is _conditionally_ licensed under the GPL, with one important
remark. See GPL.txt for details of the GNU Public License. For meaning of
_conditional_ see "additional important remark" below. The conditional
licensing does not pertain to the "Before the battle" image.
However, Nick Humphrey's work is also licensed under CC3.0-SA-Attribution.
Also works by Arkadiusz D. Danilecki (except "Before the Battle") and Łukasz
Zaręba also are double-licensed as CC3.0 share-alike-attribution. Meaning
informally: you can do whatever you want, modify it, distribute it, use in a
commercial work on condition you credit the original authors and you allow the
resulting work to be freely distributable and modifiable under the same
license. Use google or yahoo or whatever to find out more details about CC
(Creative Commons) licences.
What does that mean for you? It means you can choose whether you want to use
the works enumerated above under conditions imposed by GPL, or under conditions
imposed by CC 3.0 Share-Alike with Attribution. If you want to use images
under GPL, fine. If you want to use them under CC3.0, you have our blessing.
If you choose to distribute it under GPL, please add the remarks below and
also add a note, that the same work is available with CC3.0 license.
This is ONLY for the authors enumerated above.
The remark about _conditional_ licensing does not pertain to the content taken
from the other campaigns and other sources and which is already GPLd. If you
want to enforce GPL words literally, then do not bother us, but the original
authors. Also, the _conditional_ licensing is relevant only to art (music and
images).
ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT REMARK
---------------------------
GPL is a license which was created for the code, and not for the art. It is not
clear what is a "source" for an image, or for the music. GPL contains the following
remark:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.
For us, it is not clear whether .ogg or .mp3 are the "preferred form of the work"
to make modifications to the music. To clarify this, we license content under GPL
conditionally. If such conditional licensing is not legally binding (we are
not lawyers), then content created for this campaign is not GPLd, but under CC
3.0-SA-attribution license.
All the artwork (images and music) which was GPLd for this campaign was done so
under following condition: by "the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it", i.e. the source code, we understand the work __as it is
shipped with this campaign__.
We grant the GPL use with understanding that it does not require us to provide
module sources, sketches, waves or anything else except of what is already
provided with this distribution. If GPL require us to give away also source as
in "all the waveforms used for creating of the song" or "all sketches used to
create an image", then the images and music are not GPLd. Please add this
remark to our work if you choose to distribute it under the GPL instead of
CC3.0.
This condition is not to restrict your rights to modify and distribute the art
as it is contained within this distribution. You can do it, you can distribute
the resulting work, you can do whatever you want to do with the art under
conditions of GPL. This condition is to protect us from legal maniacs, who
would try to use GPL wording to demand more from us than we are able to
provide. For example. for some music pieces we do not have "source" if it is
understood to be "separate waves" or "tracker modules". We simply define what
we understand here by the "source" for the artwork, since GPL is a license not
destined for the art.
Note to the maintainers of campaign server: if you think our conditions violate
the GPL and are not reasonable, then what you will do if some legal maniac
will demand that you should provide him the sources for all the music made
for the campaign? If you think this condition is not reasonable and makes
us GPL-incompatible, could you please provide us with all the waves and all source
formats needed to remix all wesnoth music, including the ones for the music
contributed by Aleksi and Timothy? If you can't, or if you refuse, it means we
are right and our condition is sensible, since you in fact have the same
condition and you simply had not stated it clearly.
This condition is simply a bit stronger than similar remark by Wesnoth authors,
except it is more sensible. Wesnoth contains the following remark:
Note that for artwork and music, we interpret "preferred form of the work
for making modifications" as the modifiable form that the author chooses to
ship us for the source tree.
It seems to me that this statement by the Wesnoth team means exactly nothing.
Similarly I could release the binary compiled program and claim that I choose
to interpret "preferred form of the work for making modification" as a binary
version of the program. After all, you can use hex editors or disassemblers to
make the changes. You cannot do much modifications to music if it is in mp3
form, not more than to the binary of the executable program.
Can I distribute an EXECUTABLE program under GPL, and claim that "preferred form
of the work for making modification" is this binary? Can I upheld this claim in
court? What will Wesnoth team do, when some company will arrive and demand that
you should provide them sources to the music? Are you 100% sure your statement
is enough to secure you from such an insane company? Are you 100% that there
never will be such an insane company?
In addition, GPL requires:
a) You must cause __the modified files__ to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change.".
Yo, people who were frankenstining Wesnoth sprites: have you attached prominent
notices that you have changed the files? Because, you know, the literal wording
says about __modified files__ itself, and not that you put a notice next to
file... In other words you have all violated GPL.
You think I am insane? I think it is insane to license art under GPL. GPL is
for the code.
COPYRIGHT NOTE FOR REINER'S TILES
---------------------------------
There are some images for terrains and items which are from Reiner's site:
http://www.reinerstileset.4players.de:1059/englisch.htm
Copyright terms:
"The tilesets are freeware. Even for commercial Games. I just want my name in
the Credits in this case: Reiner "Tiles" Prokein. You can modify my graphics in
every needed way: size, colour, fileformat , ..."