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

Re: Maelstrom license clause

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 07:21:14PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 04:30:39PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >>there is the following extra clause in a README file:
> >>
> >>"The artwork and sounds used by Maelstrom are copyright Ambrosia
> >>Software (http://www.ambrosiasw.com) and may not be redistributed
> >>separately from the Maelstrom public GPL release."
> >>
> >>Is this something that makes incompatible with Fedora's licensing
> >>requirements?
> >
> >It isn't consistent with the GPL which the total package is supposed
> >to be under, so it's an invalid license add-on, or the total package
> >is not GPL.
> I doubt it. It may be clumsy wording but I read it as "look, Maelstrom is 
> GPL, this also goes for the graphics and stuff" i.e. just a clarification, 
> not a license clause at all. The GPL already forbids you to remove the 
> license from a package, so I don't think it's GPL incompatible.
> It actually says you may redistribute the artwork and sound separately as 
> long as you send a copy of GPL with it, which is exactly what the GPL 
> already mandates.

No, I don't think that this is what they mean. It doesn't refer to the
GPL license, but to the GPL release (implying that there is another
non-GPL'd product).

So you are not allowed to redistribute a modified version of the work,
which may just happen to be the original work stripped by everything
but the artwork/sounds. This of course is in conflict with the GPL.

Anyway, the best thing is if the original poster or any other
interested party brings this to the vendor's attention and asks for a
correction of the license text or otherwise clarifies the situation.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpT0utKa459X.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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