Bittorrent

[Gego]

ifaik the GPLv2 does not allow programs (that are under the gplv2) to be distrubuted via torrent, it is only in GPLv3 that that is "leagal"..
i saw a video where RMS talked bout the gpl...

[KadaverJack]

ifaik the GPLv2 does not allow programs (that are under the gplv2) to be distrubuted via torrent, it is only in GPLv3 that that is "leagal"..

GPL doesn't restrict in which way a the content is distributed. It would be really stupid if it would.

[divVerent]

ifaik the GPLv2 does not allow programs (that are under the gplv2) to be distrubuted via torrent, it is only in GPLv3 that that is "leagal"..
i saw a video where RMS talked bout the gpl...

What would be illegal in distributing GPL software over a free protocol supported by free clients?

[C.Brutail]

Heh yea. And then I suppose downloading a debian iso via ftp is legal, but using the official torrents are not

[Workaphobia]

Than still one has to make sure that it is seeded well 24/7 and i mean *really* well, because a torrent that is seeded bad or not at all, would create the impression, that there is not much interrest in this game.

I never understood why the servers that host standard http downloads can't also be torrent seeders. It's as if there's some implicit rule that you can either complete your download quickly, or you can share your bandwidth with the community, but not both. I understand that if nexuiz is relying on the mirrors of sites such as sourceforge, then the servers and their means of distribution aren't configurable by Alientrap. What's everyone else's excuse?

[Workaphobia]

ifaik the GPLv2 does not allow programs (that are under the gplv2) to be distrubuted via torrent, it is only in GPLv3 that that is "leagal"..
i saw a video where RMS talked bout the gpl...

To echo the replies above me:

Incorrect. The GPL only restricts the content of distribution, in that you must only redistribute if you include or are willing to provide the source code. The manner in which the distribution takes place is mostly irrelevant, although different means such as physical CDs and web servers are mentioned in the license. The only thing I can think of is that it's possible that the license specifically allows one to distribute binaries on a CD, and then make the source available from a web server. In that case, a strict reading may exclude torrents as a means of distribution, but since nexuiz comes packaged with the source it's not an issue.

Hell, even if it was, I doubt there's anyone out there willing to make a case out of it. That kind of thing isn't anywhere near as controversial as binary kernel modules.

[divVerent]

Actually... binary-only torrents may be slightly problematic: the ones who download also upload, thus everyone who completes the download has the right to ask EVERYONE ELSE for the source.

But if it is a free project, even this is not a problem - it is a problem in the sense that if someone distributes GPL licensed stuff and there is no source on the net, everyone may be violating the GPL, not just the initial seeder.

[Workaphobia]

That is true, although it relies on the same logic the RIAA uses to hit individual citizens with $250,000 statutory damages - that personal p2p sharing constitutes legal distribution when in reality it is mostly used just for download. That's kind of a grey area.