GPL license for Artistic works -long post- sorry!

[TVR]

It is the complete game which is a derivative of both the engine and supporting data.

As the GNU GPL licenses cannot be redistributed in concert with non-compatible licenses, non-compatible data cannot be redistributed with the GNU GPL engine as one work.

[Irritant]

It is the complete game which is a derivative of both the engine and supporting data.

That is a *real* stretch, and no judge would ever rule in favor of something that interpretive.

As the GNU GPL licenses cannot be redistributed in concert with non-compatible licenses, non-compatible data cannot be redistributed with the GNU GPL engine as one work.

Again, it all comes down to what the packager describes as the "work". Warsow, Alien Arena, WOP, and many others have distinctly separated their games into two separate "works". Like I already stated, they can do this because the original "work" that id Software released was just the game engine, and not game data. I cannot make this any more clear, and if you don't believe me, I think that you need to consult an actual lawyer(as I did back in 2004).

[divVerent]

Now you named it: to be able to give it separate licenses, you must distinctly separate them. This is not done on Nexuiz. However it is not done on Warsow either, as you download one package and click one icon. This may not be 100% safe.

If it is two separate files to download, it is perfectly safe. In any other case, one must make it REALLY clear which part is under which license, so that even a non-technical user can find it easily. Having some artwork under one and some artwork under another license would be anything but clear. The very least requirement would be using separate svn trees and pk3 files for free and nonfree data. And no such thing should happen to Nexuiz.

The GPL works very well when applied to content, as it clearly describes what happens when applied to an 'other work'. That is no problem. The only real problem is that it requires source data (if applicable to the work in question), and its 'infectious' nature (so even compound works that are more than 'mere aggregation' must be covered by the same license). You say Warsow is such a compound work that it is mere aggregation - but this implies you can take the engine binary as is and build another game around it, and that the engine is not specifically developed for Warsow. I bet however that the engine does contain Warsow specific code, just like DP contains Nexuiz specific code.

Basically, it all boils down what risk you want to take. I will not take the - albeit low - risk of getting sued by Bethesda for copyright violation on the Q1 code. Someone else might want to though

Another thing is - Nexuiz should stay entirely free as in free software, so e.g. Linux distributions can distribute it freely (even on DVDs). Most distros do not take the risk of distributing software with unclear distribution terms on DVDs they sell... But we want exactly that option to be open for Nexuiz.

In yet other words: once Debian accepts CC-BY-SA as free, we might use it for content (first dual licensed with GPL, then once all content has the new license, it can be separated from the GPLed code and configs).

[jal]

It perfectly valid to keep the media propietary. It's been stated many times by all kind of open source organizations, and open source programs of relevance as Firefox do keep their media under a propetary license. In fact, GPL was not designed to cover media, as it clearly shows in its mention of the word "source". Media rarely has such thing as a source, and Media doesn't hide any knowledge behind a barrier of a binary compilation.

[Lee_Stricklin]

@ jal

I think div0 pretty much laid down the law here. EVERYTHING in Nexuiz has to be GPL

[divVerent]

It perfectly valid to keep the media propietary. It's been stated many times by all kind of open source organizations, and open source programs of relevance as Firefox do keep their media under a propetary license. In fact, GPL was not designed to cover media, as it clearly shows in its mention of the word "source". Media rarely has such thing as a source, and Media doesn't hide any knowledge behind a barrier of a binary compilation.

Firefox is not under GPL. Your argument is invalid[TM].

"Media doesn't hide any knowledge behind a barrier of a binary compilation" - as long as that is true, the GPL allows you to consider the same file both source and binary. Works the same way as applying the GPL to a perl script:

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."

In case of the perl script, this is the script itself.

But, fact is, many media formats DO hide knowledge. E.g. rendered wav files for music hide the musical score and instrument recordings. Which however IS available to the original author in form of some data. Depending on how the wav file was created, it can be a printed musical score for "real recordings" (then the acceptable source code could e.g. be the project file for the music score if it was made on a computer, or scanned handwritten score if it was made on paper), and whatever project file your app uses for "synthetic recordings".

Whether zym files hide knowledge may be disputed, as they can be converted back to skeletal form. So IMHO they do not, and I could imagine a zym model editor (although pointless).

A typical media file type that often does NOT hide any knowledge are textures (in MANY, not ALL cases) and sound effects. But sometimes they do, and in that case source has to be provided.

But in our case, the situation is different: many media files in Nexuiz are under the GPL and their authors are no longer reachable. So they cannot be relicensed to the probably viable CC-BY-SA. And we really do not want to mix different licenses among media, as the confusion that would create would lead people to have reasonable grounds to assume everything is under GPL or under CC-BY-SA, and if that happens, a lawyer would also think everything is a "single item" and thus under one single license. So if we ever want to do a license transition to CC-BY-SA on the media - given that it is legal to do so - we should start requiring dual-licensed "GPL or CC-BY-SA" content for now, and do a CC-BY-SA switchover once all content is appropriately dual licensed (would probably take one, two years to replace all the stuff whose author cannot be reached any more or refuses to go CC-BY-SA).

Note: we cannot use a -NC license of the CC, because we DO want Nexuiz to be packaged (and sold) together with Linux distributions.

Note: CC-BY-SA is less restrictive than the GPL regarding commercial use because of the missing source code requirement, making it easier to rip off CC-BY-SA works.

So artists may have good reasons to accept GPL but not CC-BY-SA, but they also have good reasons to accept CC-BY-SA but not GPL (namely, because they want to hide their knowledge so others cannot learn from them).

And here comes the conclusion: as an OPEN SOURCE PROJECT, we should not encourage or even condone "hiding your knowledge from others". So, no license without source requirement. I'd be fine if there was a CC-BY-SA-SRC that would also require availability of the "source files" - whatever they are (e.g. music studio project files, musical score, whatever has been used) - to everyone who gets the "binary". But when you come think of it, CC-BY-SA-SRC would be exactly what the GPL is, just with different wording.

[jal]

One thing is Nexuiz's particularities, and another any other game. Nexuiz has decided to use GPL licensed media (I mean, not releasing your media under GPL, but using media which already was GPL), and this makes it harder to sort out.

Still, it's a shame freegamedev forum lost their database, because they had a couple of nice threads on this topic. They even consulted lawers asociated to the GPL organization. The conclusion was pretty much that media of all kind of licenses could be mixed up as long as licensing and distribution is properly sorted out. The details for properly sorting out is something I don't remember, tho, and the threads aren't there anymore

In any case, my conscience is clear regarding Warsow licensing. We've always been very strict in what media do we allow ourselves to use and on its license. The mixing of source and media in the same distribution package is on the edge of the license, and not even the GPL organization can make their minds up about that point. They actually have encouraged this practice in several opinion articles dedicated to games, while at the same time condemn it at others. If anyone wants to try sueing us I'm not worried about the outcome.

[Flying Steel]

And here comes the conclusion: as an OPEN SOURCE PROJECT, we should not encourage or even condone "hiding your knowledge from others". So, no license without source requirement.

Strongly agree with this. If another artist is going to build off of your work at some point, it is very helpful for said artist to have the source files.

[divVerent]

Basically, I do think for the artistic media in Nexuiz, GPL is the right choice and should stay - HOWEVER: the wording of the GPL is not really good for artistic data.

I suggest that someone should write a "short version" of the GPL specifically for artwork that has a conversion clause (or obviously implied convertibility) to the "regular" GPL. I'd like to call that license CC-BY-SA-SRC It would basically consist of the following terms:

• You may redistribute this work verbatim or modifed, as long as the following conditions hold:
• Copyright notices may not be removed
• Changes to this work must be made clear in some way, e.g. in a text file where you describe what you changed
• You have to offer or provide the exact data you used to create and edit it (e.g. project files of music app) to anyone who received another version (e.g. ogg) of it by you. (cut offer details from the GPL)
• Everyone who receives the work, or a work derived from this work, or a combined work including this work, from you must receive it under this or an equivalent license. This means that if any legal reasons (e.g. trademark right) would prevent him from being allowed to redistribute it under one of these licenses, you are not allowed to either.
• The General Public License, version 2, is equivalent to this license.

[/url]