[Scummvm-devel] License FAQ draft

[Eugene Sandulenko]

Well, the official quiz (http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi)
suggests that distributing just a URL to the source code does not comply
with GPL. Primarily reason for that is that internet sites do change, and
somebody could eventually remove the files from the server.

While it is a gray area, I see no problem with that, but that is just me.
If somebody in the team feels otherwise, please speak up.

As of the GPLv3, my understanding is that if somebody goes and uses ScummVM
code in GPLv3 project, there are several pitaffls. Although we are stating
that we're "GPLv2 or later", licensing under GPLv3 will remove 'v2' part,
leaving only 'or later' from the clause. Thus, the potential code user must
keep both licenses and mark the borrowed files as based on v2. Of course,
any additions to those files will taint the files with v3 license.

In general RMS rightfully states (
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html) that you cannot mix the
two in one distribution. So this is kind of confusing.

Let me remind that unfortunately to us, we cannot relicense ScummVM unless
we rewrite some significant portions of our code. The reason is simple: we
cannot reach every contributor, particularly those who passed away.


Eugene

On 1 January 2016 at 20:13, Thierry Crozat <criezy at scummvm.org> wrote:

> For the COPYRIGHT, I am afraid I cannot help. In my initial draft there
> was a question mark because I was not sure myself if that was true or not
> (I think I have been told that a few times, but could not find anything to
> definitely back it - my reading of the license indicated this needed to be
> provided with the source code, but not necessarily with the executable).
>
> For the source code link, your ref [1] indeed indicate this is a bit of a
> grey area that is clarified in GPL v3, but also says "the community has
> historically considered [this practice] GPLv2-compliant.” (based on [2]’s §
> 3 (b) and the last paragraph in 3). My initial draft was based on that. But
> I agree that this point is questionable.
> And this of course only applies to the cases where the executable is
> distributed on the internet and not on a physical media (I didn’t mention
> that because I wanted to keep it simple and physical distribution of games
> is quite rare now).
>
> Thierry
>
> > On 1 Jan 2016, at 18:22, Johannes Schickel <lordhoto at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I gave this a quick look and it looks good overall. There are some
> points I am not sure whether the actually hold true. I will go through them.
> >
> > We claim that "You need to provide the ScummVM COPYRIGHT file with the
> game.". I am not sure whether this is (always) the case. When I read [1]
> and [2], I think this only applies to source distributions. But for binary
> distributions this does not seem the case (unless I missed something). In
> particular [1]'s 4.1.2 examples for offers to the source code only state
> that there is copyrighted software used, but not who the copyright holder
> is. [2]'s § 1 states copyright notices need to be present in combination
> with source code distribution. Thus, we might want to consider rewording
> this (I did not come up with a good way for this so far).
> >
> > We talk about links to source code to be an option for providing source
> code access. [1]'s 4.1.4 seems to suggest that this is a gray area for
> GPLv2 and indeed I can't say I think this falls under [2]'s § 3 (a) or 3
> (b). Thus, I think we should remove this, or at least clarify that if
> someone takes advantage, they need to state that they distribute under
> GPLv3(+) and have an appropriate license file along with it.
> >
> > // Johannes
> >
> > [1]: https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html
> > [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html
> >
> > On 12/23/2015 09:32 PM, Thierry Crozat wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Following some discussions you may have seen somewhere else (hint:
> somewhere on github) I drafted a possible page to explain in concise and
> simple term the obligation of the GPL license and some additional
> recommendation. You can find it here:
> >> http://wiki.scummvm.org/index.php/License_FAQ
> >>
> >> I used the wiki because this provided a simple way to me to draft
> something. If we decide this is a good idea, this could be moved to the web
> site, or kept on the wiki with a link from the web site.
> >>
> >> You are of course welcome to discuss and edit that page, especially as
> I am not a GPL guru and may have made (read: am likely to have made)
> mistakes. You may also think of a better way to present the information and
> additional information to provide. Finally the non-required aspect (e.g.
> giving us credit) can be discussed. I wrote what came to my mind but you
> may have other ideas (hopefully we can find something we all agree on).
> >>
> >> Thierry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Scummvm-devel mailing list
> >> Scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scummvm-devel
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Scummvm-devel mailing list
> Scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scummvm-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scummvm.org/pipermail/scummvm-devel/attachments/20160101/30ec0d14/attachment.html>