Conversation
|
It's not enough, unfortunately. GPLv2 is fine, but I also need an explicit permission to use it in conjunction with the Build license to allow its use in Raze. |
Gotcha. Maybe @the-phinet can put that here? |
common is shared with Raze so it only may contain code that is compatible with the Build engine (i.e. non-copyleft licenses, LGPL or GPL2 with exceptions.) This file being GPL3 only is not compatible, so to avoid licensing mishaps when doing updates it needs to be placed elsewhere.
|
Yes, I'm willing to do that. What would that look like? I'm unable to find a file with a similar exception. |
|
There is no file so far, The entire Build community has been extremely lax about handling their license so the rule I had to establish is like "If it comes from a source release of a Build game or from the continued development of such a title, it is considered fine". It has mostly been sufficient, but had to make the lite version of ZMusic to avoid bundling the GPL-licensed content in there. This would be the first piece of GPL code that does not have such an exception, so we're on new ground. I think a single sentence like "In addition to the rights granted by the GPL, this code may be linked with code licensed under the Build license as long as the resulting product is distributed free of charge and all terms of the GPL not conflicting with the Build license and all terms of the Build license are obeyed." in the license header should be enough to clarify intent and prevent any loopholes through which the GPL can be evaded. |
3 participants
I noticed that on commit 05151df the file was moved for licensing concerns. The file author has since updated it to gplv2+.
This license update was cherry picked from UZDoom/UZDoom@d9ebfff.