hello

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Post Reply
orvus
Posts: 1
Joined: October 15th, 2004, 10:07 am

hello

Post by orvus »

I dont know a lot of licences and usages, but i could use the graphics of the this game for a comercial version of it for other plataform.

Thanks.
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

A) What other platforms?
B) No, you can't. If you use GPLed graphics, you have to GPL your work.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
cedric
Posts: 320
Joined: January 24th, 2004, 10:27 pm
Location: Rennes, France
Contact:

Post by cedric »

Elvish Pillager wrote:If you use GPLed graphics, you have to GPL your work.
Which is not incompatible with making commercial software.

--
Cedric
cobretti
Posts: 466
Joined: February 19th, 2004, 4:38 pm

Post by cobretti »

cedric wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:If you use GPLed graphics, you have to GPL your work.
Which is not incompatible with making commercial software.

--
Cedric
.. as long as you don't limit copying and distributing it, give proper credit to the original authors, and give all the source code with it. (and I probably forget many more clauses...)
cedric
Posts: 320
Joined: January 24th, 2004, 10:27 pm
Location: Rennes, France
Contact:

Post by cedric »

cobretti wrote:.. as long as
As long as you comply with the GPL terms, indeed, which is what was being talked.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
COPYING file in wesnoth tree
--
Cedric
cobretti
Posts: 466
Joined: February 19th, 2004, 4:38 pm

Post by cobretti »

Of course. I was only pointing that many times people think about 'free stuff' as 'something you can pick and use in whateverway you want without asking, because it's free(ware)'.
scott
Posts: 5242
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by scott »

cobretti wrote:
cedric wrote: Which is not incompatible with making commercial software.

--
Cedric
.. as long as you don't limit copying and distributing it, give proper credit to the original authors, and give all the source code with it. (and I probably forget many more clauses...)
Does this apply only to the borrowed graphics that were under GPL or the source for the entire commercial product? I get lost when I try to look this stuff up at gnu.org.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
silene
Posts: 1109
Joined: August 28th, 2004, 10:02 pm

Post by silene »

scott wrote:Does this apply only to the borrowed graphics that were under GPL or the source for the entire commercial product?
Quick and imprecise answer: the entire commercial product.
cobretti
Posts: 466
Joined: February 19th, 2004, 4:38 pm

Post by cobretti »

silene wrote:
scott wrote:Does this apply only to the borrowed graphics that were under GPL or the source for the entire commercial product?
Quick and imprecise answer: the entire commercial product.
Not so quick and less imprecise answer: GPL is 'vyrical', that is, any product which contains some part licensed under the GPL must conform the GPL as a whole, unless the authors of the new product speak to the original authors (who still retain the authory rights) and manage to get those parts with another license which does not force them to make that new product fall under the GPL. It applies to any part of a GPL work, not just code, but of course it's more difficult to say precisely what 'source code' for an image is.

GPL is not about 'price=0', but about giving the user some rights commercial licenses usually don't (like redistributing, modifying, and so). You could charge for your GPL product so much as you want, but you couldn't stop others to redistribute their copies for free. That is usually the main reason to not charge at all, having printed manuals to be sold with, have dual licenses, or slightly different versions of the same program using different licenses. (This is not bad. Even programmers have to eat and support a family :wink: )

The only more note to take is that the GPL has never be 'tested' in court, so it still hasn't got the same strengh when forcing it to be fulfilled as other, more classical licenses have.
silene
Posts: 1109
Joined: August 28th, 2004, 10:02 pm

Post by silene »

cobretti wrote:The only more note to take is that the GPL has never be 'tested' in court, so it still hasn't got the same strengh when forcing it to be fulfilled as other, more classical licenses have.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 2315554313
Iron
Posts: 17
Joined: October 12th, 2004, 2:20 am
Location: AUS
Contact:

Post by Iron »

Actually, the GPL isn't that great when applied to graphics and sounds. It protects the work in that a no-one can sell the graphics (they have to be provided freely). But the so-called "viral" aspect of the GPL, wherein if you include GPL'd programming in a product, the whole product has to come under the GPL, does not apply to graphics or sounds unless they are somehow linked into the product's code.

Section 2. of the GPL is the part that covers this. While its rather vague in saying what constitutes a work that is "based on" a GPL'd product, it is very specific in saying that mere aggregation of GPL'd content along with other work that isn't under the GPL, does not bring that other work under the GPL, and also that identifiable sections of the work not derived from the "Program" (in this case the graphics) do not come under the license.

The way I would read this, if a commercial program was told to load the image "./images/wesnoth_gpl_grass.bmp", the commercial program couldn't be said to be based on the GPL'd work. All its doing is loading a separate image, and it doesn't know what is in that image - the image may be GPL or may not be as far as the program is concerned. Even more so if the program is simply reading which images to load from a user-defined control file (as indeed Wesnoth itself does). In this case there's no way anyone could argue the rest of the commercial product was derived from those graphics files and therefore has to be GPL'd.

Sorry I'm a bit longwinded, but I hope I'm making sense. Personally I think it'd be very wrong for a commercial game to use Wesnoth graphics in that way, but I don't think the GPL prevents it from happening. If the artists really didn't want this to occur they should perhaps consider the AFPL (http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/AFPL/8.00/Public.htm).
Post Reply