On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 at 17:07:56 -0600, eviljoel wrote:
> Maybe your e-mail reader does not support bolded text
Good guess (it's mutt).
> > If Zack wants to let developers who insist on GPLv2 re-use modules from his
> > engine, one way to do it would be to isolate WolfET-derived code into
> > particular files, so all the other files can remain GPLv2+...
>
> This is a violation of the GPLv2 because the GPLv3 components cannot
> be distributed under the same terms of the GPLv2.
ioquake3 isn't GPLv2 (only) like Linux, though; it's GPLv2+ (as far as I
can see), which is shorthand for "GPLv2 or GPLv3 or hypothetical future GPLv4
or...".
It's valid to license parts of your source code under GPLv2+ and
parts of it under GPLv3, as long as the GPLv2+ parts aren't a derived work of
the GPLv3 parts (anything derived from the GPLv3 parts has to stay GPLv3).
If Turtle Arena contains both GPLv2+ modules (from ioquake3) and GPLv3 modules
(from WolfET), then Turtle Arena *binaries* will be a derived work of both, so
the only option you can choose from the GPLv2+ multi-license is the GPLv3,
and you have to release binaries under the terms of the GPLv3.
However, if other people want to re-use some of its code, they'll (presumably)
be working from the source code, not the binaries, and if they're only using
modules that allow GPLv2+, then they can choose to take the GPLv2 option.
It's quite common for a single project to include some parts that are more
permissively licensed than others. For instance, GNOME and KDE projects
generally have a policy of licensing libraries under some version of the LGPL,
and applications/utilities (which might be shipped in the same tarball) under
some compatible version of the GPL.
Simon
_______________________________________________
ioquake3 mailing list
ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org
http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org
By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
