On 04-01-2011 22:08, Zack Middleton wrote:
If Zenimax/id Software is (possibly) violating the GPL should someone tell the FSF? Maybe Zenimax/id Software would rerelease it using the unmodified GPLv3+? :-(
If they where to violate anything it would be FSF's trademark "GPL". However section 7 of GPLv3 allows certain changes to section 15 and 16. The additional terms that is added to the ET license is trademark and moral rights specifications and that is allowed from section 7. Under my current jurisdiction I am convinced that all these "Additional terms" are completely redundant or stating the obvious. No trademark rights was given anyway and the rest is rewording the paragraph to say the same thing (and as GPLv3 section 17 might hint the law usually overwrites paragraph 15 and 16 anyway). Stating that no trademarks are transferred might save a few people from mistakenly believe that those rights was included. A few years ago I attended a talk with two copyright layers about the GPL and I am aware that there is a difference between the European and American interpretation of moral rights, so the terms might not be redundant everywhere. /Poul _______________________________________________ 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.
