Allow/switch to CC-BY-SA as license for graphics and sounds

[o11c]

The license file we have in the client data repo says "GPLv2" instead of "GPLv2+". Is that right?

http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1177 links to the latest version of the GPL (v3 when it was posted and currently).

I'm pretty sure that not all the art includes the + (I discovered when switching tmwa to GPL3+ only)

[Ablu]

GPL always allows to pick any later version I think. There is no such thing like GPLv2 only. It always includes GPLv2+. Or if no version is specificed you can choose your own.

[Nard]

GPL always allows to pick any later version I think. There is no such thing like GPLv2 only. It always includes GPLv2+. Or if no version is specificed you can choose your own.

Definitely No:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their preference.

[Ablu]

Definitely No:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This actually shows exactly what I said. I only highlighted the area which makes it clear.

However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their preference.

That paragraph only says that if you release something as GPLv2+ and a new GPL release is a bit more restrictive than GPLv2 you are free to use it under them terms of the GPLv2 (or if you do not care about this restriction under the later version).

Additionally you should try reading the GPL itself. It says it pretty clear:

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Regards,
Ablu

[Nard]

Dear Ablu;
First I read GPL v2 and v3 several times before posting this answer. If I a could agree with you that the texts published by Gnu when isolated from context can be understood in the way you do, the ensemble license + "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" + FAQ is clear enough to say GPL (v2 and v3) and CCBYSA are incompatible. If you also take the time as Jenalya and I did, to ask both to Gnu and CC the question, they will confirm.
"However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their preference." means the author can restrain the license to v2 by not mentioning "or any later version"
Creative Commons discusses this in a wider way and have the same interpretation, which is rather consistent:

• If Author does not specify version, any version can apply. (I agree with you)
• If Author specifies a specific version only this version applies (Gnu texts does not speak about it, this is the purpose of the FAQ to make it clear that if you don't mention later versions, it causes "problems")
• If Author specifies a version and "or any later version" means later versions than the specified ones can be applied. (I agree with you again)

[Jaxad0127]

GPL always allows to pick any later version I think. There is no such thing like GPLv2 only. It always includes GPLv2+. Or if no version is specificed you can choose your own.

Might want to look over the license for the Linux kernel again. It doesn't allow GPLv3, just GPLv2.

[fate]

Hello,

I thought I should clarify that I am perfectly fine with re-licencing any and all of my pixel art to a dual GPL v2-or-later and CC BY-SA 3.0 licence-- during one of my rare tmw inbox checks I noticed a request for this from a fork/spin-off project, so I thought I might as well put it someplace more public to avoid confusion, and this appeared to be the most appropriate thread to reply to.

(I do feel a little sorry for whomever is tracking those relicencing efforts, though...)

Meanwhile, I hope that you are all still well and enjoying yourselves here! :-)

All the best,

-- fate

[wushin]

I guess to maintain a public record I too hearby decree all my art can and will be allowed dual-license under GPLv2+ and cc-by-sa-3.0 .

Fate: The Content Devs after numerous knife fights, flame wars and etc are looking if anything to make the art and content more open between the servers so no one server can really decide the destiny of TMW. At least thats my primary motivation for making content licensed. As choice breeds competition.

As a whole the content dev team is far more conscious about IP rights now than before, maybe it's something that should have come up earlier, maybe it's something that's just come up recently as the number of copyright infringement and patent trials pop up.

Either way, GPLv2+ and cc-by-sa-3.0 Dual-licensing is the best way to make OUR WORLD accessible to others. As Neil Degrasse Tyson would say "If you're not doing something to better manakind, what are you doing?"