Re: [Enigma-devel] Oxyd 2000

[Tacvek]

> Hi Tacvek,
> Daniel only cc'd to the list.

I meant my message was not sent to nicrosoft


> So why should copyright symbols violate anything.

The GPL does not allow removal of copyright notices

> > Besides it is just wrong.
> What?

I was referring to the removal of Daniel's name from the credits

> > A shareware level editor for a GPL'ed game just seems wrong!
> Seems - but isn't. Otherwise nobody would have the
> right to write
> commercial applications for Linux (e.g. like vmware is).
  ^^^^^^^^^ - commercial should not be used here, use the word proprietary

I know this, but it is wrong in terms of spirit.

I happen to know the GPL like the back of my hand except for a few of the 
more obscure linking provisions.

> Might be true, but I wouldn't count on that. As well he might get
> short on money some day and suddenly start caring about these issues.
> :)

True, but I would doubt it very strongly. All too strongly. You can probably
convince a jury (despite the laws) that if he is not willing to even answer 
questions
about the game, he should not be able to suddenly sue over them.

> But - oxyd was so called "bookware", encouraging you to freely copy
> he program itself as you like. So it is no problem to make the
> complete oxyd available.


Except that he was including Oxyd Magnum according to the original message
which iirc was not bookware. (I may be wrong.)

> But simply including these files (seperated from the rest-oxyd) into a
> enigma- or enigma-clone-distribution is in fact a copyright violation.

Yes, but again it is very unlikely to cause a problem. After all, if 
Dongleware ever dissolves
he would have trouble suing over copyright infringement, as depending upon 
the contracts
under which any other programmers/artist/etc, the copyrights might 
effectively dissolve with
Dongleware. Granted that most companies do not dissolve but are bought out, 
which does
not have problems like this