Re: GPL specifics -- was: [Nel] Gamer question

[Cyril 'Hulud' Corvazier]

> I don't want to drag this out eternally, but I see a little lapse of
> reasoning. Technically speaking, the development version of Ryzom is
probably
> currently being linked and tested with NeL, therefore, Ryzom must inherit
the
> GPL.
> Therefore, the current development code is in the public domain, therefore
> should be published. Of course, I understand your need to keep Ryzom
"secret"
> until it is done, releasable and sellable, so that you can put food on
your
> plates (and buy big cars for your Venture Capital people), yet, isn't this
> secrecy a violation of the GPL, since Ryzom is GPL'd?

No, as our client game is not yet distributed, we have not to release the
source
code. The GPL is clear on this point. As V. Archer has said, you can ask
for the client source code when you have the program under any form.

> Wouldn't it be better then, for Nevrax, if NeL was LGPL, and thereby
making
> it legal (or rather, in accordance to the GPL) for you to keep Ryzom from
> public eyes?

Releasing NeL under GPL means Nevrax can take a technical benefit
if others companies make a game with NeL because they have to release
there source code and the NeL modifications. This is one reason why
NeL is GPL.

Cyril Corvazier.