Stolen Wesnoth Graphics / A Question

[Crendgrim]

First of all: IANAL.
But as I understand the GPL (namely paragraph 5) you cannot use GPL content in a non-GPL work. Am I wrong about this?

[Hulavuta]

Wow, that was nice of the creator to register and make a statement. Hopefully everything will be sorted out. I just hope any hostilities are gone, everyone should have enough time to cool off.

[Dragonchampion]

So this has been resolved! I think this calls for a lock, if possible, Shadow.

[ancestral]

First of all: IANAL.
But as I understand the GPL (namely paragraph 5) you cannot use GPL content in a non-GPL work. Am I wrong about this?

I’m no lawyer either.

I guess it depends how one may interpret:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

Additionally, I think part of the problem is the GPL doesn’t lend itself well to images. GNU FDL, CC, and similar licenses are prefered over the GPL for music and art. (This article is a good read.)

Most importantly, the GPL policy has been discussed before on how it relates to the Wesnoth project and this thread should be read carefully.

I do not speak for the developers. I am not one. However, they have in the past felt the philosophy of the GPL is just as important, as there’s another project which has been under scrutiny for its license incompatability.

I will now bow out of the argument here.

[johndh]

First of all: IANAL.
But as I understand the GPL (namely paragraph 5) you cannot use GPL content in a non-GPL work. Am I wrong about this?

Typically in practice, art is considered "mere data", so is in some ways exempt. For example, you can have a GPL engine with proprietary artwork and everything is kosher. I don't know about the other way around, though.

Also not a legal expert of any kind, either.

[Crow_T]

* as a side note, this isn't the first GPL nuance thread I've seen, it would be nice if there were a more non-lawer friendly version of these open source licences. Let's be honest, whenever there is a cc or gpl convo, it's time to run for the hills- they generally bloat up quickly and nothing really gets resolved. Also, is it GPL1, 2, or 3? GAH!

[Iris]

Also, is it GPL1, 2, or 3? GAH!

For C++ code it is unequivocally the GNU General Public License version 2, or any later version; this is not clear in the case of graphics (some files in the source tarball suggest GNU GPL v2, others suggest GNU GPL v2 or later) and I am going to try to get people to look into this as soon as possible.