can gfx_deferred_rendering be relicense as gpl?

[abma]

"official stance" is, that lua code should be the same license as the spring engine (gpl2+)

​https://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17847

​http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/svn/branches/BAR/luaui/widgets/gfx_deferred_rendering.lua

[Bluestone]

Fwiw, whilst I might agree with the official stance on lua for other reasons, the reason given for (2) in ​​https://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17847 is absolutely nonsense - whether or not something is a derivative work is not about linkage - although it is common misconception that many free software proponents believe + encourage, it has no legal basis, see e.g. ​​http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm.

[abma]

i agree that 2. is vage, but also:

"PS. Of course we, developers, do not all have the same opinion. The opinion that LUA/COB/BOS actually falls entirely outside the scope of the engine's license is also commonly present. We chose to put the strictest opinion here however just to be sure."

the license of this file makes it difficult for others to change or improve it. idk if other files use this license (didn't check), but when the copyright holder at some point disappears it will be difficult for others to maintain the game / files without breaking the copyright.

[gajop]

It comes down to how you view dynamic linking (​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works), and I would definitely not call it "absolute nonsense" seeing as we've been going by the most common definition that's laid out by the FSF who are also the license copyright holders. We've been fairly consistent with this in previous cases (see NOTA lobby), so it would be unlikely to expect a different outcome.

[Bluestone]

I don't particularly know or care what is/isn't common in the world of "what free software proponents think" - my comment concerns legal status/precedent.

[gajop]

Well there is no legal precedent - this hasn't been taken to court yet, so we don't know. I certainly wouldn't like to test it with BAR. I think it's also odd to think that a single file can be considered non-derivative work of a program consisting of an engine, basecontent and other lua widgets and gadgets.

That said, none of us are lawyers and even if we were, there's no previous case to base our arguments on. Because of that it is important what we *think*, and we've been fairly consistent about GPLv2 regarding linking in the past. It would be extremely hypocritical of us to ban any mention of NOTA lobby while saying that BAR can license its widgets in any way it wants to.

[Bluestone]

There is no shortage of cases if you bother to read - the lack of legal precedent for the status of linkage is precisely because it is not directly relevent when considering if a work is derivative or not.

Let me repeat in case it was not clear enough: my comment concerns the general case of legal status/precendent. If I have any further views I'll make them clear in my own time.

[abma]

imo: please relicense as gpl, any other license breaks the idea of the spring community.

[abma]

fixed: http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/trac/balatest/changeset/4356

thanks!