Skip to content

Unclear licensing #119

@corpserot

Description

@corpserot

From discord.

i wrote:

https://content.luanti.org/packages/mt-mods/jumpdrive/ jumpdrive on contentdb: GPL-2.0-only
https://github.com/mt-mods/jumpdrive/blob/2b6f9a2a9c3f60ac3befa232a607967f1759627a/license.txt jumpdrive's license.txt: GPL-3.0-or-later
https://github.com/mt-mods/jumpdrive/blob/2b6f9a2a9c3f60ac3befa232a607967f1759627a/readme.md jumpdrive's README.md: MIT
https://forum.luanti.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=20073 luanti forums: LGPL-2.1

ofc, i can discard the LGPL-2.1 and GPL-2.0 declarations as those are not even mentioned within jumpdrive's contents. that leaves me with MIT or GPL-3.0-or-later (shortened to GPL-3.0 from now on).

BuckarooBanzai responded:

Wow, what a mess 🤦 sorry for the confusion, it is mit for the code and cc by sa 4 for the media, the readme is correct in that case

at the very least, correction of license.txt from GPL-3.0 into MIT, along with correcting contentdb and forum topic needs to occur if it is truly MIT. that is not the case; a proper relicensing needs to occur for this to be true. as it stands, the README.md MIT license declaration holds no actual weight to the mod as a whole thanks to GPL-3.0's viral terms. it's my understanding that jumpdrive is actually GPL-3.0.

wsor suggested a rewrite occured argument for relicensing to MIT. this may open the path towards dual-licensing or easier relicensing effort. it's a bit moot because such thing did not occur since 39faaa9 declared MIT in README.md. there is not even enough changes since then to even consider a rewrite occurred.

ref: 1e93924 declared GPL-3.0 license back during the public release of the mod.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions