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
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions