Licence violations and incompatibilities

[Paradox]

According to http://docs.python.org/license.html the Python 2.7 license is GPL compatible.

That list of credits/legal should also include Jani Kajala (and by including that, it possibly resolves the licensing conflict with pfStackTrace stuff).

[JWPlatt]

Good suggestion. Providing exact text could save us a minute or two of lookups.

Also, we were thinking that removal of the GPL insert above Jani Kajala's copyright/license (from every file in the pfStackTrace folder) would be enough, and then the file properly documents itself. No?

[Hoikas]

Also, we were thinking that removal of the GPL insert above Jani Kajala's copyright/license (from every file in the pfStackTrace folder) would be enough, and then the file properly documents itself. No?

I would think so, but it would be nice to properly credit the original author

Also:

• the Boost libraries are not used in the MOUL client (they were used in UU, I remember chip saying)
• libeXpat is missing from the credits list
• OpenAL is missing from the credits list

[Mac_Fife]

Thanks Hoikas.

...it would be nice to properly credit the original author

Agreed .

Is there any prospect that someone might want to reintroduce the Boost libraries? The license on boost.org is MIT-like and therefore GPL compatible, so it makes no difference to the exceptions list. As a credit, it could be re-added if and when it became necessary with little or no impact.

[branan]

There's no need to add credit lines for zlib and libpng. I don't see any reason not to leave them in the list, since it's good to give credit where credit is due... but it's not strictly necessary. Both licenses include the phrase "If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required."

BINK is not going to be in most open-source CWE builds, since the SDK is rather pricey for an individual. I don't think it needs to be included in the standard credits list (and hopefully anyone with the money for a BINK license is going to pay attention to the BINK license guidelines)

The FaceGen, Artbeats, Sironka Dance Troupe, and Peter Gabriel credits are content credits; perhaps there should be a separate list for those instead of lumping them with code credits, just to avoid a little hassle for people using CWE for non-Uru projects. Same goes for the Myst trademark disclaimer.

[Mac_Fife]

I was also wondering about splitting the content and code credits. There's possibly a case that since, at least for now, all the Cyan content is delivered via MOULa's servers then the MOULa credits effectively cover off all the obligations wrt that content at the point of distribution. So all the "binary conveyor" needs to address is the code credits, although there could be additional, shard specific content credits.