So I've removed the current music

[w1zrd]

I wanted to investigate this further so I went ahead and downloaded Nexuiz.
In the whole package there is only one copy of the GNU GPLv2 license but it fails to mention that any, or all, of the evil lair textures are actually GPL material.
It is true that they are omitted by the license since they are included in the same distribution, but they would be void since there is no clause anywhere stating that the author has released the work under GNU GPL license, not even CC.

[edit: found this on this site: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.[/edit]

I also dived in to Nexuiz SVN on icculus: http://svn.icculus.org/nexuiz/trunk/data/
and there ain't much more useful info as to licensing there, so the real question is:
How did these textures become GPL, and when, and by who?

There are no source documents pointing to any of this, not even references. The only thing documented is that Evil Lair textures are copyrighted as stated on his site, unless someone knows where to find the actual file which grants use for this material under GNU GPLv2 or later.

As it stands now, I would assume that this is in breach with the license clause of Nexuiz, and even Open Arena, since the textures are distributed under GPL license even though it's not clear that the work is 'free' or copyrighted.
Unfortunately simply 'assuming' that they are GPL isn't quite enough.

[update: I don't like to second guess e.t.c so I sent a mail to Yves asking him where it stands in the GPL issue with his textures in this matter; waiting for reply]

[iLeft.bye]

the textures in nexuiz are GPL

But he never bothered releasing any source which leaves his textures in the same league as blobs within the kernel, packages with "missing headers," etc.

A violation of section 3 of the GPL depending on your interpretation of what source is.

uh oh so how would you release the source code of your pixel art?

[dmn_clown]

uh oh so how would you release the source code of your pixel art?

How would you?

Source needs to be defined for everything, preferably before someone makes it an issue with the distributions with policies against sourceless items. 

I was under the impression that the layered image files act as source for multi-layered images with single layer images acting as their own source.  In the case of rendered images the .blend was the source (if using blender).

There is at least one rendered image in OA without a .blend (that I know about) and quite a few obvious multi-layered images with no layered image files acting as source.

If the above is the case than it needs to be defined officially and the policy needs to be followed, which means removing the sourceless images OR the original artist must provide source for the images and these must be added to the svn.

[iLeft.bye]

source of an image is the what original author gives you (IMO)
(ie defined by its initial author)
so even if he used some layered image to create the final image
if he releases the final ( flattened ) image under GPL He/She doesnt need to give its source
because the final image will be the source.

but there is a problem if he/she uses commercial images that avoid the final product to be released under GPL

I believe that is what happened to the music:
editable or not
It doesn't say anything about how they are created?
Sound samples used in the music don't allow GPL?

[dmn_clown]

source of an image is what the original author gives you (IMO)
(ie defined by its initial author)
so even if he used some layered image to create the final image
if he releases the final ( flattened ) image under GPL He/She doesnt need to give its source
because the final image will be the source.

So you have no problem with sourceless items that any derivation results with lower quality?

[w1zrd]

source of an image is the what original author gives you (IMO)
(ie defined by its initial author)
so even if he used some layered image to create the final image
if he releases the final ( flattened ) image under GPL He/She doesnt need to give its source
because the final image will be the source.

but there is a problem if he/she uses commercial images that avoid the final product to be released under GPL

I believe that is what happened to the music:
editable or not
It doesn't say anything about how they are created?
Sound samples used in the music don't allow GPL?

There are for instance plenty of layered .psd files on the Internet, for use in tutorials and whatnot. With such a file it doesn't matter whether there is a 'source' (as in multi-layer) or not, the original author can still not be determined without documentation.

Theoretically it would mean taking a random picture from the Internet, adding a layer and then release it myself as GPL work which I have authored. Then who would have the stronger hand in court, the one who actually made the picture but doesn't have it layered and as source, or me who in fact didn't do it, but I have the layers in it and use that as my 'source'?

I don't think there is any way to legally let images act as their own sources, regardless of layers, or not to avoid that piece of license, a document would still be needed.

GPL license requires the source to be available for modification and both a layered, and flattened image, are modifiable. Same with sounds, it's just a matter of how easy it is to modify them.

It is very diffuse with both images and sound since it not possible to include a copy of the GNU license with every image or sound-file, but if you don't; how can you then say where the media belongs? And again, even if you do, how can you prove it's your work? Only chance is with the original tracker for music, layered image for pictures, but how do you then go about when releasing a .bmp as GPL for instance?

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

On of the real problems is most likely that GPL isn't really embracing the use of images/sound.

[Taiyo.uk]

I think that all of this highlights the fact that the GPL is a license that was specifically designed for software (i.e. machine-executable binaries and their human-readable sources) and not specifically for content such as images and sound. However, according to the FAQ, the GPL can be applied to such works. The issue now becomes a clear definition of the "preferred form of the work for making changes in it".

Can I use the GPL for something other than software?
    You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.

For some images the "root source" is a plain raster format image. For example if I created a brick wall texture using a photograph that I took (in JPEG format for example) of a brick wall and some trivial gimpage to make it tile, which is not necessarily a layered operation, then both the "source" and "binary" will be JPEGs.

This can be a little more simple for music, whereby the source is the format used by the production/sequencer app. What if the music is a recording of an actual band or musicians? Then the only source is the notation and lyrics used.

Perhaps we should write some definitions of "preferred format" for OA content?

[iLeft.bye]

source of an image is what the original author gives you (IMO)
(ie defined by its initial author)
so even if he used some layered image to create the final image
if he releases the final ( flattened ) image under GPL He/She doesnt need to give its source
because the final image will be the source.

So you have no problem with sourceless items that any derivation results with lower quality?

did you mean layered image sources? yeah that would be better. but there is no way to know what the original author used.

so source is what the original author released
( any form is fine as long as it doesn't violate copyrights of the sources used to create the source image )
( he need to show his/her source; "I made everything" or "I used blah" )

( Irrelevant but what if I hex edit the openarena game.qvm, what should I release? or how to know if the qvm is compiled from the source or hex edited from the original )

[dmn_clown]

did you mean layered image sources? yeah that would be better. but there is no way to know what the original author used.

No, some images are quite obviously layered images that have been merged.

( Irrelevant but what if I hex edit the openarena game.qvm, what should I release? or how to know if the qvm is compiled from the source or hex edited from the original )

Who in their right minds would hex edit a binary when the source is available and easily compiled?

Perhaps we should write some definitions of "preferred format" for OA content?

That is not up to "us" that is up to fearless leader who doesn't seem to be taking any interest in solving this.

[w1zrd]

Still no reply from Allaire, secondary e-mail fired away.
In the meantime, when people upload their work to for instance a wiki, then you never see sources such as .psd files, only the final, flattened, .jpeg or .gif. Even for k/ubuntus own media. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tenorsaxophon.jpg is an example of this.
Again, how do we deal with these 'sourceless' images/textures?
As it seems, they can be 'sourceless' but still include a copy of the GNU GPL and be therefore subject to that license.

[update]
Received an e-mail from Allaire and this was the contents:

Hi,

I granted them the rights to use them and made them GPL for those they chose to use.
If you want to use/modify them that is fine. I grant you the rights to use them under a GPL license.
I just ask that you can include me in the credits.

Yves Allaire

So with that reply it's clearly stated that he allowed Nexuiz to use his textures in their project and they are subject to GPL.
However, it fails to say that they originally was subject to GNU GPL since there was no license information included.
The problem that arose here was that if you got the textures from Nexuiz, then they would be GPL. If you got them from his own website, then they would be copyrighted. So how to distinguish where what comes from?
Anyway, with this we can relax on the issue of the evillair textures if they come from Nexuiz.

[divVerent]

Indeed, you just pointed out a small mistake we made in Nexuiz... IMHO all included image files should carry a license comment, even if it just contains "GPL". Just to clarify which license applies to the files... do you know a program to batch edit JPEG or TGA comments?