Possibly stupid question about GPL media

[Mr. Oho]

This is mainly out of curiousity (at least atm ) but i never realy understood whats the requirements of using GPLed media. Lets say theres some hypothetical closed source mod (yeah yeah evil non gpl closed source dont shoot plz hehe) could it use media thats under GPL? Would it affect the source code or other assets that mod uses? Sorry if the answer is totaly obvious but im confused. I heard it would be possibly to use non GPL assets with GPL code but acording to the GPL it seems if one includes GPLed stuff into a project it renders the whole project GPL. Thanks in advance if anyone takes the time to enlighten me

P.S.: (and totaly offtopic) If anyone got some info on whats up with quakesrc.org id apreiciate it

[kit89]

You can add non-GPL'ed assets to a GPL'ed project though it depends!

As long as the assets are not linked to the source code then it is fine.

[TRaK]

Yeah, afaik, as long as the assets and code are independent, there is no problem with using non-gpl assets with gpl code, and vice versa.

So, for example, there is nothing legally wrong with running maps with proprietary content in OA. Also, provided that the map's license allows for distribution with OA, there is nothing wrong with distributing the map along with OpenArena. There are a few games that do this; Urban Terror, World of Padman, Warsow, and Tremulous are all games that combine GPL code with non-gpl media. However, in OA's case, both media and code are GPL, which is fine too.

As for distributing gpl content along with non-gpl code, I don't see the problem, provided you provide the source file(s).

[Mr. Oho]

Hey thanks for the quick answers I already had a reply written up but the smart board reminded me i now got answer_S_ So if i get this right having assets in a pk3 file would be enough to 'separate' it from the code?  And in the case of distributing GPL media with non GPL code what sources would i have to provide? Just sources for the GPL media in question or for the whole project? Im sorry if i annoy you but for an atristicaly retarded programmer its realy tempting to 'borrow' 1 or 2 assets from time to time but i never know if im allowed to (or at least under what conditions) and if theres one thing i try to respect its open source licenses.

[TRaK]

Hey thanks for the quick answers I already had a reply written up but the smart board reminded me i now got answer_S_ So if i get this right having assets in a pk3 file would be enough to 'separate' it from the code? 

As long as the gpl code doesn't strictly depend on the proprietary media/assets to function properly, there is no license violation. The way the gpl phrases it seems to be that "shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require" are bound to the code and must be gpl as well. However, the maps, textures, models, and other similar assets are not "specifically reqired" by the code, so they are seperate and not bound by the GPL.

And in the case of distributing GPL media with non GPL code what sources would i have to provide? Just sources for the GPL media in question or for the whole project?

You would just need to provide the sources for the media in question, not the whole project.

At least, that's my understanding. I am by no means an expert on the subject.

[Mr. Oho]

Ah thanks again

Pheeew im realy trying to get a clear picture but "specifically designed to require" is (at least to me) very open to interpretation. I can see how for example a map isnt realy required as it could be stripped away without having an impact on the project as a whole. But what about for example weapon models? They will clearly be missing if taken out so this possibly could be interpreted as the code being designed to require them. Well at least if its a hardcoded reference. Hmm now that i think of it a hardcoded reference would be just a path in a pk3 file and anything could be at that place so it maybe it wouldnt even if its hardcoded... Then again this is possibly a way to lax interpretation as it could be stretched to something like: As long as its exchangable its not specifically designed to require it (ie. "Sure my program doesnt do crap without this gpl library but hey everything could be at that position and as long at it has the right functions/format..."). ARRR sometimes i realy wish i were a lawyer and maybe even then i wouldnt know :[

Anyways ill take a look at the real world examples you provided. If its ok for them to mix assets and code under conflicting licenses without getting in trouble then its possibly fine even if i dont realy understand it...

[andrewj]

As long as the gpl code doesn't strictly depend on the proprietary media/assets to function properly, there is no license violation.

I don't think it's quite that simple.  You need to look at the project as a whole.  If you took all the GPL assets from OA and combined it with a proprietary game engine and a few proprietary assets and sold it as game XXX, then this game strongly depends on the GPL assets and hence the whole thing should be under the GPL. I base this interpretation on the following clause in the GPL:

Code:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

If you are planning on some commercial venture which will use stuff under the GPL, then of course you should seek proper legal advice.

[Mr. Oho]

Thanks for the input Nah dont worry no comercial interests here (i wish i had them then maybe i had some money for a laywer and wouldnt have to wreck my own and your brain on this haha). I just dont wanna open source my mod and if i wanted i couldnt GPL it anyways even if it would just be because of the SDK license :/