Re: State of the GPL Angband Nation

[Roman Bertle]

* Neil Stevens <neil@hakubi.us>:
>  Steven Fuerst wrote:
> > I think it has something to do with the "derivedness" of it.  You basically
> > need to start with something completely new to change the copyright.  Note
> > that IANAL as well, so this could be completely wrong.
> 
>  Seems to me that if you just rewrite the same thing, then sure, the
>  whole work is the same old derived work.  Only way that works is if you
>  do a careful clean room reverse engineering, and clearly most of us
>  don't qualify for that kind of thing, heh.
> 
>  But if you take the parts that are licensed badly, and write new,
>  differently-behaving replacements, then it gets hard for me to see it
>  being anything but a new work, at least with respect to the
>  badly-licensed parts.
> 
>  This sort of workaround clearly wouldn't work well for someone trying to
>  make Angband covered by the GNU GPL, but with ToME 3 we have the luxury
>  of already rewriting so many things, including the entire monster and
>  item lists, that a few more big behavioral changes won't matter.

Hello, i think thats wrong. Its not necessary that the new parts behave
differently, you only have to write them not using the badly-licensed
parts.

F'up to gnu.misc.discuss

Roman


-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_| 
_| 
_|    -------> Hier steht KEIN origineller Spruch <-------