{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/647","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/wesnoth/wesnoth","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/647/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/647/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/647/events","html_url":"https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/pull/647","id":147936461,"number":647,"title":"Allow explicit use of any license for add-ons","user":{"login":"pydsigner","id":532749,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/532749?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner","html_url":"https://github.com/pydsigner","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pydsigner/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":46,"created_at":"2016-04-13T03:28:04Z","updated_at":"2016-05-05T12:11:36Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/wesnoth/wesnoth/pulls/647","html_url":"https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/pull/647","diff_url":"https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/pull/647.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/pull/647.patch"},"body":"The mandatory use of the GPL for all things Wesnoth has long been a sticky point for contributors, especially those not contributing to core (i.e. creating UMC add-ons).  [Here](https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42966&p=588491#p588491) are a few [examples](https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42975&p=588173#p588173) of forum [discussion](https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=41454&p=579487#p579340), and [an explanation](http://shadowm.ai0867.net/blog/archives/54-Original-music-in-Wesnoth-content.html) of why the current state of affairs is not ideal.\r\n\r\nThere's been much talk about addressing the issue, but no action, and the only actual planned solution is to allow use of Creative Commons licensing, which still forces content creators to give up some rights beyond simple redistribution of the unified work. Some authors wishing to use non-GPL resources have gone so far as to [attempt to disanull the upload agreement by asserting licensing terms within the add-on itself](https://github.com/wescamp/A_New_Order-1.10/blob/master/A_New_Order/LICENSE.important.txt).\r\n\r\nThis PR seeks only to allow content authors to not agree to sign away all their work under the GPL, instead only requiring that they allow distribution through the official add-on server, while still maintaining current behavior for all content not explicitly licensed. Changing the default license is far beyond the scope of this PR. Any discussion of the exact text changes is welcomed."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/comments/217137856","html_url":"https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/pull/647#issuecomment-217137856","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/647","id":217137856,"user":{"login":"AncientLich","id":12465117,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12465117?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich","html_url":"https://github.com/AncientLich","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AncientLich/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-05-05T12:11:36Z","updated_at":"2016-05-05T12:11:36Z","body":"I agree with those ones who say that UMC code part should remain stick to GPL license, not allowing (at least in official server) other licenses for that. While I would suggest to anyone to credit anything coming from third party, I also think that allowing \"protective\" license in WML/Lua code is something against the spirit of the open source on wesnoth, and most importantly it is a choice that can lead to critical problem, like encourage flaming between UMC developers.\r\n\r\nFigure this scenario:\r\nIn my campaign I make a huge use of macros who calls other macros like they were subroutines, I state it is something new I invented and I state that anyone can use this kind of code without credit me.\r\nThis is a not acceptable scenario imho, expecially on WML where the language is somewhat limited by its structure, so a feature you think it could be nice in your addon, can actually be developed only few ways. \r\nSo... allowing 'strict' license (also Creative Comments - no modify can be a problem) on WML/lua code can potentially encourage 'wars' between UMC authors... it is what happened in other editable free games where any author could make any addition with any license for his \"readable\" code.\r\n\r\nHaving different licenses on WML/Lua code, also, has not any actual advantage.\r\nTalking about images and music, the discussion is a bit different. For example a music author may like to forbid to sell its own music (for example he would like to be the only one who can sell its own music or albums commercially, while it allows free usage of his samples in game). So, imho, only if we talk about music or images we can think about allowing or not other licenses different from GPL and wich other licenses we could allow for images and music."}}