02-12-2004 16:40									#1
	Suffering from ads?

Ahem, one thing I'd like to mention is that I think the GPL sucks.

AFAIK, it means that anyone can do anything released under that license as long as they (1) include a copyright notice, (2) include the GPL license, (3) release their stuff under the same license and (4) include the source code, if applicable.

That basically means that once you, say, created some new FreeCiv graphics you no longer have any control over them. Anyone making GPL software or graphics or so (not just FC) can use your graphics at will, without your further permission. They could even sell it for profit without you getting a dime.

Edit: This thread started off as a threadjack in the Freeciv and the average Civ2 Scenario designer... thread, in case you're wondering...

Last edited by Mercator on 05-12-2004 at 02:06

	02-12-2004 17:16									#2
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Mercator Ahem, one thing I'd like to mention is that I think the GPL sucks. AFAIK, it means that anyone can do anything released under that license as long as they (1) include a copyright notice, (2) include the GPL license, (3) release their stuff under the same license and (4) include the source code, if applicable. That basically means that once you, say, created some new FreeCiv graphics you no longer have any control over them. Anyone making GPL software or graphics or so (not just FC) can use your graphics at will, without your further permission. They could even sell it for profit without you getting a dime.

What you see as a problem, is what is commonly seen as the strength of the GPL license. Contributing stuff under the GPL is like giving to the common good and it get's available for others to use under the restrictions of the GPL license. I think it's a good thing to share, and this is one of the most important and powerfull aspect of the open source community.

You still retain the copyright over any material you release under the GPL, and you are free to license the same work under another license, although you can't revoke the GPL licensed material. If you want total control over your work don't release it under the GPL.

Of course the nice thing to do is to give credit to the original author, this is not required under the GPL license.

To compare the BSD license is even less strict, people can use whatever you release under it without disclosing their modifications or giving anything back if they chose so.

	03-12-2004 01:46									#3
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth I think it's a good thing to share, and this is one of the most important and powerfull aspect of the open source community.

Well, I think sharing is great. But everything I've done and made (for civ2), I did for free. I don't want anybody else making a profit from my work, unless I explicitly allow them to.

quote: If you want total control over your work don't release it under the GPL.

Well, obviously, but can non-GPL'ed work be released as part of GPL'ed work? Say, if I'd draw a set of units, could they be released together with FreeCiv, while using, say, this license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

	03-12-2004 02:16									#4
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Mercator Well, I think sharing is great. But everything I've done and made (for civ2), I did for free. I don't want anybody else making a profit from my work, unless I explicitly allow them to.

That's understandable, but as the GPL stands today this freedom also include trying to make a profit of it. If someone was to use some of your GPL material and sell a product containing it, they would also have to give "equivalent access" to the source code, which means they can't charge more for it. They are not required to provide a version for free, but anyone who has payed them and reiceived the product can redistribute it for free as pr the GPL license. Therefore in reality it doesn't make much sense to try to make everyone pay for it as it would be a lost cause to begin with.

What OSS businesses make money on is "added value" like training, installation and support, not the GPL product itself.

quote: Originally posted by Mercator Well, obviously, but can non-GPL'ed work be released as part of GPL'ed work? Say, if I'd draw a set of units, could they be released together with FreeCiv, while using, say, this license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

There are many licenses that are compatible with the GPL.

Edit: It seems crative commons isn't compatible because it req:
- Attribution. You must give the original author credit.
- Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

So if you release art under this license it can't be bundled with Freeciv, but you can make it available as a separate download.

	03-12-2004 02:23									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

You know, technically, every sort of unit graphics grid can be used in Freeciv. Also, technically, every sort of unit graphics grid doesn't have to be used in Freeciv...

Last edited by Harry Tuttle on 03-12-2004 at 02:38

	03-12-2004 02:24									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

You don't have to relicense your work under the GPL if you merely want it to be able to use it under Freeciv. While IANAL, I believe that you could even distribute it around to other people, even if it is not licensed under the GPL. Note, however, that if you do that you cannot base your work off of any that is licensed under the GPL, and that your work could not be distributed with Freeciv.

As a note for scenario creators, I have some Perl programs on my website that convert Civilization 2 files to Freeciv format. The first, civIImap.pl, (not created by me) converts Civilization 2 maps to Freeciv maps. The second, civ22freeciv, converts a Civilization 2 rules.txt and cities.txt, etc., to Freeciv ruleset format. Both of them require Perl to run, and, due to changes between 1.14.2 and 2.0.0, may no longer completely work. I haven't tested them in a while.
Finally, there is civ2gfx, which lets you convert old Civilization 2 graphics to Freeciv. I don't know if that works, either.

	03-12-2004 02:24									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth So if you release art under this license it can't be bundled with Freeciv, but you can make it available as a separate download.

Exactly.

	03-12-2004 03:08									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

Yog-Sothoth (and mithrandir) has given a very clear answer.

In essence it is that you cannot "release non-GPL'ed work as part of GPL'ed work" but you can release it apart from.


so while you cannot distribute (non-GPL compatible license) art within a Freeciv bundle you are totally free to distribute your own work outside it under any license you wish.

That also implies that it can never become part of the standard Freeciv package. The same way that Freeciv will never distribute the original Microprose Civ2 gfx and sfx. Those are copyrighted and it is illegal to distribute them.

	03-12-2004 04:48									#9
	Tired of ads?

Ahem... Thanks all. Sorry for the threadjack, but I do think this is important for people to realise. So far, everything's worked out fine in our cozy little civ2 creation community, but once the community becomes broader than just civ2, it looks like people will need to think about licensing to make sure no-one's going to use their creations in a way they don't want them to be used.

I was mainly wondering if the people whose units are being used in the "Graphics for FreeCiv 2.0" thread are also aware of these details of the GPL. Or isn't that thread looking to have a tileset that's included with FC? And if not, Yog-Sothoth's comment there about the GPL is irrelevant, isn't it?

	03-12-2004 05:13									#10
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Mercator Ahem... Thanks all. Sorry for the threadjack, but I do think this is important for people to realise. So far, everything's worked out fine in our cozy little civ2 creation community, but once the community becomes broader than just civ2, it looks like people will need to think about licensing to make sure no-one's going to use their creations in a way they don't want them to be used.

Which license have you guys been using for the content you have made so far then?

quote: Originally posted by Mercator I was mainly wondering if the people whose units are being used in the "Graphics for FreeCiv 2.0" thread are also aware of these details of the GPL. Or isn't that thread looking to have a tileset that's included with FC? And if not, Yog-Sothoth's comment there about the GPL is irrelevant, isn't it?

I was under the impression that CapTVK wanted to make something that could be included into Freeciv, and in that case it is very relevant.

	03-12-2004 05:26									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth Which license have you guys been using for the content you have made so far then?

None. We just expect eachother to be courteous and credit eachother. That mainly manifests itself as graphical signatures in the graphics (which CapTVK removed) and credits in (scenario) readmes.

quote: I was under the impression that CapTVK wanted to make something that could be included into Freeciv, and in that case it is very relevant.

Exactly. So they should be aware they're basically forfeiting their creations.

	03-12-2004 05:43									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Mercator None. We just expect eachother to be courteous and credit eachother. That mainly manifests itself as graphical signatures in the graphics (which CapTVK removed) and credits in (scenario) readmes.

There is no problem with giving credit with GPL material, it is usually done out of courtesy, but the license don't require it. I don't know anything about CapTVK removing them from anywhere.

Check here for the list of contributors to Freeciv (both code and media). As you can see it's very detailed, so credit is given where it's due.

quote: Originally posted by Mercator Exactly. So they should be aware they're basically forfeiting their creations.

I don't see it that way. By releasing something as GPL you ensure it will stay free. I would rather characterize not using a license at all as much closer to "forfeiting" your creations. How is not using a license gonna give any protection at all? (other than Copyright which apply automatically, and is not lost if you GPL just to clearify that).

	03-12-2004 06:46									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I think Mercator has a damn good point.

Signing up to merely give away your ideas or work is crazy.

For instance:
The main reason I never sign up to any of the current web art galleries is because
I refuse to give over the permission for other people to just reproduce my
work and do what the heck they like with it.

Yes, and I know it is all bound in legal codes and contractual jargon.

I can read between the lines, however.

The contract-holders get all the advantage, while original creator gets sidelined.

I think not.

Sharing is great...
When it is sharing, and not highway robbery. (I don't mean Freeciv here!)

I think I for one, will pass up the Freeciv thing - No offence intended.
I like my CIV2 graphics creation as a hobby.

I will keep the legal stuff for my real-life freelance work.

Last edited by curtsibling on 03-12-2004 at 06:54

	03-12-2004 06:57									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I propose a compromise. As was stated, artwork that can be used for Freeciv does not necessarily have to be GPL. What I aluded to before with this comment...

quote: You know, technically, every sort of unit graphics grid can be used in Freeciv. Also, technically, every sort of unit graphics grid doesn't have to be used in Freeciv...

...is that any artwork we create, here, on this site, can be used in Freeciv, but not included with it, unlike the artwork that was included with the beta download.

So basically, we create what we want, not license it under GPL (unless we want to), and simply download the graphics seperately, just like we would any other units here on the forums.

And yes, I think Fairline should be informed if he doesn't realise the extent of what he's giving...

	03-12-2004 09:30									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

For a further example I'm going to use the Civ2gfk program. This program is licensed under the GPL, but it can convert non-GPL licensed Civ2 graphics (unit.gif, terrain.gif) into PNG format.

The tileset that is included with the program ie "the file that tells the Freeciv executable to 'grab' certain blocks of pixels in a graphics file" is formatted in such a way that it will grab the pixels from any standard Civ2 graphics file and display it in game like it would be in the Civ2.

Now here's the difference between contributing to the Freeciv distributed package and just making Freeciv compatible graphics. The files that will be converted by Civ2gfk are not licensed under GPL. They can however be used in Freeciv. Easy as that. No legality issues at all to making graphics compatible with Freeciv.

If you don't want your work to be licensed under GPL then don't submit it for distribution. That's it. You can still create for Freeciv and all its extra graphic space and extra unit spaces, etc...

	03-12-2004 10:06									#16
	Got spare money?

AFAIK:
- if it's your original work, you hold the full copyright whether you GPL it or not
- therefore, you can distribute it under any number of terms, including GPL. If someone wants to use it under non-GPL terms, they can pay you for a whatever license you agree on.
- however, once you GPL something, you can't un-GPL it
- GPL means that:
a) people are free to modify the work
b) if they want to distribute the modifications, they can only do so under the GPL

	03-12-2004 13:28									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

This is a bit disconcerting. I agree with Mercator here; I don't want anybody making money out of artwork I post for free. Harry's idea of making Freeciv-compatable material while explicitly not allowing it to be included in packages which are subject to the GPL seems to be a safe way forward.

One question: what protection does copyright give to prevent others from ignoring my wishes and including my work in GPL-licenced Freeciv packages anyway? Leo mentions that they would need to seek my agreement for this to take place; is that the case?

	03-12-2004 15:28									#18
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by curtsibling I think Mercator has a damn good point. Signing up to merely give away your ideas or work is crazy. *snip* The contract-holders get all the advantage, while original creator gets sidelined. I think not. Sharing is great... When it is sharing, and not highway robbery. (I don't mean Freeciv here!) I think I for one, will pass up the Freeciv thing - No offence intended. I like my CIV2 graphics creation as a hobby. I will keep the legal stuff for my real-life freelance work.

The GPL is not for everyone, but saying the original creator don't benefit from it is not correct. Everyone profits from the "pool" of GPL software. The larger it gets the higher an asset it becomes for everyone.

And if you think you don't use any GPL software, you should think again. Most of the underlying services and architecture of the Internet are mostly based on Open Source software like Bind, Sendmail, Apache, etc which work on top of open standards. Without it, Internet as we know it today would not have existed.

And I strongly encourage everyone here to always use a license for the material you create. For instance the Creative Commons is a good choice for those who don't want it to be used commercially.

And lastly, there must be a lot of crazy people in the world then since the Open Source Community is huge

--

I think the terms of the GPL and the Creative Commons have been sufficiently presented now, and we could end this before it turns into an argument. Of course, if anyone has any further questions they are free to ask.

	03-12-2004 20:57									#19
	Remove this text

It never was going to be an argument.

A person has a choice about what he does with his own work.
And no amount of cursing and debating will change that, Mr Sothoth.

And thank you, I am quite aware of the contractual basis of many web sign-up areas.
And being an ex-character designer for the BBC, I also know the legal pitfalls of freelance work too.

PS
And it's true, there are a lot of crazy people in the world.
But the 'sane' protect their ideas and work.

No malice intended, just having my say.

Good day to ya.

	03-12-2004 21:15									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by curtsibling It never was going to be an argument. A person has a choice about what he does with his own work. And no amount of cursing and debating will change that, Mr Sothoth. And thank you, I am quite aware of the contractual basis of many web sign-up areas. And being an ex-character designer for the BBC, I also know the legal pitfalls of freelance work too. PS And it's true, there are a lot of crazy people in the world. But the 'sane' protect their ideas and work. No malice intended, just having my say. Good day to ya.

You can choose whatever you like, I don't care. However, I want GPL to be presented correctly, and I responded to your ill-informed scaremongering.

For the rest:
- As far as I know I haven't cursed in any of my posts in this thread
- I don't know why you go on about web sign-up as I haven't said anything about that whatsoever
- It's you who called them crazy, I responded to your use of the term. They are probably more aware of these issues than most and don't need any "protection". It would rather be the other way around.
- And lastly I do take objection to you calling the GPL for robbery. Educate yourself on the matter before making such strong accusations

	03-12-2004 21:51									#21
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by curtsibling I think Mercator has a damn good point. Signing up to merely give away your ideas or work is crazy. For instance: The main reason I never sign up to any of the current web art galleries is because I refuse to give over the permission for other people to just reproduce my work and do what the heck they like with it. Yes, and I know it is all bound in legal codes and contractual jargon. I can read between the lines, however. The contract-holders get all the advantage, while original creator gets sidelined. I think not. Sharing is great... When it is sharing, and not highway robbery. (I don't mean Freeciv here!) I think I for one, will pass up the Freeciv thing - No offence intended. I like my CIV2 graphics creation as a hobby. I will keep the legal stuff for my real-life freelance work.

CS, everyone

At the moment nothing has been released under the GPL. The tileset is still a work in progress.

The graphics you see momentarily in the Freeciv 2.0 graphics thread are just that. A work in progress. I will only release when it's offically ready. And I'm sure it doesn't include unauthorized work. If you ask I'll remove your work from the tileset at once.

That is also the reason I've been contacting various of the older Freeciv scenario artists. I just want to use some of their work , not all of it. Without their permission I couldn't use anything of their stuff at all. If I'm not able to contact them, I won't use their work. Yes, it is a shame but it certainly isn't my intention to post someone else 's work under the GPL. It certainly isn't my intention either to shovel everything someone made into the GPL.

As for the credits, it is my full intention to to credit everyone 's work. All 59, down to the last unit. The reason I've removed everyone's tag, including my own. Is because at the outset I used the original Hires* set as a starting point.
That one didn't include tags. But it did list the authors in the tileset (right bottom row) and also in the units.spec with their full names.
Using the Hires set as a template I also removed the pink and purple backgrounds of the Civ2 units because I thought Freeciv couldn't do two transparent background colours (you need two colours) to make tags appear. In the meantime I've discovered that with the isometric tiles the underside of the "diamond" will dissappear ingame. So that means tags can be included.

I also have a huge workfile that includes everyone's units complete with all the tags. So it is to easy to put everyone's tag back where it belongs. Although it could be difficult with some of the units that have multiple authors


Finally two things. While we're discussing the implications of the GPL licence right here. Derived works or original. Copyright is all around us. The Civ2 graphics we use in our tilesets, even a smidgeon, are copyrighted. They come with a far stronger and more limiting license then the GPL does. Don't forget to see the forest from the trees.

Most importantly, don't forget this is a hobby. Go ahead and enjoy yourselves. Throughout the years I've enjoyed playing many of the Civ2 scenarios out there. And I've learned making them can be just as fun. I hope they will still be there in the future.







* The Hires tileset also suffers from a flaw. Notice the roman Phalanx in the top row, fourth from the left? That's one of Erwan' s units. Look closely and you'll see the top of the spear is missing. That makes it a derivative of his work. However I don't see a mention in the unit.spec. Probably it's just an honest mistake. But if we follow the high road it will have to be removed in the end.

	03-12-2004 22:02									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by CapTVK * The Hires tileset also suffers from a flaw. Notice the roman Phalanx in the top row, fourth from the left? That's one of Erwan' s units. Look closely and you'll see the top of the spear is missing.

To me it looks like the unit fourth from the right also (the legion) isn't as it should be. It looks like it's clipped (down to the left) ?

	03-12-2004 22:26									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth How is not using a license gonna give any protection at all? (other than Copyright which apply automatically, and is not lost if you GPL just to clearify that).

From what I understand on the Creative Commons website, "All Rights Reserved" is the default option, so no license is the safest option.

quote: Originally posted by Harry Tuttle I propose a compromise. As was stated, artwork that can be used for Freeciv does not necessarily have to be GPL.

quote: Originally posted by St Leo - therefore, you can distribute it under any number of terms, including GPL.

Except terms that contradict the GPL, like requiring attribution or restricting it to noncommercial use only.

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth The GPL is not for everyone, but saying the original creator don't benefit from it is not correct. Everyone profits from the "pool" of GPL software. The larger it gets the higher an asset it becomes for everyone.

I agree completely, for software (which the GPL is really designed for), because it is largely a group effort. Code can be used and re-used, and probably most importantly, code isn't very personal, nor is it art. Multimedia is an entirely different matter.

I'd have no problems writing a big chunk of code and letting everyone do with it as they please. I would have a problem if I were to make a beatiful drawing and everyone would do with it as they pleased.

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth You can choose whatever you like, I don't care. However, I want GPL to be presented correctly, and I responded to your ill-informed scaremongering. (...)

I don't think Curt meant to say that anyone was cursing. I think that he was trying to point out that there was nothing to turn into an argument. So any possible future cursing/debating (as possibly implied by the term "argument") would be pointless.
And I don't think he was attacking the GPL per se, just speaking in general terms and from possibly bad personal experience.


And just to be clear, I never doubted your good intentions, CapTVK (or anyone else).

	03-12-2004 22:36									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Thanks Mercator,

Atually I'm glad you've brought the point up. It's a thorny issue and I hope this debate can clear up misconceptions and also present some different viewpoints (from coders, players and artists) . Then we may reach a shared agreement.


I'm a bit pressed for time right now. I'll be back tomorrow.

In the meantime, keep things civilized

	03-12-2004 22:40									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Mercator From what I understand on the Creative Commons website, "All Rights Reserved" is the default option, so no license is the safest option.

I see now that it could be seen as a retorical question, but I was wondering Yes, "All rights reserved" is probably the "default". Sounds reasonable.

quote: Originally posted by Mercator I agree completely, for software (which the GPL is really designed for), because it is largely a group effort. Code can be used and re-used, and probably most importantly, code isn't very personal, nor is it art. Multimedia is an entirely different matter. I'd have no problems writing a big chunk of code and letting everyone do with it as they please. I would have a problem if I were to make a beatiful drawing and everyone would do with it as they pleased.

I can see that people can have a different attitude towards art. The GPL is actually gonna be revised next year, to clear up some areas that has come to attention over the years. It will be int. to see what they come up with.

quote: Originally posted by Mercator I don't think Curt meant to say that anyone was cursing. I think that he was trying to point out that there was nothing to turn into an argument. So any possible future cursing/debating (as possibly implied by the term "argument") would be pointless. And I don't think he was attacking the GPL per se, just speaking in general terms and from possibly bad personal experience.

Probably, and I might have been overreacting. I do however think he used some phrases that I think was uncalled for.

quote: Originally posted by Mercator And just to be clear, I never doubted your good intentions, CapTVK (or anyone else).

Indeed, I didn't doubt that either.

	03-12-2004 22:41									#26
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by CapTVK * The Hires tileset also suffers from a flaw. Notice the roman Phalanx in the top row, fourth from the left? That's one of Erwan' s units. Look closely and you'll see the top of the spear is missing. That makes it a derivative of his work. However I don't see a mention in the unit.spec. Probably it's just an honest mistake. But if we follow the high road it will have to be removed in the end.

Well, if you're going to start like that...

The 3rd unit on the first row is almost definitely a derivative of a Micrprose unit (from one of the FW scenarios). The catapult graphic is the mangonel graphic from an early beta of Age of Kings, turned into a Civ2 graphic by Harlan. The Knight, Crusader and Chariot quite probably use horses lifted from Civ2 graphics. As for all other HiRes units, are you really sure that they were all adapted from photos in the public domain?

	03-12-2004 23:29									#27
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth You can choose whatever you like, I don't care. However, I want GPL to be presented correctly, and I responded to your ill-informed scaremongering.

Mr Sothoth.
I made a comment, as is my right as a poster here, and as a free man.
I made not vindictive word at Freeciv, for which I had only praise.

So please do not lash out with personal attacks and unfair comments at anyone who dares speak.

We don't need the peace of mind of the forum distrubed so.

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth For the rest: - As far as I know I haven't cursed in any of my posts in this thread

It's a figure of speech...Nothing more.

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth - I don't know why you go on about web sign-up as I haven't said anything about that whatsoever

I was using it as an example of web-pitfalls that can lead to you losing control of your own work.

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth - It's you who called them crazy, I responded to your use of the term. They are probably more aware of these issues than most and don't need any "protection". It would rather be the other way around.

I said it was crazy to give away the rights to your work.

So kindly get your facts correct before protesting my posts.

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth - And lastly I do take objection to you calling the GPL for robbery. Educate yourself on the matter before making such strong accusations

Ahem! - This is unfair.
Allow me to reinforce my post.

Since you chose to not even read it.

quote: Sharing is great... When it is sharing, and not highway robbery. (I don't mean Freeciv here!)

I still stick to my stance.
You attack me for having an opinion - Good for you.

But if you guys seek to have any graphic people doing stuff for Freeciv;
You are going about it in a very strange way...

	03-12-2004 23:41									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well - I apologise for getting heated here.
I merely don't like being talked to like a half-wit.

So, for the third time, no malice is intended to the Freeciv chaps.

I just have my opinion about people getting their work sold from under them.

I hate to see unhappy speech in poly CIV2 forums,
So let us say no more on the matter, and move on.

	03-12-2004 23:42									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by curtsibling *snip* So please do not lash out with personal attacks and unfair comments at anyone who dares speak. Ahem! - This is unfair. Allow me to reinforce my post. Since you chose not even read it. *snip* I still stick to my stance. You attack me for having an opinion - Good for you.

I have made no personal attacks, if you construe them as such I apologize. Neither did I deny you your right to have an opinion. The topic here was the GPL and as you made a follow up on a comment made by Mercator on just that topic I don't think it's strange that I saw your post in that light.

I agree that giving away the rights to your work like your web sign-ups example is nothing I would like to do either, but that is not comparable to the GPL license.

So if I'm guilty of anything it was for thinking you were refering to the topic, and not for attacking you for having an opinion.

	03-12-2004 23:47									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I too have apologised for anything that may have caused offence.

We both have definite views on the subject, and continued debate will not change it.

I guess people will do what they feel best for themselves.

Any CIV stuff I happen to make is public domain. (with permission)
I will protect my own artwork however.

Nothing more to say on the topic.