: With an easy solution, that's definitely the way to go. I am still amazed
: that an old game holds such a following to warrant it. However, I would
: caution that if for whatever reason, fileball becomes less feasible (as
: unlikely as that may be), this particular clause should not be used to
: detract scenario developers from making an complete one click download.
: After all, the issue is more about good faith than the letter of the
: contract.
If Fileball goes away, it's still really easy to follow both the letter and the spirit of the license. Web space is plentiful, and HTML links are free. There's no reason not to follow that clause of the license to the letter. I certainly hope the GPL doesn't discourage anyone from making an all-in-one download.
: For one thing, there is no serious courtroom precedence on the matter. In
: spite of the well thought out position of GNU, they offer a biased
: opinion. If (for example) Microsoft one day decided to sue a Marathon
: scenario distributer for not fulfilling that part of the license, the
: judge could rule either more or less strictly than GNU's opinion on what
: constitutes the same source.
Without such precedent, when I am asked for advice on how to interpret the license, I am inclined to refer to that of the license's author itself. Particularly in cases where following such advice is so easy. As you said yourself, the issue is about good faith--personally, I contribute to the project with good faith that those using our work will follow the GPL as the FSF intends it to be followed.
FWIW, I very strongly doubt Microsoft would ever sue someone for GPL violations; it would amount to a validation of the GPL and the very concept of Free software by them. Which isn't to say we don't have any recourse in the event of an egregious violation.
