Just as a side note, since this isn't known enough: If you're going to use the open source version of Qt, you're not required to use the GPL and only the GPL. Trolltech grants a broad license exception that allows the use of about two dozen other open source licenses, among them all the popular ones, such as LGPL, BSD, X11, Eclipse, Apache, Mozilla.
See: http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception/
One thing they (Games Workship) did do, however, was promote the movie project in their own official magazine publication, the "White Dwarf". While not being a written permission, it does serve to illustrate how hypocritical GW's turn-around is on this one.
> The links don't provide any details on what "go ahead" means, and there was no link to this copyright law they are talking about, so maybe I'm wrong. But it looks like these people spent years on a project without getting any clearance in writing. It sucks you had an unwritten agreement, but this will teach you to do your research.
One thing they (Games Workship) did do, however, was promote the movie project in their own official magazine publication, the "White Dwarf". While not being a written permission, it does serve to illustrate how hypocritical GW's turn-around is on this one.
Indeed, this has implications for European open source developers as well. The FSF Europe's mechanic for dealing with this problem is called the "Fiduciary License Agreement" (FLA) which works by giving $central_body a license that allows it to e.g. relicense code contributions made by the copyright owner.
Press coverage on the FLA: http://www.linux.com/articles/60129
Slashdot Mirror
Just as a side note, since this isn't known enough: If you're going to use the open source version of Qt, you're not required to use the GPL and only the GPL. Trolltech grants a broad license exception that allows the use of about two dozen other open source licenses, among them all the popular ones, such as LGPL, BSD, X11, Eclipse, Apache, Mozilla. See: http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception/
One thing they (Games Workship) did do, however, was promote the movie project in their own official magazine publication, the "White Dwarf". While not being a written permission, it does serve to illustrate how hypocritical GW's turn-around is on this one.
> The links don't provide any details on what "go ahead" means, and there was no link to this copyright law they are talking about, so maybe I'm wrong. But it looks like these people spent years on a project without getting any clearance in writing. It sucks you had an unwritten agreement, but this will teach you to do your research. One thing they (Games Workship) did do, however, was promote the movie project in their own official magazine publication, the "White Dwarf". While not being a written permission, it does serve to illustrate how hypocritical GW's turn-around is on this one.
Indeed, this has implications for European open source developers as well. The FSF Europe's mechanic for dealing with this problem is called the "Fiduciary License Agreement" (FLA) which works by giving $central_body a license that allows it to e.g. relicense code contributions made by the copyright owner. Press coverage on the FLA: http://www.linux.com/articles/60129