- I think you might have answered this elsewhere (but my brain hurts at the moment as I'm sick, so I'll ask again), am I correct that "If your OXP contains models, textures or scripts wholly or primarily copied from Oolite" would mean physical inclusion (as in files) rather than referencing (like_ship or other plist keys or scripts calling trunk scripts/textures/models for example).
Yep, in the OE thread. Specifically, like_ship, and using scripting guidelines & suggestions found on the wiki and board, including the api and .plist structures does not constitute copy as such.
Of course I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe that's what Ahruman said previously.
A general clarification here: nobody in the comoonity is going to start waving lawyers about (you there! Put down Littlebear at once!). Precise details of law aren’t actually the most important thing. What matters in practical terms is that a license grant is an explicit statement of intent
For instance, if you use a license that doesn’t permit derivative works, and someone tries to determine how far they can go while not quite being derivative, then it’s clear that person is acting in bad faith; whether they would “get away with it” in court is little more than a thought experiment. Likewise, if you use a license that does permit derivative works, and your OXP ends up orphaned and buggy, there’s no ethical concern in someone else releasing a fixed version.
One reason I keep suggesting Creative Commons licenses is that they’re a quite flexible set of licenses which use a simple set of concepts. It’s far easier to reason about statements of intent when they consist of a few basic building blocks, like “attribution” and “noncommercial”, than it is to compare the dozens of open source licenses
. Using a plethora of different licenses also introduces a risk of conflicting licenses, where it would be possible to use aspects of OXP A or OXP B, but not both, because of some silly unintentional detail.