When you use an existing work, that work's license may limit the licenses you can choose from for a complete work you create that includes that work. In the case of LGPL, you don't have a lot of options. Based on the more permissive licenses you've been trying, LGPL is probably your best option.
Make sure you update the terms of the LICENSE.txt file in your source code to match.
If it's very important to you that at least some of the work be available under more permissive terms, I can explain some options about licensing the components that are wholly originally yours separately, but the simplest option is just using LGPL for everything.
My plan is to use the license as outlined at opensource.org, using the Minetest Game license file as an example. I will include this license.txt with my game in the root directory. Is this what I should do, or should I license differently?
The game is licensed under LGPL. Even my Github repo detects the copyright in the license.txt, so I think that means that my code is properly copyrighted, right?
What changes, exactly, are needed for me to release this? I'm still interested in having this up on CDB (but if it doesn't fit the guidelines, period, then that's fine with me).
The way I understand the package completion policy, merely abandoning a game's development does not imply it is "complete" for purposes of qualifying. The decision to unlist the package was also based on its very short lifespan before abandonment.
If you want the package to be on CDB, please continue development, or else the best way to distribute it may be just hosting it on GitHub or something.
the unlicense is not a compatable license with the lgpl, which is what minetest game is under
I gave it an MIT license, which is compatible.
again, this contains lgpl code, MIT is not compatable to cover everything
Is the solution then to use an LGPL license? I'm pretty new to copyright so you might need to give me a few pointers.
When you use an existing work, that work's license may limit the licenses you can choose from for a complete work you create that includes that work. In the case of LGPL, you don't have a lot of options. Based on the more permissive licenses you've been trying, LGPL is probably your best option.
Make sure you update the terms of the LICENSE.txt file in your source code to match.
If it's very important to you that at least some of the work be available under more permissive terms, I can explain some options about licensing the components that are wholly originally yours separately, but the simplest option is just using LGPL for everything.
My plan is to use the license as outlined at opensource.org, using the Minetest Game license file as an example. I will include this license.txt with my game in the root directory. Is this what I should do, or should I license differently?
your project needs to be lgpl for code or higher(your option) if your including code from mtg
The game is licensed under LGPL. Even my Github repo detects the copyright in the license.txt, so I think that means that my code is properly copyrighted, right?
github repo is fine, you need to edit the package from MIT to lgpl to reflect the github. contentdb does not auto sync that
I'm so sorry, I didn't notice it was still set to MIT license! I set it to LGPL-2.1 only, so it should be fine now.
https://content.minetest.net/policy_and_guidance/ 2.2 requires a package to be either complete, or WIP. Since development was abandoned, KSurive is no longer WIP.
It is no longer WIP, correct.
sad.
What changes, exactly, are needed for me to release this? I'm still interested in having this up on CDB (but if it doesn't fit the guidelines, period, then that's fine with me).
This mod is complete, so it should be fine to release, right?
source links to a 404
The way I understand the package completion policy, merely abandoning a game's development does not imply it is "complete" for purposes of qualifying. The decision to unlist the package was also based on its very short lifespan before abandonment.
If you want the package to be on CDB, please continue development, or else the best way to distribute it may be just hosting it on GitHub or something.
Reply to wsor: I privated the repo, didn't think it had to be public.
Reply to Warr: Okay, I'll recontinue the mod.
Since it sounds like you'll be continuing development, I believe we can approve this.
Yay! Thanks!