I know this will start drama (especially as a notable previous contributor to the project), but as of commit 7a3d7d082e9d821855ae70d284c7fb7a861dab6b I consider SuperTux Advance to be nonfree.

EDIT: And LLM afflicted too! See: https://berkeley.edu.pl/objects/1018235c-241e-4610-a9ea-5ec0ca03c8a1 (and the reply I made to that post)

I'm not sure what the underlying goal and philosophy was, but I will state clearly and publicly that this is a bad idea.

Especially since it has been AGPLv3, I do not consider this to be particularly necessary, and in my opinion it is incompatible too.

Nobody wants more licensing drama, and I'm getting tired of it. At best, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Additionally, it raises questions about the licensing status of the assets in Brux GDK itself since the test suite contains the Midi spritesheet (I would know this - I wrote the test suite code) and is AGPLv3.

At best, KLPL is unenforceable because you can get the files from older commits or the engine assets under a different license. At worst, it puts into question the licensing status of everything involved.

@hexaheximal KLPL does explicitly state:

KLC may have previously been distributed under other licenses, including Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA). Those licenses remain fully in effect for copies received under their terms.

but even if it didn’t, neither CC-BY-SA nor AGPLv3 can be revoked so KLPL couldn’t affect the licensing of older versions.

@noisytoot My point precisely. This just doesn't make any sense.

@hexaheximal I wonder if it is AI-generated. Appendix A certainly reads like it is, and what other license has a Closing Note? Also this bit is weird:

To the extent permitted by applicable law, This License shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of [Jurisdiction], without regard to conflict of law principles.

and section 2.2 seems to be granting a license to use derivative works which violate the license, which seems legally questionable. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think this has been reviewed by one.

@hexaheximal nobody would actually write "in accordance with the laws of [Jurisdiction]" in their license, so I think it's a clear indicator of being AI-generated

@noisytoot Oh no.

Oh shit.

You're right.

It's LLM-tainted too, as if it wasn't already problematic enough...

@noisytoot That means it hasn't even been *reviewed* either.

We had vibe coding, now get ready for... vibe licensing