Why because it has conditions? Could you elaborate?

Edit:

Conditions that are extremely easy to comply with and and much less strict than the EULA of 99%+ of all games and other software out there.

Edit2:

What burdensome requirements? Lawyers debate the meaning of any and all legal documents in existence, including all the EULAs of proprietary software.

Ya, I should have the first time around.

For starters, it's interpretation is overly difficult, even by people that have experience with legal matters. Most of the interpretations have some controversy and it seems like there are few occasions where it's interpretation is straightforward and agreeable. This thread doesn't really seem to touch on some of the most controversial issues.

I've worked on bits of GPL code before that was distributed as a part of a commercial product. The interpretation of the license and compliance was unbelievably burdensome on us and the entire organization. What do we release and not release? How do we protect our own IP under the terms of the license? How do we release it and to who? What about linking?

If I want to use open source code, I should be required to abide by the terms of the license, I don't dispute that. The reason I hate using the GPL is because it seems like no matter who you ask, you are going to get a different opinion. As a developer, I shouldn't have to bend over backwards to find a resolution to complex legal issues that people more informed than I can't even agree on. It seems like a lot of people are left attempting to make the best effort they can at compliance, but are still left scratching their heads at the end of the day about whether or not they are following the terms of the license.

I also think it's a fundamental difference of opinion in the purpose of FOSS. I think people should be able to do whatever they want with the code without having to contribute their work back to the project or provide it to the customer. To me this is "freedom", but the GPL's interpretation of freedom is a bit different and, imo, overly restrictive.

Some info most missed:

"Warsow’s codebase is free and open source software, distributed under the terms of the GPL; it is built upon Qfusion, an advanced modification of the Quake II engine. The artwork and other media are licensed under the proprietary Warsow Content License, which allows the contributors of this media to use the work in a "personal portfolio" but not in any other game. Because of this Warsow is freeware, not free software or open source software."

info from here

Let's judge everybody on basis of one post, always fun! I know this one's a month old, but ... Seriously.

Restrictive as in how?

The easiest way to remember your rights and obligations under the GPL is that if you incorporate GPL code into your software, then you have to share the entirety of that program when distributing it, binaries or not, and licensees have the right to freely distribute that software. The GPL v3's major revision was that any necessary patent rights were also granted within this context. That's all there is to it.

Unlike the claims of certain people who seem to want all the fruits of this work for free without any consequences, there is no obligation to provide the software 'for free'. When they start complaining about how the GPL is 'restrictive' or 'viral', what they really mean is that they are pissed that the code is not simply public domain and theirs to use as they will.

You can charge for derivative software, although the GPL is not really suitable for traditional commercial software. It works better for companies who provide services related to that software, and id software have done very well with releasing the older id tech engines under the GPL while keeping the assets under a classic and strictly per-user licence model.

In short, if you don't want to abide by the terms of the GPL, you can always use some solution under a proprietary licence (assuming there is nothing under an even more liberal licence like the zlib or BSD licence), but you'll often find that the terms are even more crippling.

What people tend to forget is that GPL != LGPL. The LGPL actually means 'lesser' but it's often incorrectly (but also appropriately) called the library GPL, because it allows GPL libraries to be (dynamically) linked to by code licensed under GPL-incompatible terms.

Where it does get sticky is with static linking, but that's another thing altogether.
All this is saying is that code and assets are under two different licences. That's nothing unusual in itself. Publication of assets under a proprietary licence with code and binaries under a free licence is not a common thing, but there's nothing untoward about it. As I say, id does it with id tech 1-4, and a number of derivative projects, including Warsow and Urban Terror, do the same, not necessarily because they want to, but because they have to. I would wager that, given the opportunity, they probably would have released the engine without source code as well.

Many fully open source/free software game projects will release their assets either under the GPL or some kind of Creative Commons licence, like Battle of Wesnoth, Frogotto and Neverball.

GOG's obligation to release the source code, which is licensed under the GPL, doesn't concern the assets, which is licensed under the Warsow Content License.

Hate the GPL?!? You do realize that the whole point of the GPL (and other FOSS licenses, for that matter) are to give you, the end user, rights that you would not otherwise have under copyright law?

You want to hate a license? How about the 42 page EULA for iOS, or the ever-changing EULA for Microsoft Windows? Try actually reading those some time if you want to find a piece of legalese to hate!

BTW, the requirements really aren't all that burdensome. Entire industries are built on GPLed code and have no problems meeting their legal obligations. Bought a TV lately? A car? A home router? An Android phone? The odds are virtually certain that you have at least one and very probably several devices in your house right now that are running GPLed code.

Those of us who work in IT see GPLed code in active production every single day. Amazon, Google, Yahoo, the DoD, the list of companies and other organizations that use GPLed code goes on and on and on and on...

For a real thrill (if you're a hardcore geek like me, that is), take a look at this:

http://www.top500.org/statistics/overtime/

Make sure you click on "Show all." Looks like GPLed code is doing just fine when it comes to REAL computing, eh? :-)

To return to my original question (BTW, I still don't see an official comment from GoG. Do they read these forums?), where can an end user find the source code for applications that have only been released as GPL? In the specific case of Warsow, this includes the pieces that Kristian identified earlier.

Again, TIA for any and all answers.

You seem to equate my dislike of the GPL with disliking all open source licenses, which is a pretty broad leap. There are plenty of other open source licenses out there that provide more freedom than the GPL and aren't easily misinterpreted. I do not believe that the version of "freedom" the GPL provides is really freedom, especially when compared to BSD or other licenses.

I also never said that projects that use the GPL are somehow inferior. I've used a lot of GPL code in my own projects, both personal and commercial, I have no problem with most of the projects themselves. I just find the interpretation and use of the GPL to be overly burdensome when compared to other licenses.

They do link to the Warsaw webpage. As long as that page is up and running, I would imagine it is enough. But if it every goes down, I think they are required to put it up there.