richard, we can do that too...
on the internet, everyone is omniscient..

The license of a program used to create a map drawing (or, in fact, anything) does not at all under any circumstances "force" itself on the created work. You can release your work under any license you please, including keeping all rights to it, or releasing it into public domain (in countries that permit it; otherwise, use WTFPL or similar license).

I am not a lawyer, I speak based on common sense, personal experience and some work as a Wikipedia administrator: as far as I know, you can not be prosecuted for viewing a copyrighted work (such as a map) that someone else reproduced without permission. To put it simply, that would be quite idiotic; I won't even bother coming up with examples. The one who reproduced it, however, could be sued - but as I have been cited already, nobody in his right mind would care.

Maps can be copyrighted, and some map authors or publishers even deliberately introduce small errors into their maps to be able to find and sue copyright infringers (I could look up some proof on this, if you wish). Not all Warlight maps are copyrightable, though; you can't copyright shapes such as a square or hexagon.

All maps on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons (same thing, actually) are available under free licenses. Adding a link to such map page in your description is usually sufficient to fulfill license requirements; you could also (additionally or instead) provide information about map author(s) and the license itself, and everything should be fine. There exist kind-of-free licenses which disallow derivative works (such as Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license, CC-BY-ND), but they are very rarely used on Wikimedia projects.

Warlight maps which have no license information could possibly be copyright infringements. If this inconveniences you morally ;), don't play on them, or use Map feedback function to ask map creator about license status. (Note, though, that it's not possible to change the description of a released map.)

----

Did I answer all of your still unanswered questions? :)

Richard Sharpe wrote:
|> Otherwise it would be like us debating the physics inherent in the big bang theory or the LHC at CERN.

Even if nobody here is an expert (which is not necessarily a valid assumption; for all I know there might be a copyright lawyer playing WL), the result of a discussion could still be useful; the guidelines for map making could be changed (such as requiring map makers to include source / license information) or Fizzer could be worried enough to decide to consult a lawyer.

Matma Rex wrote:
|> you can not be prosecuted for viewing a copyrighted work (such as a map) that someone else reproduced without permission

I'm terribly sorry, but I have to disagree with you there: if someone downloads a film or tv show episode (a copyrighted work, reproduced by someone else without permission) they themselves are very much subject to prosecution (well, in most countries, not in the Netherlands, where we have a special exception; the details of which aren't relevant here, so I'll skip the full explanation). I'll admit it's highly unlikely they'll get prosecuted (associations such as the RIAA and MPAA are much more likely to go after the uploaders), but at least in theory, they are prosecutable.
Someone downloading a file with a misleading name (let's say a file called "Ubuntu-12.04.iso", which actually contains the latest episode of The Big Bang Theory) *should* not be prosecutable (but given the current flood of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA proposals I'm afraid someone like that actually getting prosecuted would still fall under "weirder things have happened" :( ), but your statement is definitely not valid for someone downloading a file called "TheBigBangTheory-s5e14.avi" (maybe even if it actually contains an Ubuntu install image?? but definitely if it contains the advertised content) could in theory be in trouble.

SGV_STH wrote:
|> I think that what Matma Rex said in an eariler topic might help out here
|> |> If the map was released into public domain, you can do anything you want with it, copy and modify, and even monetize (if you found a way to do it ;) ).

Ehm actually, using a map on WL probably counts as "monetizing", since there is a possibility to **buy** membership. If something is licensed as non-commercial, I really doubt Google could use it (as basis for) one of their holiday-logo's: even though they don't charge users (and there's no advertisements on the main search page), they still do make money on their web search service, so anything promoting or even merely adorning their site could (but keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer) count as commercial use.

RvW, yeah, but that depends on interpretation: whether this is you intentionally breaking copyright law, or just being shown something that was copied off from somewhere earlier.

You don't get sued when a friend asks you to listen to a song he downloaded from the Internet. You don't get sued when your aunt shows you vacation photos which happen to include something she illegally snapped in a museum. (Well, at least I hope so...)