Page 4 of 4
Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues
Posted: 04 Dec 2006, 02:29
by Chojun
The squabbling over the terms of the game's release has been >:( one of the >:( biggest pet peeves >:( of mine since the >:( release of the game's source.
I'm with coyote, it's driving me batty.
To answer the question for those who are willing to do their homework, please answer me this: How many development projects have been shut down when the redevelopment groups elected to include data not covered by a GPL license? Answer that question and you will see how many reasons there are TO include the data from the original warzone CDs.
Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues
Posted: 04 Dec 2006, 05:34
by lav_coyote25
Chojun wrote:
The squabbling over the terms of the game's release has been >:( one of the >:( biggest pet peeves >:( of mine since the >:( release of the game's source.
I'm with coyote, it's driving me batty.
To answer the question for those who are willing to do their homework, please answer me this: How many development projects have been shut down when the redevelopment groups elected to include data not covered by a GPL license? Answer that question and you will see how many reasons there are TO include the data from the original warzone CDs.
nope - warzone cd data is not included. the data from the source released by pumpkin is the only data to be considered. the rpl files and music and sounds (?) are not part of the gpl and are considered seperately (non-gpl) correct??
and the discussion was/is driving me batty only due to the time being spent doing all that could have been put forward to coding on the game.
;D
Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues
Posted: 04 Dec 2006, 10:46
by xpanthom
cybersphinx wrote:
OK, several things:
First, DON'T change the GPL itself. If you make a changed version of it, you cannot call it GPL anymore. (For the same reason I'd keep the GPL text always in a separate file; I think there was a question on the mailing list about that some time ago.)
To relicense something you need to have the rights the new license grants. So if you want to put something under the GPL, it has to be released under a license that permits _at least_ everything the GPL permits. Example: Something in the Public Domain can be licensed under the GPL. The original work is still licensed as Public Domain, the GPL doesn't change that. But subsequent changes will be GPL only, _not_ Public Domain (unless the author explicitely states otherwise).
Now if we had the rights we need to relicense, there'd be no need to do it. But we do not have those rights, at least not explicitely and unambiguously stated.
You said that explicitely using the good faith approach might not be the best idea. So what do you suggest? We need some kind of justification for distributing the data in the absence of an explicit permission.
I suggest that the justification needed is nothing more than the simple assumption that we do have the right to distribute the data in the absence of any explicit and unambiguous statement otherwise. That's what the whole good faith thing is about. If there's no answer we just have to assume that they agree with our view, that there is no problem and that we can include everything under GPL or, as you said, an equally permissive license, thus removing any doubts as to the wording of the readme.
Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues
Posted: 04 Dec 2006, 17:28
by DevUrandom
But then we would still need to tell them explicitly about our doings, don't we?
I mean we didn't yet really tell that we distribute data we think is GPLed, there were only some proposals for letters and mails, but none got ever sent.
We could of course rely on the fact that Virgil said that he asked Alex McLean for clarification and did not yet recieve an answer...
Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues
Posted: 04 Dec 2006, 22:15
by xpanthom
DevUrandom wrote:
But then we would still need to tell them explicitly about our doings, don't we?
I mean we didn't yet really tell that we distribute data we think is GPLed, there were only some proposals for letters and mails, but none got ever sent.
We could of course rely on the fact that Virgil said that he asked Alex McLean for clarification and did not yet recieve an answer...
You really should send a letter where you officially ask them what the status of the data is. I assumed this had been done already since the disclaimer you have written says "Despite several attempts to get a clarification, we have received no response". You need to have done all you can to find an answer (as far as contacting the other part goes – no legal measures are needed and no lawyers need to be consulted), and if no one reacts on their part, you can in good faith regard the data as GPL:ed and forget about the whole issue. Try sending a letter as soon as possible.
Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues
Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 02:19
by DevUrandom
We couldn't decide on how to write it. But on the WE or slightly earlier I'll have a look on the old proposals and will create a new one, give it for review and then send it. (To Eidos? DE? UK? Or to Pivotal? First one would be prefered of course.
)
Re: Warzone 2100 licensing and copyright issues
Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 12:20
by C01eMaN
DevUrandom wrote:
We couldn't decide on how to write it. But on the WE or slightly earlier I'll have a look on the old proposals and will create a new one, give it for review and then send it. (To Eidos? DE? UK? Or to Pivotal? First one would be prefered of course.
)
you should send it to all of them... you should get at least one reply lol