2008/9/19 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, I am upset this is the second time someone has made unfounded and
> unresearched claims on this list regarding "extra clauses" being applied to
> our software, and a good example why I'd prefer if Debian not have anything
> to do with our project.
T
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> That is your belief. I could release content (textures and level
> geometry) that I have been creating for my game right now, and it could
> be used by at least 6 other game engines, and a variety of utility
> programs.
The
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> "Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking
> > about here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers
> > in the "IP" (sic) f
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking
> about here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers
> in the "IP" (sic) field.
Such a "field" doesn't really exist. I think the only relevant field
for this discussion is co
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In order to release it under the GPL (at least if you want people
> > to be able to distribute it), you have to release the uncompressed
> > audio or video
>
> Says who? You
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:35 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking about
> here is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers in the
> "IP" (sic) field.
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jamie Jones
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In order to release it under the GPL (at least if you want people to be
> able to distribute it), you have to release the uncompressed audio or video
Says who? You have to distribute the it in a form that's ready for
e
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
> There is absolutely no issue licensing game data under the (L/A)GPL. In
> fact, this is required for at least the GPLv3 in that the license applies to
> the "whole of the work, and all it's parts, regardless of how they are
> packaged". Thus if the game co
IANAL and am not presenting a legal opinion. What I am speaking about here
is based on numerous conversations I've had with lawyers in the "IP" (sic)
field.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> How do you define an entire work?
I've been told repeatedly that
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:34:03AM -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> > checkout from the revision control system.
> GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):
>
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
> Clearly you cannot escape the terms of the GPL by splitting the work into
> different packages, otherwise everyone would do this.
There are many cases where you can, actually.
game+working sample data, with more complex data distributed
separately is a clas
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:34 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring
> users to
> checkout from the revision control system.
>
> GPLv3 sectio
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 16:15 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/9/18 Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> > checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the
> > data will be in non-free and the game in con
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:38:38 +1000 Jamie Jones wrote:
[...]
> 2) We may not wish the data to be as "free" as the code.
> Perhaps we want to have our names attributed to our work on a prominent
> place (eg it could help with our careers to be known for "awesome game
> data" in "cool opensource game
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> checkout from the revision control system.
GPLv3 section 5c (note bold text):
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
L
2008/9/18 Jamie Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Multiple tar.gz files could probably fix that - or requiring users to
> checkout from the revision control system. That may very well mean the
> data will be in non-free and the game in contrib, but that is not unlike
> GFDL licensed documentation that
(Please note I'm only subscribed to debian-devel-games)
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 15:43 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> This might be really relevant for us, the Games Team, as there
> seem to
> be quite a lo
Barry deFreese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While working on liquidwar for the games team I came across some code
> that appears to be under the Frontier Artistic License. It seems that
> there are packages using it. Here is a copy of the text:
[...]
> 4. You may distribute the programs of this
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:36:12PM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote:
> 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
> provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed script,
> suite, or file stating how and when you changed that script, suite,
> or file, and provided tha
"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure at Linux.conf.au this year in the games miniconf,
> > someone from CC Australia was recomending the use of CC (-SA i think)
> > for game data, and said it didnt confli
20 matches
Mail list logo
