The following is a bit of a late reply, but I is probably still worth
making.
"Matthijs Kooijman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In short, I think it is better to avoid the matter alltogether and not try
to
make section 3 apply to this work. This automatically happ
(Please CC me on replies)
Hi Ben,
> > As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a
> > game. These are mostly created through 3D modeling. For this, mostly
> > Blender files are rendered into the pcx bitmap format. These pcx
> > files are sometimes manually post processed, an
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea.
I should note that this is not just defining terms in the license
grant; it's either a null operation, or it adds a class things to
object code which was no
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Defining terms in the license grant] is a bad idea. If GPLv2 does
> not actually mean this, you are adding an additional restriction. If
> it does, you're just wasting time. Neither option is terribly
> useful.
I see it differently. What the GPLv2 mean
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re-license the entire work under the GPLv2, and clarify your grant
> of license to use the simple definition of terms from the GPLv3.
> This would have a license grant something like:
>
> This work is free
Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've had a better look at the GPL and it does seem quite suitable.
Thanks for progressing with this, and reporting your further thoughts
and questions.
> As some background, the works we are licensing are graphics for a
> game. These are mostly cr
Hi all,
> There's no real reason why the GPL itself would not be suitable. In
> fact, in most cases, it's what you actually want, because having the
> prefered form of modification for the images and audio avaiable is the
> best thing to help make minor changes and bug fixes to artwork and/or
> au
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:52:08 -0400 Arc Riley wrote:
> Did you check the source code to see if any additional clauses were added to
> the AGPLv3 before making this claim? Apparently not, and neither did
> Francesco
> Poli a little over a year ago when he made similar accusations based on text
> o
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
"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
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 conflict with the GPL.
>
I too have heard people
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:21 +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/9/17 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 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 par
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 lot of games that have a different license for the engine
> and the game data, and the combination of GPL and CC-by-sa seems to be
> getting
2008/9/17 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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
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 code or any dependencies (ie, the engine) are
li
Hi Walter,
> Dual license your work under GPL and whatever you like. Then there
> are no DFSG-freedom issues, and you can fix whatever problems you
> think exist in the GPL. It also simplifies things if we can treat the
> whole game+data as being under a single license.
This seems to say that yo
Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> on the risk of touching a delicate subject, I'm looking for a license to put
> on some artistic content. In particular, the OpenTTD [1] game currently
> requires the use of non-free content to work. There is a project started to
> create f
Hi all,
on the risk of touching a delicate subject, I'm looking for a license to put
on some artistic content. In particular, the OpenTTD [1] game currently
requires the use of non-free content to work. There is a project started to
create free content, so the game as a whole can be made completel
34 matches
Mail list logo
