game screenshots with incompatibly licensed content
Hi, I'm involved in the game Red Eclipse[1], both in Debian and upstream. We (upstream) were recently discussing including art content (in this case a sky texture) licensed under the GPL (v2+ or v3 likely). (Yes, GPL for art content is not a good idea in general, but that's a separate issue.) Red Eclipse currently includes a lot of art content licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and as far as I have understood this license is incompatible with the GPL license? (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa mentions only version 2.0) My impression is that using content under both licenses is fine in the game itself, since it's dynamically used/displayed and not combined otherwise. However, what struck me as a problem here are screenshots, videos, etc. showing the game and the art content in it. A screenshot showing both a CC-BY-SA-3.0 texture and a GPL texture would be a derivative work of both pieces of content, and in that case said screenshot would be undistributable, since the licenses are incompatible. Is this assumption correct? And should combinations of art content with incompatible licenses in software that displays combinations of them, be something to be wary about (when creating screenshots and similar) for this reason? The counsel regarding thumbnails in screenshots.d.n covered screenshots and copyright in some aspects http://wiki.debian.org/ScreenShots#License_of_screenshots however it doesn't (I think) deal directly with this particular question. [1] http://redeclipse.net http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/redeclipse.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/redeclipse-data.html (redeclipse-data is non-free due to much of the art content missing sources (by the same argument that PDF files can be non-free)) Thanks -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1358352944.4535.48.camel@mas
Re: game screenshots with incompatibly licensed content
Martin Erik Werner, 2013-01-16 17:15+0100 (gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal): However, what struck me as a problem here are screenshots, videos, etc. showing the game and the art content in it. A screenshot showing both a CC-BY-SA-3.0 texture and a GPL texture would be a derivative work of both pieces of content, and in that case said screenshot would be undistributable, since the licenses are incompatible. I am not sure. Is it a derivative of the content? I think the question is the same as: is a picture of a monument a derivative of that monument? You may want to ask wikipedians about that. Is it a derivative of the code? I doubt it, I see the code as being the tool that allowed the shooter to generate the image, just as GIMP or a paint brush would be. -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu | `-'Debian Developer irc://irc.oftc.net/Tanguy \_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/kd6mi0$rls$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: game screenshots with incompatibly licensed content
Hi Martin, On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm involved in the game Red Eclipse[1], both in Debian and upstream. We (upstream) were recently discussing including art content (in this case a sky texture) licensed under the GPL (v2+ or v3 likely). (Yes, GPL for art content is not a good idea in general, but that's a separate issue.) Red Eclipse currently includes a lot of art content licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and as far as I have understood this license is incompatible with the GPL license? (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa mentions only version 2.0) First off, IANAL. The general consensus seems to be that CC-BY 3.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, and CC0 are DFSG-compatible and GPL-compatible; see the Debian wiki article on DFSG Licenses [1], and also the fact that the Debian logo itself is licensed under GPLv3+/CC-BY-SA 3.0 [2]. I know that there's probably a few people on -legal who may not see the CC licenses as being DFSG-compatible, but licenses are judged to be DFSG-compliant and suitable for main by ftpmasters, not by debian-legal. ;) My impression is that using content under both licenses is fine in the game itself, since it's dynamically used/displayed and not combined otherwise. However, what struck me as a problem here are screenshots, videos, etc. showing the game and the art content in it. A screenshot showing both a CC-BY-SA-3.0 texture and a GPL texture would be a derivative work of both pieces of content, and in that case said screenshot would be undistributable, since the licenses are incompatible. I've never actually encountered a work that was dual-licensed under both GPL and CC at the same time. Usually it's code being licensed under the GPL and the game's assets licensed under the CC. I'm curious as to whether this is legally allowed too, and the implications of having game assets dual licensed under the GPL CC licenses. Is this assumption correct? And should combinations of art content with incompatible licenses in software that displays combinations of them, be something to be wary about (when creating screenshots and similar) for this reason? The counsel regarding thumbnails in screenshots.d.n covered screenshots and copyright in some aspects http://wiki.debian.org/ScreenShots#License_of_screenshots however it doesn't (I think) deal directly with this particular question. [1] http://redeclipse.net http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/redeclipse.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/redeclipse-data.html (redeclipse-data is non-free due to much of the art content missing sources (by the same argument that PDF files can be non-free)) Regards, Vincent [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Creative_Commons_Attribution_Share-Alike_.28CC-BY-SA.29_v3.0 [2] http://www.debian.org/logos/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caczd_tbizhg9thnyzq-m7i1-hyd4cd0pcgqtj7vbksspuux...@mail.gmail.com
Re: game screenshots with incompatibly licensed content
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:37:54 -0800 Vincent Cheng wrote: Hi Martin, Hi Martin, hi Vincent, On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm involved in the game Red Eclipse[1], both in Debian and upstream. We (upstream) were recently discussing including art content (in this case a sky texture) licensed under the GPL (v2+ or v3 likely). Good, I hope the source (== preferred form for making modifications to the texture itself) is available. (Yes, GPL for art content is not a good idea in general, but that's a separate issue.) I respectfully, but strongly disagree with this misconception. In my own personal opinion, the GNU GPL is a very good idea for artistic works. Red Eclipse currently includes a lot of art content licensed under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and as far as I have understood this license is incompatible with the GPL license? I confirm that CC-by-sa-v3.0 is unfortunately incompatible with the GNU GPL (both v2 and v3). [...] First off, IANAL. I am no lawyer, either. The general consensus seems to be that CC-BY 3.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, and CC0 are DFSG-compatible and GPL-compatible; Please let me clarify. TTBOMK: * CC0 (which is a public domain dedication, rather than a license) meets the DFSG and is GPL-compatible (as long as the source of the work under consideration is available, and barring other issues) * I am personally convinced that CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0 do not meet the DFSG * however, CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0 are currently accepted by Debian ftpmasters as DFSG-compliant, despite my repeated attempts to make them (and several other people) realize that they are wrong... * CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0 are GPL-incompatible (I had never seen anyone claiming that they are compatible! Vincent, if yours is not a typo, I think you somehow misinterpreted something about this topic...) [...] I know that there's probably a few people on -legal who may not see the CC licenses as being DFSG-compatible, I am one of those few, actually. but licenses are judged to be DFSG-compliant and suitable for main by ftpmasters, not by debian-legal. ;) Yes, and, unfortunately, Debian ftpmasters seldom seem to be willing to explain and/or discuss their decisions... :-( My impression is that using content under both licenses is fine in the game itself, since it's dynamically used/displayed and not combined otherwise. However, what struck me as a problem here are screenshots, videos, etc. showing the game and the art content in it. A screenshot showing both a CC-BY-SA-3.0 texture and a GPL texture would be a derivative work of both pieces of content, and in that case said screenshot would be undistributable, since the licenses are incompatible. I've never actually encountered a work that was dual-licensed under both GPL and CC at the same time. As far as I understand the issue at hand, we are not talking about dual-licensing: this term is generally used to describe a disjunctive choice between two alternative licenses, among which the recipient may choose his/her preferred one. Here we are talking about a set of game data, a subset of which is available under the terms of a license, while another subset is under a different license. Usually it's code being licensed under the GPL and the game's assets licensed under the CC. Unfortunately... I definitely prefer the really DFSG-free cases, where both game engine and game data are, for instance, under the GPL. [...] Is this assumption correct? And should combinations of art content with incompatible licenses in software that displays combinations of them, be something to be wary about (when creating screenshots and similar) for this reason? I am not sure. When all the involved licenses are mutually compatible, we definitely have a much simpler and safer scenario. When incompatible licenses are thrown in, I don't know... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpBq3iWT5uCN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: game screenshots with incompatibly licensed content
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: I am not sure. Is it a derivative of the content? I think the question is the same as: is a picture of a monument a derivative of that monument? You may want to ask wikipedians about that. Is it a derivative of the code? I doubt it, I see the code as being the tool that allowed the shooter to generate the image, just as GIMP or a paint brush would be. Actual lawyers seem to say yes to both of those: http://wiki.debian.org/ScreenShots#License_of_screenshots http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00018.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GZ2iv86hA=r5RiG8s_vh+QSsBNLCBgZUO83Aq=hnh...@mail.gmail.com
