Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone Licensing
On 11/16/06, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mean this one? Yes. Eidos, the game publisher, has been informed of our interpretation of the license. --- What about the last paragraph? Shall we strip it or shall we do it? As I still hope that we will get a good answer from Alex after Christmas, I'd simply strip it. But then this leaves it really really uncertain in the legal part IMO... Good point. Yes, the last paragraph should be omitted. And yes, it makes it more legally uncertain, I agree, but I think better than simply stating it is uncertain. Anyway, just make a decision on this, and I'll be happy with whatever you pick. We can wait for a while for an answer from Alex before we send something more formal to Eidos. I do not think we are in a hurry. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone Licensing
Dennis Schridde schreef: Am Montag, 13. November 2006 20:27 schrieb Dennis Schridde: Updates on Warzone Licensing. As you can read in the forwarded mail Virgil is still in touch with Alex McLean and I am optimistic that there will be good results for us. As we probably don't want to wait with the 2.0.5 release till February (even though it was delayed for lng allready), I think it is best to get some readme's and license files written, which say that we are in touch with Alex and working on getting the clear statement from him that everything released on 06.12.2004 in that file is GPLed Per meant on IRC that it would probably be better to not say anything about that in the readme/license for now, but give it as a present when it happens that we get the statement. Sounds reasonable so far, question is what do we want to tell instead? Some distros were unsure whether to include the data or not due to the legaly unclear state, so it probably won't help if we say we distribute it under the GPL even though we can't be sure it is, would it? Do we want to inform them of our doings in this case or just wait till we get a response from Alex? (And hope we get it at all, otherwise we are in no clearer position as before, besides the fact that we know we distributed something as GPL which till then is not.) --Dennis PS: Sorry Christian that I forgot to write this earlier and you allready worked out a proposal. :( I think we should inform everyone that the current legal state of the data is unclear. Simply because this is the truth. We should not claim it is legal to distribute it under GPL while we aren't sure that it is. -- Giel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone Licensing
Dennis Schridde schreef: Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 10:37 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: Dennis Schridde schreef: Am Montag, 13. November 2006 20:27 schrieb Dennis Schridde: Updates on Warzone Licensing. As you can read in the forwarded mail Virgil is still in touch with Alex McLean and I am optimistic that there will be good results for us. As we probably don't want to wait with the 2.0.5 release till February (even though it was delayed for lng allready), I think it is best to get some readme's and license files written, which say that we are in touch with Alex and working on getting the clear statement from him that everything released on 06.12.2004 in that file is GPLed Per meant on IRC that it would probably be better to not say anything about that in the readme/license for now, but give it as a present when it happens that we get the statement. Sounds reasonable so far, question is what do we want to tell instead? Some distros were unsure whether to include the data or not due to the legaly unclear state, so it probably won't help if we say we distribute it under the GPL even though we can't be sure it is, would it? Do we want to inform them of our doings in this case or just wait till we get a response from Alex? (And hope we get it at all, otherwise we are in no clearer position as before, besides the fact that we know we distributed something as GPL which till then is not.) --Dennis PS: Sorry Christian that I forgot to write this earlier and you allready worked out a proposal. :( I think we should inform everyone that the current legal state of the data is unclear. Simply because this is the truth. We should not claim it is legal to distribute it under GPL while we aren't sure that it is. So you proposal for the license file? I was at school at the time of writing that mail so didn't had a lot of time. Attached however I have a proposal. If you have any form of (constructive by preference) criticism on it, please do say so. PS My keyboard is dying so there might be some typos in there (especially the b and n characters, independently from case that is). -- Giel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone Licensing
Giel van Schijndel schreef: Dennis Schridde schreef: Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 10:37 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: Dennis Schridde schreef: Am Montag, 13. November 2006 20:27 schrieb Dennis Schridde: Updates on Warzone Licensing. As you can read in the forwarded mail Virgil is still in touch with Alex McLean and I am optimistic that there will be good results for us. As we probably don't want to wait with the 2.0.5 release till February (even though it was delayed for lng allready), I think it is best to get some readme's and license files written, which say that we are in touch with Alex and working on getting the clear statement from him that everything released on 06.12.2004 in that file is GPLed Per meant on IRC that it would probably be better to not say anything about that in the readme/license for now, but give it as a present when it happens that we get the statement. Sounds reasonable so far, question is what do we want to tell instead? Some distros were unsure whether to include the data or not due to the legaly unclear state, so it probably won't help if we say we distribute it under the GPL even though we can't be sure it is, would it? Do we want to inform them of our doings in this case or just wait till we get a response from Alex? (And hope we get it at all, otherwise we are in no clearer position as before, besides the fact that we know we distributed something as GPL which till then is not.) --Dennis PS: Sorry Christian that I forgot to write this earlier and you allready worked out a proposal. :( I think we should inform everyone that the current legal state of the data is unclear. Simply because this is the truth. We should not claim it is legal to distribute it under GPL while we aren't sure that it is. So you proposal for the license file? I was at school at the time of writing that mail so didn't had a lot of time. Attached however I have a proposal. If you have any form of (constructive by preference) criticism on it, please do say so. PS My keyboard is dying so there might be some typos in there (especially the b and n characters, independently from case that is). -- Giel Ahum, I forgot to attach the file: here it is. -- Giel The source code of Warzone 2100 is released and distriuted under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License (see [GPL-filename-here] for details). note: The original release of Warzone 2100 explicitly states that the sources are released under the GPL. The data files however are mentioned in the document releasing the sources under GPL, it however does not explicitly states that the data files are released under the same conditions. Thus this leaves the legal state of these uncertain. It is however generally assumed that the intention of Pumkin Studios (the original developers) is to place both under GPL conditions. The Warzone2100 Resurrection Project is currently working on receiving clarity regarding this subject. Original readme document: [Insert here] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone Licensing
Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 16:50 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 10:37 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: So you proposal for the license file? I was at school at the time of writing that mail so didn't had a lot of time. Attached however I have a proposal. If you have any form of (constructive by preference) criticism on it, please do say so. PS My keyboard is dying so there might be some typos in there (especially the b and n characters, independently from case that is). -- Giel Ahum, I forgot to attach the file: here it is. -- Giel license.txt The source code of Warzone 2100 is released and distriuted under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License (see [GPL-filename-here] for details). note: The original release of Warzone 2100 explicitly states that the sources are released under the GPL. The data files however are mentioned in the document releasing the sources under GPL, it however does not explicitly states that the data files are released under the same conditions. Thus this leaves the legal state of these uncertain. It is however generally assumed that the intention of Pumkin Studios (the original developers) is to place both under GPL conditions. The Warzone2100 Resurrection Project is currently working on receiving clarity regarding this subject. Per: What do you think? Is that ok? I am unsure... On one hand it seems sensible and the only logical ending. On the other one it nearly promises something which might take a long while to come true... Besides that: The text sounds good so far, even though I'd shorten it a bit in the beginning if you don't mind. --Dennis pgphjfcOKBz5o.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone Licensing
On 11/15/06, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Per: What do you think? Is that ok? I am unsure... On one hand it seems sensible and the only logical ending. On the other one it nearly promises something which might take a long while to come true... I still think the text I wrote is the best one, although I must admit to be biased ;-) As I said on IRC, as things stand now, we should not tell the rest of the world that the license is being worked on. This means that people who might distribute it, or rmight want to work on it, will wait, possibly forever, instead of taking it for what it is. To simply say that the license is uncertain would do the same. We should spell out the current situation a little bit more, but not create any hopes that may turn out to be false. It is better to positively surprise than to disappoint. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone Licensing
On Monday, 13 November 2006 at 20:27, Dennis Schridde wrote: Is someone volunteering to write that? I hope I will attach my proposal. I think that includes everything relevant, while keeping things short and to the point. -- BOFH excuse #186: permission denied Both source code and data files of Warzone 2100 are distributed under the terms and conditions of the GPL (see GPL.txt for details). The wording of the readme.txt accompanying the original source release (see below) is ambiguous regarding the data files. On the basis of this readme.txt alone, there is no clear indication of the license of the data files. But the intention of the released archive was to give the community everything they need to further develop the game. To do that, we need to be able to modify the data files and to distribute our modifications. Thus our interpretation of the readme.txt is that both source code and data files are GPL-licensed. Since that might not satisfy everyone, we are (through Frank Lamboy) in contact with Alex McLean to clear the licensing situation. Unfortunately, he seems to be quite busy at the moment, but we hope to get an answer early 2007. Until then, here's a quote by Frank Lamboy about this situation: I don't expect my reassurences over these matters to carry any weight even though they are based on almost 7 years communication with the Creators of WZ2100 (believe me nothing bad is gonna happen over what has been done to date with the source... WZ Creators are VERY happy with all your efforts and their business relationship with their parent company SCi, who own Eidos assets inc. WZ, are excellent. When the source was released they just didn't pay close attention to making any modifications to the GPL BOILERPLATE doc that would more accurately reflect their wishes in the continued development of WZ... that's all there is to it.. There are no draconian motives at play, though a literal interpretation of the boilerplate wording may suggest it to the GPL community watchdogs who would naturally, conservatively, prefer to err on the side of hyper-caution. In Dec. '04 for WZ Creators to just go with the GPL boilerplate was k.i.s.s. and didn't require the additional expense of having an attorney redo the wording of the source distro doc)... (http://wz2100.net/forum/index.php?topic=101.msg465#msg465) - insert original readme ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone Licensing
Am Montag, 13. November 2006 20:27 schrieb Dennis Schridde: Updates on Warzone Licensing. As you can read in the forwarded mail Virgil is still in touch with Alex McLean and I am optimistic that there will be good results for us. As we probably don't want to wait with the 2.0.5 release till February (even though it was delayed for lng allready), I think it is best to get some readme's and license files written, which say that we are in touch with Alex and working on getting the clear statement from him that everything released on 06.12.2004 in that file is GPLed Per meant on IRC that it would probably be better to not say anything about that in the readme/license for now, but give it as a present when it happens that we get the statement. Sounds reasonable so far, question is what do we want to tell instead? Some distros were unsure whether to include the data or not due to the legaly unclear state, so it probably won't help if we say we distribute it under the GPL even though we can't be sure it is, would it? Do we want to inform them of our doings in this case or just wait till we get a response from Alex? (And hope we get it at all, otherwise we are in no clearer position as before, besides the fact that we know we distributed something as GPL which till then is not.) --Dennis PS: Sorry Christian that I forgot to write this earlier and you allready worked out a proposal. :( pgpluxrXE09aS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
