Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0
Hi, I'm a contributor with the Free Software game project 0 A.D. (package name: 0ad http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/0ad). We've recently found out that someone is sellinghttp://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=0+A.D.+RTScopies of our game on eBay. Since the game is Free Software, we naturally have nothing against someone charging a fee for distributing it. Instead, our concern is that this particular vendor does so in a misleading manner, without stating that the game is a development version, full of bugs and missing many of the features listed on the vendor's page, and that it can be acquired free of cost online. We are worried that this behavior may lead to dissatisfied buyers and ultimately damage the reputation of our project. For this reason, we have discussed adding an attribution clause to our CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed artwork in the game that requires a seller to make any buyers aware that the game can be downloaded for free from our website prior to the purchase. To the best of my knowledge CC-BY-SA 3.0 affords us the ability to add such a clause, and to the best of my knowledge CC-BY-SA 3.0 is compatible with the DFSG. I would like to ask whether you all agree that adding such a clause to a Debian package would be compatible with the DFSG and other relevant guidelines? Thank you.
Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0
The CC-BY-SA 3.0 Commons Deedhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/states that: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. I thought this meant that some equivalent requirement would be written into the full license (the Legal Code), but apparently this is not the case. Unlike the GPL, the Legal Code does however not seem to prevent us from using it together with additional terms. As you point out, that would of course effectively mean that we are making a new license. So I have to modify my original question to this: would a license requirement to warn potential buyers that what they are going to buy may be obtained gratuitously from elsewhere be considered non-free or incompatible with any relevant guidelines? I've read through the DFSG and Software License FAQhttp://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html and as far as I can tell, such a requirement would not fail any of the 'thought experiments' it lists. But again, I am interested to know whether anyone disagrees. Thanks. 2012/9/1 Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 22:36:03 +0200 Zoot Zoot wrote: Hi, Hello, I'm a contributor with the Free Software game project 0 A.D. (package name: 0ad http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/0ad). We've recently found out that someone is sellinghttp://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=0+A.D.+RTScopies of our game on eBay [...] in a misleading manner, [...] For this reason, we have discussed adding an attribution clause to our CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed artwork in the game that requires a seller to make any buyers aware that the game can be downloaded for free from our website prior to the purchase. I am not sure I understand this correctly. Do you mean that you want to add a restriction that requires any seller to warn potential buyers that what they are going to buy may be obtained gratuitously from elsewhere? Where is the part of CC-by-sa-v3.0 that would allow you to add such a restriction (without effectively changing the licensing terms [1])? [1] something that can be done only in agreement with all the copyright holders and that would anyway mean that the license would no longer be CC-by-sa-v3.0 but CC-by-sa-v3.0 + additional restriction... To the best of my knowledge CC-BY-SA 3.0 affords us the ability to add such a clause, I fail to find any relevant part of CC-by-sa-v3.0 that would allow this... Section 4c requires anyone who re-distributes the Work (the eBay seller qualifies as re-distributor) to provide, reasonable to the medium or means [the re-distributor is] utilizing: the name of the Original Author if supplied, and possibly some designated Attribution Parties, the title of the Work if supplied, and to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work. However, Section 4c does not require the re-distributor to provide all these data prior to the act of distributing a copy of the Work, as far as I can tell. and to the best of my knowledge CC-BY-SA 3.0 is compatible with the DFSG. This is something on which I personally disagree with the Debian FTP masters: they claim that CC-by-sa-v3.0 meets the DFSG, while I am convinced that it fails to meet the DFSG. But that's another story [2]... [2] if you are interested to read more details, please see https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html I would like to ask whether you all agree that adding such a clause to a Debian package would be compatible with the DFSG and other relevant guidelines? I personally do not agree, in the sense that I disagree with the FTP masters on the acceptability of CC licenses, and I therefore think that 0ad-data is already unsuitable for Debian (main). Moreover, I don't think that CC-by-sa-v3.0 includes the possibility of adding the restriction that you mentioned. But please note that I am not an official member of the Debian Project (I am just an external contributor) and that I do not speak on behalf of the Debian Project. Thank you. You're welcome. -- 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
Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0
2012/9/2 Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org Zoot Zoot dijo [Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 10:36:03PM +0200]: (...) We've recently found out that someone is selling (...) our concern is that this particular vendor does so in a misleading manner, without stating that the game is a development version, full of bugs and missing many of the features listed on the vendor's page, and that it can be acquired free of cost online. We are worried that this behavior may lead to dissatisfied buyers and ultimately damage the reputation of our project. For this reason, we have discussed adding an attribution clause to our CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed artwork in the game that requires a seller to make any buyers aware that the game can be downloaded for free from our website prior to the purchase. Before adding any texts requiring the user to be informed the version is still incomplete, consider: What if a hypothetical vendor takes your code and completes all of the missing features and fixes all of the bugs, and providing replacement artwork? Requiring such an clause would then make it impossible for such a vendor to use your (otherwise free) code with their work. The idea would not be to require them to inform the user that the version is incomplete, but rather to have them state upfront that the piece of the software that *we* contributed can be acquired free of charge from our website. If at that point the prospective buyer still prefer the vendor's derived (possibly greatly improved) product, that's perfectly fine. All we're concerned about are those cases where the buyer may not realize that they are 'being had' until it's too late. To the best of my knowledge CC-BY-SA 3.0 affords us the ability to add such a clause, and to the best of my knowledge CC-BY-SA 3.0 is compatible with the DFSG. I would like to ask whether you all agree that adding such a clause to a Debian package would be compatible with the DFSG and other relevant guidelines? It is often tempting to add a seemingly simple provision to a licence text. This often results in an incompatible, nonfree license. Try hard not to add that provision - I would expect the decision with such a license to have a rationale similar to the GFDL: We consider it free as long as there are no cover texts or invariant sections. Were you to add a mandatory paragraph to your work's derivations, it would fail in a similar way. I realize it's generally frowned upon when people try to add non-standard license terms. In most cases, I agree it's a bad idea - particularly when it's done for reasons of competitiveness/profitability. In my opinion, it's bit less straightforward when it's the user's interests on the line. Yeah, we can say: screw the user, but it's not something we're happy to do. Of course, bear in mind that debian-legal is _in_no_way_ an official Debian decision body, that role is delegated to the ftp-masters team. Most of the opinions in this list are not even by Debian Developers - But they might be useful for _your_ analysis of the situation. I appreciate it. Is there a process for getting the ftp-masters' opinion (other than potentially having the package removed by trial-and-error)? Thanks.
Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0
I guess there will always be those who don't share your views on whether a given action is unethical or not. In our view, the vendor is not acting in good faith because: - He doesn't state that the software is full of bugs (a few minutes into a singleplayer match, the game becomes nearly unplayable). - He lists in the product description many features which haven't been implemented yet (the description is carbon-copied from our website). - There is no indication of any kind that he is not the original author of the software or that it can be obtained free of cost elsewhere. I'm less interested in the ethical/subjective aspects, though, than the legal aspects. 2012/9/2 Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com On 1 September 2012 16:36, Zoot Zoot zootzootzootz...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm a contributor with the Free Software game project 0 A.D. (package name: 0ad). We've recently found out that someone is selling copies of our game on eBay. Since the game is Free Software, we naturally have nothing against someone charging a fee for distributing it. Instead, our concern is that this particular vendor does so in a misleading manner, without stating that the game is a development version, full of bugs and missing many of the features listed on the vendor's page, and that it can be acquired free of cost online. We are worried that this behavior may lead to dissatisfied buyers and ultimately damage the reputation of our project. In the eBay listings I saw, this was posted at the bottom: Note All products provided on disc are either under a public domain licence or we hold a copyright permission or licence to distriubte the software. This item does not infringe any copyright, trade mark or any other rights or any of eBay's listing policies or spam policies. Items contained on this CD are under the terms of the GNU License, the GNU Lesser General Public Licences (LPGL) or the Mozilla Public Licence As long as they make the source code available to those who ask, I fail to see what they're doing wrong legally or ethically. Jeremy
Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0
I'm unsure how you came to the conclusion that we want to discriminate against ebay.co.uk? As stated repeatedly, we are more than happy for redistributors to charge a fee, including via eBay. 2012/9/2 Paul Wise p...@debian.org Interesting name you have there :) On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Zoot Zoot wrote: We've recently found out that someone is selling copies of our game on eBay. Considering none of them have any bids, I doubt you have anything to worry about. I would suggest that what they are doing is probably exactly the same as what Debian, Debian mirrors and sellers of Debian CD are doing (redistributing 0AD, presumably in compliance with the existing licenses) and if you have a problem with what these folks on eBay are doing then you should have similar issues with Debian itself as well as people selling Debian CDs. Of course if they aren't complying with the existing license (did you check?), then you should be contacting eBay instead of debian-legal. As far as I can tell, what you want to do is discriminate against people distributing 0AD from particular websites (including ebay.co.uk but not including debian.org). This would violate DFSG item 5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups) and possibly DFSG item 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor). I would encourage you to avoid this course of action. http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines I would encourage you to simply add a URL and some text to the website on the game menu, that would probably be more effective anyway. -- 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/caktje6evmacmee0z8fhuhnvnwov-fvjlad98nygkx9v6ct4...@mail.gmail.com
