Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-06 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi,

On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 10:36:03PM +0200, Zoot Zoot wrote:
 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?

Adding restriction in wrong way cause problem as others pointed out.

CC-BY-SA has:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse
you or your use of the work).

Let's not touch this particular text but add text to do right
attribution.

You specify that the software distributed needs to display your web site
in prominent position.  If it is box, outer and front side.  If the
sales is done via web, in the prominent place of the web page listing
this software.  

Then at your web site, you have prominent FREE DOWNLOAD icon.  No
discrimination problem with Debian this way.

Oh, notifying ebay may be good idea.   I do not know how ebay respond
but this product sales is clearly deceptive.

Regards,

Osamu



--
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/20120906143710.GA19941@goofy.localdomain



Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-02 Thread Josue Abarca
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 10:36:03PM +0200, Zoot Zoot wrote:
 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.
...
 Thank you.

Hello Zoot Zoot, some of my friends are happy users of 0 A.D. thanks
for making it Free Software :).

Please consider another approach to try to prevent this problem, the
way that, AFAIK, most of other Free Software does:

State clearly, in your website, the things that you want to say to the
users, including those that maybe can buy the software from third
parties. Most of the people, before buying something, will do a web
search.

IMHO trying to fix this problem using copyright, only imposes more
restrictions on your target audience, this by example, could impose
new restrictions to Debian DVD sellers, and the evil people could
find a new way to do evil things to their customers.

(Also as gwolf stated imposes new restrictions and compatibility
problems to Free Software Developers)

IANAL

Cheers o/,

-- 
Josué M. Abarca S.
Vos mereces Software Libre.
PGP key 4096R/70D8FB2A 2009-06-17
Huella de clave = B3ED 4984 F65A 9AE0 6511  DAF4 756B EB4B 70D8 FB2A


-- 
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/20120902132556.GR4642@localhost



Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Francesco Poli
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


pgpV2lTH9kEw5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Zoot Zoot
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

2012-09-01 Thread Simon Chopin
Quoting Zoot Zoot (2012-09-01 22:36:03)
 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.
The 0 A.D. website tells me that it is released under the GPL, in which
case the distributors must provide the source code and a copy of the
license. If they don't, they are in copyright infringement.

Cheers,

Simon


--
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/20120901232955.5383.95183@mithrandir



Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Gunnar Wolf
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.

 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.

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. 


-- 
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/20120901235740.gd5...@gwolf.org



Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Jeremy Bicha
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


-- 
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/CAAajCMbFOz-Rc82xAMEK2Kh5LXxwKMna5cSfvqW=ff2wkmf...@mail.gmail.com



Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Zoot Zoot
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

2012-09-01 Thread Zoot Zoot
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

2012-09-01 Thread Paul Wise
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



Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Zoot Zoot wrote:

 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:

Sounds like you need to contact eBay's fraud department about vendors
not acting in good faith?

-- 
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/caktje6epazop-f941luz-ewfjg727h76k3ogxb975rfccat...@mail.gmail.com



Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Zoot Zoot
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




Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Ben Finney
(Any chance you could use more believable name in your From field?)

Zoot Zoot zootzootzootz...@gmail.com writes:

 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.

Copyright has a limited scope (though the trend in recent years is to
massively increase this scope). The recipient only needs a license for
actions reserved to the copyright holder. The license can discuss other
actions, but the recipient is not bound to terms for those actions if
copyright doesn't cover them.

I think a description of a copy of a work for sale is outside the scope
of copyright on the work. So you will probably have to use other
remedies for that – such as the eBay feedback mechanism about the item
or vendor.


As for this work (the game “0 AD”), the GPL has a provision (§5.d) that,
once the work is actually executed by someone, a copyright notice
presented to the user must not be removed:

5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
[…]

d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work
need not make them do so.

The term “Appropriate Legal Notices” is defined (§0):

An interactive user interface displays Appropriate Legal Notices
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

So it seems you can add an Appropriate Legal Notice to the interactive
user interface, as a way of making the provenance of the work properly
discoverable by the recipient.

-- 
 \ “I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono |
  `\   album; no rhyme or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and |
_o__)  then it's over.” —Ian Wolff |
Ben Finney


-- 
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/87harh9pnb@benfinney.id.au



Re: Attribution with CC-BY-SA 3.0

2012-09-01 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Zoot Zoot wrote:

 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.

I can't see much difference between what Debian, Debian CD sellers and
these eBay sellers are doing.

Neither states that is an in-development version. Neither mention that
it is full of bugs. The eBay folks are mentioning (unimplemented)
features but Debian do not mention the feature list at all. The eBay
features list seems like it is copied from the 0AD site (maybe you
need to fix your site and then eBay sellers would copy your
now-correct description instead). The people selling Debian CDs that I
sampled aren't telling folks that they can get Debian or 0AD online
for free.

http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/0ad
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/0-A-D-Historical-RTS-Real-Time-Strategy-Role-Playing-Strategy-War-Game-/170835202067?pt=UK_PC_Video_Games_Video_Games_JShash=item27c6925013
http://www.wildfiregames.com/0ad/
http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/
https://shop.linuxit.com.au/?manufacturers_id=10
http://www.lsl.com.au/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=debian
http://www.jbox.ca/debian/
http://www.thelinuxstore.ca/index.php?main_page=indexcPath=41_52

-- 
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/CAKTje6FSyhwNBETZAOeDwT9uD964yjZVd=A+oKzx=reymtw...@mail.gmail.com