Christian Ohm found quite some issues with my current approach.
I'll sum them up here. (What may appear as if being quoted is _not_!)

> Eidos Germany may not be responsible and thus have to forward it.
Maybe true, but I couldn't find addresses of Eidos Europe anywhere.

> Eidos has been taken over. And people like Mr. Kemp, who were involved in
> releasing the GPL version, are not be there anymore.
Doesn't matter as the assumption is that Eidos still holds the copyright and 
thus is the one we need to talk to.

> Email may not be the ideal medium for this as it may get lost and we have no
> prof that it arrived at all. A certified mail may be better suited for this.
Yes, it probably would be. I will think about this.

> Is it important who holds the copyright? I would be more interested in the
> license than in the copyright.
It is, as only the copyright holder can give legaly binding answers.
Also the GPL requires correct copyright notices.

> There is a difference between the US american copyright and the
> german "Urheberrecht". Thus the legal context of a mail to Eidos Germany
> maybe completely different from one to Eidos USA.
I didn't know that. Perhaps it is better if an american writes to Eidos USA, 

> Why do you ask for the copyright 2 times? To differ between the copyright of
> the game and the copyright on the data of the game?
Yes. Because it is possible that different people hold it.

> You need to say that the copyright on the _original_ game belongs to Eidos.
> The copyright on contributions to the GPL version belongs to seperate
> people!
Game is meant as the idea and story of the game, not as the sourcecode or 

> It could be dangerous to ask them about their interpratation of the license!
> They shall not interprete but clarify. If they can't then we don't need any
> more assumptions!
If Eidos owns the copyright, then what they interprete is legaly binding. At 
least that's the plan.

> "We assume our interpretation of the _release_ to be correct."
> Not release but license!
Not exactly. The release must be seen as a whole with all the included data 
and the license.

> It may not be legaly correct to tell them that we will continue to work as
> we assumed the license to be till they tell us something different. 
At least in US law that seems to be a common practice.
If there are doubts if this is possible in German law, then it must be written 
by an US american to Eidos USA.

> > In this case we have the legal prove that they didn't clarify it
> > and thus accepted our continued development under our assumptions.
> How do you want to prof that the email arrived? Use a certified mail
> instead. 
Sounds better, yes.

> You must provide more background information, like what was included in that
> archive. Otherwise they have to search themselves and thus may not answer at
> all.
Yes, a bit more info and a link to 3ddownloads for the archive may be good.
But if the plan is correct, then it is their fault if they don't answer.

> What if Eidos starts to assume things themselves?
Then what they say is legaly binding in case they are also holding the 

If what they say doesn't fit our ideas we still have the sourcecode to
create an own game. (Obviously with our own story and data, as the Warzone
story and data belongs to them.)

In the end it comes to the one big problem:
Either we get a lawyer for german law to ensure us that our approach is 
legally ok,
Or we find some US american to write it according to US american law to Eidos 


Attachment: pgpTFsLZaNmul.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Warzone-dev mailing list

Reply via email to