Two typos. On Monday, 25 September 2006 at 13:37, Christian Ohm wrote: > On Monday, 25 September 2006 at 12:58, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > Revised version to go to the SFLC. > > I removed question 7 (inquiry by the FSF). Is that what you meant, Per? > > Two further points I thought of added. Comments? > > > ------ > > > > Dear Sir or Madam, > > > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Warzone Resurrection Project > > (http://www.wz2100.net/, http://gna.org/projects/warzone/), since we have > > questions regarding the license under which the source and data to the game > > Warzone 2100 were released. (I'll repeat the most important ones at the end > > again.) > > > > The game Warzone 2100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warzone_2100) was > > developed by Pumpkin Studios and published by Eidos in 1999. After ten > > patches to the game, Pumpkin Studios ceased development on Warzone 2100, > > and > > was disbanded by Eidos in early 2000. Pumpkin Studios then reformed into > > Pivotal Games (http://www.pivotalgames.com/). > > > > The fan community produced two further patches. Feeling that they could not > > realize their plans for the game without access to the source code, the > > community started petitioning Pumpkin Studios to release the source code. > > > > On December 6, 2004 Alex McLean, Lead Developer of the game, uploaded an > > archive file to a community member's FTP server. This archive, > > downloadable > > at http://www.3ddownloads.com/liberatedgames/Warzone2100.rar, contains the > > source code to the game and several utilities (as far as they could release > > it), and a copy of the game stripped of only the music (which were CD audio > > tracks in the commercial release) and most of the larger video sequences > > telling the story of the single player campaign. In addition to that, a > > gpl.txt (version 2) and a readme.txt were included. I'll quote the > > readme.txt > > in full here: > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > "Warzone 2100 Source & Data > > > > 1) These source and data files are provided as is with no guarantees. > > > > 2) No assistance or support will be offered or given. > > > > 3) Everything you will require to make a build of the game should be here. > > If > > it isn't, you'll have to improvise(*). > > > > 4) None of us here at Pivotal Games are in a position to be able to offer > > any > > help with making this work. > > > > 5) This source code is released under the terms of the GNU Public License. > > Please be sure to read the entirety of this license but the summary is that > > you're free to do what you want with the source subject to making the full > > source code freely available in the event of the distribution of new > > binaries. > > > > Finally, the primary motivation for this release is for entertainment and > > educational purposes. On the subject of the latter, don't be surprised to > > see > > some pretty gnarly old-school C code in here; the game was a classic but > > large > > areas of the code aren't pretty; OO design and C++ evangelists beware! We > > haven't spent any time cleaning the code or making if pretty - what you see > > is > > what you're getting, warts n' all. > > > > Thankyou to Jonathan Kemp of Eidos Europe for permitting the release. > > Thanks > > also to Frank Lamboy for assistance with the release and for campaigning > > along > > with many many others over the years for the source to be made available. > > The > > correspondence, online petitions and persistence made this possible. We were > > constantly amazed at the community support for Warzone even after all this > > time; it's nice to be able to give something back, assuming you can get it > > to > > compile...;-) > > > > 6th December 2004 > > Alex M - ex Pumpkin Studios (Eidos) > > > > (*) Except FMV and music..." > > ******************************************************************************* > > > > The archive was put together by Alex McLean (as far as I know) without > > spending a lot of time on it, since they were busy with their newer games > > (thus also the refusal of any help or support), they basically just put > > everything together and added the gpl.txt and the readme.txt files. > > > > Now this was a bit unlucky. The readme.txt states in 1) "These source and > > data > > files are provided as is with no guarantees", but 5) says "This source code > > is > > released under the terms of the GNU Public License." As the source archive > > contains both source code and data, this seems to indicate that only the > > source was released under the GPL. This leaves the question about the data. > > Is "as is with no guarantees" some kind of license itself (ie. can we just > > assume an implicit "... and any restrictions" after that)? > > > > Parts of the game are implemented in a scripting language. Is that source > > or > > data? > > Some of the game mechanics are implemented using a scripting language; those > scripts are in the data directory, but, depending on the point of view, > they could be seen as source as well. Can we infer (with any legal > significance) from this muddy distincion of source and data, that
distinction > everything is covered by the GPL? Or from the inclusion of the gpl.txt > and no other kind of license? > > > The release was intended as a present to the fan community, so there was no > > intention of keeping anything closed (except for a few code parts like the > > movie codec, sound and networking which were licensed, and the music and > > movies themselves, probably just for size reasons). But to legally be able > > to > > distribute the whole game, the licensing situation has to be resolved in > > some > > way. Distributions (Debian as a prime example) are quite wary of those > > licensing issues, and need a legally unobjectionable license. > > > > A previous debian-legal discussion > > (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30913.html) > > resulted in "probably everything is GPL, but you have to ask the author to > > be > > sure." Unfortunately, until now, none of our inquiries was answered. Some of > > those were done by Frank Lamboy (mentioned in the readme.txt, who had > > contact > > with Pumpkin Studios since the release of the game and was involved in the > > creation of the ten patches to the game, as well as being cruical to the crucial > > petitions for the source), but even he received no answer. Now he has said > > (http://www.realtimestrategies.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=15347&highlight=#15347) > > that "the legal rights to the WZ Cam content were turned-over by Eidos to > > the > > ex-Pumpkins and they inturn have liberated it". Is this possible? So now we > > have to contact them for any clarifications on the license? Does it make > > sense > > to contact Eidos on that matter? (Not that they'd have answered any past > > inquiries; they have been bought by SCi, and at least Jonathan Kemp isn't > > employed there anymore, so it might be quite difficult to reach someone > > knowledgeable on this matter.) > > > > This is all quite frustrating, since several members of the fan community > > have > > stated that the intention of the release was to free the game, and it's > > probably just an unlucky wording of the readme.txt. I am quite sure there > > will > > be no legal action against us (there's no indication anyone will bother, and > > with the frequent inquiries, they must be quite aware of our project), we > > just > > need a legal clarification for Distributions to be able to include Warzone > > (and for hosting the game on gna.org, though they haven't complained yet). > > As already mentioned, neither Eidos nor Pivotal Games is likely to > respond, so a solution not involving them would be preferrable. > > > Questions: > > > > 1. Does the readme.txt give us any indication on what license the data was > > released under, ie. does "as is with no guarantees" give us any permissions > > (like an implicit "with no restrictions", since they don't mention any)? > > > > 2. Is there a way to distribute the game data without further word of the > > copyright holders? > > > > 3. Is it possible for Eidos to transfer the copyright of the game to the > > Ex-Pumpkin employees to do as they please? > > > > 4. If so, what proof of that is necessary and who has that? > > > > 5. Does it make sense to try to contact Eidos on this matter? > > > > 6. Any other possible solutions? How shall we proceed? > > > > > > I intend to post your replies to our mailing list ([email protected]) to > > keep the other members updated; if you do not want your answer publicised, > > please state so clearly. > > > > Thanks for your help, and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate > > to > > contact me. > > > > I, along with a very active Warzone 2100 community, await any response > > you are able to offer > > Combine the two paragraphs: "If you have any further questions, don't > hesitate to contact me. We, the Warzone 2100 community, await any > response you can offer." Or keep the last sentence, if you like it > better. Oh, "... you are able to offer" ist besser, hab ich falsch übernommen. > > Yours faithfully, > > Dennis Schridde > > For the Warzone Resurrection Project > > _______________________________________________ > Warzone-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev > -- One of the large consolations for experiencing anything unpleasant is the knowledge that one can communicate it. -- Joyce Carol Oates _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
