On Monday, 25 September 2006 at 14:47, Per Inge Mathisen wrote:
> On 9/25/06, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >(*) Except FMV and music..."
> >*******************************************************************************
> You should add a note here explaining what FMV means (Full Motion Video).
> >The archive was put together by Alex McLean (as far as I know)
> ("as far as we know")

Or clarify that by askin Virgil?

> >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)?
> "... and no restrictions"
> >Parts of the game are implemented in a scripting language. Is that source 
> >or
> >data?
> "... in a scripting language, with script files loaded and interpreted
> by the game code written in C."

Integrate that into my changed paragraph?

> >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).
> "The release was intended as a present to the fan community, so we
> believe that there was no intention of keeping anything closed, except
> that which was necessary because of third party rights. There were
> third party rights parts of the code (movie codec, sound and

... third party rights _to_ parts of the code ... ?

> networking), and to the music sound track, both of which were omitted.
> The movie files were also omitted, although we believe this was
> because they thought we could not play them (legally or otherwise)
> without the source to the movie codec."
> (The sound track on the CD is from a published album, IIRC.)
> >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.)
> Replace by: "They have not answered any past inquiries; they have been
> bought by ..."
> (ie drop the questions here, and remove the paranthesis around the last 
> fact)
> >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).
> It is irrelevant what the fan community have stated. I suggest the
> entire paragraph above is dropped. Your own musings about what you
> think is probable is all beside the point.
> >2. Is there a way to distribute the game data without further word of the
> >copyright holders?
> "2. Is there a way to legally distribute the game data without further
> word from 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?
> Of course it is. (Unless you are German, in which case you only
> transfer commercial rights, but I digress.) I suggest instead: "3. How
> can we best ensure that the possible legal ambiguity of the license
> does not threaten or opens up to lawsuits the project and anyone who
> distributes our builds of the game?"
> >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?
> Drop these. If they think of anything, they will mention it. We have
> contacted Eidos, as you stated above. We should not ask them to
> instruct us, as they may not want to get into that position. Getting
> some general advice, and getting legal advice on a very specific
> matter and being told what to do, is, I think, two very different
> matters for them.
> >Thanks for your help, and if you have any further questions, don't 
> >hesitate to
> >contact me.
> You should give them your phone number too.
> >I, along with a very active Warzone 2100 community, await any response
> >you are able to offer
> ... and are thankful for any advice you can provide.
> Otherwise, great!

Good points otherwise. Let's concentrate our questions on what
possibilities we have if we can't get any further word from
Alex/whoever, as Virgil said he'll ask again (perhaps mention that as

Mathematicians take it to the limit.

Warzone-dev mailing list

Reply via email to