On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:27 PM Eric Auer <e.a...@jpberlin.de> wrote: > > > Hi! > > I think given that Paku Paku sources are public domain, > there is no problem with the author asking to send a > postcard if you like it. You are free to not send a > postcard, after all. Making a new release without the > "restriction" that the author mentions being glad about > feedback seems unnecessary and I would not condemn the > author for asking for a postcard or trying to "hide" > that wish by doing a new release. >
I'm uncomfortable with the "cardware" license. It actually introduces more questions about the license than if the author had simply declared it as public domain. The full text is: >PAKU PAKU By Jason M. Knight, Paladin Systems North. >Version 1.6 - 9 November, 2011 > >Halted: Graphics Sound Timer - Releasing Memory - Complete >This game is released as "Cardware". If you enjoy it please send a postcard to: > > [address] > >Source Code (C) Jason M Knight and released to the public domain. If you are >going to give something away, lands sake just GIVE IT AWAY!!!. Don't give me >none of that dirty hippy "open source" nonsense! Here's a tip: If someone >starts running their mouth about "Freedom" and then weigh it down with a 35k >licensing agreement placing restrictions on what you can and cannot do with it >by way of loopholes in contract law and legalese nobody but a career lawyer >can decipher... > >Well, does the term "snake oil" ring a bell? I don't mind the mini-rant there about open source licenses. But the clear designation that this is "cardware" indicates the postcard is a kind of registration. It's a condition that says you need to do something if you use the software. Maybe the author meant this as a joke (I compared it in my other email to "beerware" - "if you like it, then buy me a beer sometime" is usually considered a joke) but what if he *really* wants to get postcards from people? If you use the software and don't send a postcard, are you in violation of an implied license agreement? Also: The exit message says the source code is both "copyright" (C) and released into the public domain. You can't have both. If you release something into the public domain, you give up all rights. From the Creative Commons: >The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the >work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to >the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and >neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. > >You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for >commercial purposes, all without asking permission. See Other >Information below. (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) So which is it? Is the software "cardware" (only enforceable if you claim copyright) or is it "public domain"? You can't have both. And unless Jason M. Knight is here to clarify, we can't provide insight to intent. We discussed games long ago and consensus was games are not "canon" or "core" to DOS, so we can add new games when we want, and drop other games at a whim. So I think that's the solution here. Drop PakuPaku from the distribution, and pick another game to add instead. > Regarding Beyond the Titanic: How about just adding > a clarification and a link to the GPL source code > release only to the DOCUMENTATION? If you recompile > it to get rid of the shareware notice, you would have > made a new derivative and become a new author with your > achievement being only to have deleted in-game texts? > > Similar for Super Nova and Word Whiz, of course. I don't believe changing just the documentation will be enough here. The game prints this message, which is precompiled into the game exe: >Please note that Beyond the Titanic is a SHAREWARE game. > >This game has been placed in the public domain for your enjoyment. > >If you like the game the author (Scott Miller) asks that you please >contribute $5 or $10 (your discretion) to him. This minimal payment >will help compensent the author for the year of work that went into >Beyond the Titanic. It will also encourage the author to make new and >better games, like Supernova and Kingdom of Kroz, both of which are >also shareware games recently released. > >This fee also registers the payer for telephone support and clues >Please make checks payable to Scott Miller > >[phone number and address] > >Thanks, enjoy the game... There are several red flags that point to this being a shareware game. The biggest red flag is there on the top line: it says it's shareware. It even puts it in ALL CAPS so you don't miss it. If the sources are indeed under the GNU GPL, as mentioned in the Readme, then someone could recompile the game without that "Shareware" message, and instead print a message that the game is under the GNU GPL. Eric seems to have a lot of time and seems vested in trying to keep these games, so perhaps Eric can do this. But I'm really confused by these statements. The game says "shareware" but it also says "public domain" and asks for a registration fee. But the Readme also indicates GNU GPL. Again, if games are not "canon" or "core" to DOS, so we can add new games when we want, and drop other games at a whim. So I think that's the solution here. Drop Beyond the Titanic, SuperNova, and WordWhiz .. and pick some other games instead. > I suggest to move MAGNETIC to the emulator group. > It shares with that group the property of needing > separately, often not freely, available game data. I agree. Move Magnetic to the Emulators group. That effectively removes it from the distribution anyway per the note on the wiki (http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3/Packages#Emulators) Jim _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
