Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
> Daniel B. Ravicher > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. > New York, NY 10023 > (212) 461-1902 direct > (212) 580-0800 main > (212) 580-0898 fax > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.softwarefreedom.org Just realized he's from America. Let's hope his advice is applicable to Europe as well... -- California is a fine place to live -- if you happen to be an orange. -- Fred Allen ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
OK, I guess we have to dissect this answer a bit... I'll try to explain that legal stuff (and hope I get it right...) > >>> 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)? > > The language itself may not confer an express license, but the conduct > associated therewith may confer an implied license. Further, if you or means: though there was no express license for the data we are implicitly allowed to use it. > others have put the copyright holder on notice of your use and they do > nothing to object to that use, you may also claim laches and equitable > estoppel against them to prevent them from asserting their claims > against you for the use you identified to them. means: In the case of a lawsuit against us we can say "Hey, you _knew_ we were using the data without doing anything against it, so now you can't claim damages (Schadensersatz)". They might still prohibit us from using the data further. (Just generally speaking, not specific on our case.) > >>> 2. Is there a way to legally distribute the game data without further > >>> word from the copyright holders? > > The best course of action is to probably tell your licensees what the > facts are: > > (1) The source code has been licensed under the GPL; > (2) Other aspects of the program have been released for free to the > community under terms that imply the right to modify and redistribute; > (3) Attempts to clarify the licensing of those other portions have been > to no avail because the copyright holder has not responded to express > requests for clarification. > > ... and not draw a legal conclusions. You could include something along > these lines with supporting references in the license file or copyright > notice. So we should make a LICENSE.TXT with that until the situation is solved. > >>> 3. How can we best ensure that the possible legal ambiguity of the > >>> license does not threaten or opens up to lawsuits on the project and > >>> anyone who distributes our builds of the game? > > Attempting to contact the copyright holder in a documented fashion is > one excellent step to take. If you've done a good faith analysis of the > situation and attempted to ensure you are complying with the copyright > holder's wishes, that goes a long way towards mitigating your and your > licensees potential exposure for any legal action. This is very general again, as we are not facing a lawsuit. -- The best you get is an even break. -- Franklin Adams ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
Am Freitag, 6. Oktober 2006 00:53 schrieb Christian Ohm: > On Thursday, 5 October 2006 at 22:08, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2006 21:01 schrieb Christian Vest Hansen: > > > 2006/10/5, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > -- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF > > > > Date: Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2006 18:55 > > > > From: Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > Attempting to contact the copyright holder in *a documented fashion* > > > > is one excellent step to take. > > > > > > Certified snail-mail sounds more documented to me, than do e-mail. > > > > Ok. Any ideas how he means how that should happen? > > > > I interprete it as: > > Send them a mail telling them that you use the Warzone data under these > > assumptions. If they don't answer in a given time then we can say in > > court that they knew about it, but didn't do anything and thus they now > > can't do anything anymore either. > > That still leaves the actual licensing question unanswered, and thus > the distribution of Warzone via gna.org and Linux distributors. Well, if I understood Mr. Ravicher's email correctly he said that we could distribute WZ and say that the license is "as is" and we are allowed to distribute WZ. He said we should also provide the original readme with WZ. And if we inform Eidos of what we are doing and they don't object, then we can claim that they know and thus it is correct as it is. That's how I understood his email, but maybe I am not correct with that. (Language, you know...) > As the source is definitely GPL, we can leave that on gna.org, and put the > data repository on another host (wz2100.net, or Virgil's offer). > > I'm sure Debian will not include Warzone with the current license terms, > and most others probably won't as well (at least the commercial ones, to > protect them from lawsuits; a "well, nobody has complained yet" will not > convince them). Idea: Distribute the sourcecode via official channels and the data via own ones... Like Per proposed or simply as "go there and download this zipfile and put it into your WZ folder" till we have a better solution. > I hope Virgil's effort will succeed, I hope that too. > else we need someone else to > contact. I guess if Virgil gets no answer, contacting Pivotal again is > quite useless. As both Pivotal and Eidos now belong to SCi, we might > contact them. But if they do not ignore us they will probably involve > Pivotal again, so I think we should wait with any further action until > we can be sure Virgil's inquiry was unsuccessful. And as he said, > "Corporate movement when not called to any obvious self-interest is > glacial slow," "as slow as pouring syrup in freezing weather." pgpz9I9Zv7Awd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
On Thursday, 5 October 2006 at 22:08, Dennis Schridde wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2006 21:01 schrieb Christian Vest Hansen: > > 2006/10/5, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > -- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF > > > Date: Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2006 18:55 > > > From: Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > (...) > > > > > Attempting to contact the copyright holder in *a documented fashion* is > > > one excellent step to take. > > > > Certified snail-mail sounds more documented to me, than do e-mail. > Ok. Any ideas how he means how that should happen? > > I interprete it as: > Send them a mail telling them that you use the Warzone data under these > assumptions. If they don't answer in a given time then we can say in court > that they knew about it, but didn't do anything and thus they now can't do > anything anymore either. That still leaves the actual licensing question unanswered, and thus the distribution of Warzone via gna.org and Linux distributors. As the source is definitely GPL, we can leave that on gna.org, and put the data repository on another host (wz2100.net, or Virgil's offer). I'm sure Debian will not include Warzone with the current license terms, and most others probably won't as well (at least the commercial ones, to protect them from lawsuits; a "well, nobody has complained yet" will not convince them). I hope Virgil's effort will succeed, else we need someone else to contact. I guess if Virgil gets no answer, contacting Pivotal again is quite useless. As both Pivotal and Eidos now belong to SCi, we might contact them. But if they do not ignore us they will probably involve Pivotal again, so I think we should wait with any further action until we can be sure Virgil's inquiry was unsuccessful. And as he said, "Corporate movement when not called to any obvious self-interest is glacial slow," "as slow as pouring syrup in freezing weather." -- Old soldiers never die. Young ones do. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2006 21:01 schrieb Christian Vest Hansen: > 2006/10/5, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > -- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- > > > > Subject: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF > > Date: Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2006 18:55 > > From: Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (...) > > > Attempting to contact the copyright holder in *a documented fashion* is > > one excellent step to take. > > Certified snail-mail sounds more documented to me, than do e-mail. Ok. Any ideas how he means how that should happen? I interprete it as: Send them a mail telling them that you use the Warzone data under these assumptions. If they don't answer in a given time then we can say in court that they knew about it, but didn't do anything and thus they now can't do anything anymore either. Did I get that right? I think I have read something similar somewhere... ;) Any idea whom exactly we should write that letter? If I'd send a certified mail incl. advice of delivery to Eidos UK it comes down to this: standard mail europe: 0.70€ certified mail int.:2.05€ advice of delivery int.:1.80€ SUM:4.55€ Not as much as I expected and Eidos Germany is only 15¢ less. (Means I am ok with it.) But that still means that someone native has to write the mail... (Means I'd still be happier if I could write to Eidos Germany, because I'd knew what I write.) --Dennis pgp48WqvBdmte.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2006 20:36 schrieb Fearthecute: > Ehh, > can someone explain me slowly, > why we shouldn't contact Pivotal Games? O_o Rman/Virgil/Frank is doing that... (Without success as it seems.) --Dennis pgpim9C0uWE39.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
2006/10/5, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- Subject: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF Date: Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2006 18:55 From: Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (...) Attempting to contact the copyright holder in *a documented fashion* is one excellent step to take. Certified snail-mail sounds more documented to me, than do e-mail. My 2c. -- "All good software releases were accidents corrected in the next version." ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
Ehh, can someone explain me slowly, why we shouldn't contact Pivotal Games? O_o I didn't get it yet. And the different licensing sounds gool. Source -> GPL Data -> Is/Was free available too, so we distribute it but not under the GPL because the licence status is unknown. etc pp... Dennis Schridde schrieb: > Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2006 12:44 schrieb Dennis Schridde: >> A short interpretation of this letter by me. >> >> ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2006 12:44 schrieb Dennis Schridde: > A short interpretation of this letter by me. > > > Mr. Schridde, > > > > Unfortunately, the Software Freedom Law Center cannot offer to represent > > you in this matter. However, I will try to assist by answering your > > questions in a general sense below. > > > > > Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 23:02 schrieben Sie: > > >>> 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)? > > > > The language itself may not confer an express license, but the conduct > > associated therewith may confer an implied license. Further, if you or > > others have put the copyright holder on notice of your use and they do > > nothing to object to that use, you may also claim laches and equitable > > estoppel against them to prevent them from asserting their claims > > against you for the use you identified to them. > > So a documented notification of the copyright holder (Eidos, s.b.) is > needed. (Shall I ask him whether this can happen via email or should better > be done via certified mail?) > > > >>> 2. Is there a way to legally distribute the game data without further > > >>> word from the copyright holders? > > > > The best course of action is to probably tell your licensees what the > > facts are: > > > > (1) The source code has been licensed under the GPL; > > (2) Other aspects of the program have been released for free to the > > community under terms that imply the right to modify and redistribute; > > (3) Attempts to clarify the licensing of those other portions have been > > to no avail because the copyright holder has not responded to express > > requests for clarification. > > > > ... and not draw a legal conclusions. You could include something along > > these lines with supporting references in the license file or copyright > > notice. > > That sounds similar to the idea to simply use the readme.txt as a license > for the data, doesn't it? > Sounds sensible to me, we just need to setup a text for distribution... > > > >>> 3. How can we best ensure that the possible legal ambiguity of the > > >>> license does not threaten or opens up to lawsuits on the project and > > >>> anyone who distributes our builds of the game? > > > > Attempting to contact the copyright holder in a documented fashion is > > one excellent step to take. If you've done a good faith analysis of the > > situation and attempted to ensure you are complying with the copyright > > holder's wishes, that goes a long way towards mitigating your and your > > licensees potential exposure for any legal action. > > Again he says we should contact the copyright holder. > > > >>> 4. Does it make sense to try to contact Eidos on this matter? > > > > Yes, you should attempt to contact them, as they may very well now be > > the copyright holder since they acquired the original developer. Make > > sure to retain copies of all correspondence you send to or received from > > them. > > Eidos is possibly the copyright holder and we shall contact them for that > matter. PS: Any ideas how he thinks that Eidos should be contacted? (email or certified mail, a simple notification "we are WZR and are using that data" or asking for clarification again) pgpgx0xl9AIzG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
A short interpretation of this letter by me. > Mr. Schridde, > > Unfortunately, the Software Freedom Law Center cannot offer to represent > you in this matter. However, I will try to assist by answering your > questions in a general sense below. > > > Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 23:02 schrieben Sie: > >>> 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)? > > The language itself may not confer an express license, but the conduct > associated therewith may confer an implied license. Further, if you or > others have put the copyright holder on notice of your use and they do > nothing to object to that use, you may also claim laches and equitable > estoppel against them to prevent them from asserting their claims > against you for the use you identified to them. So a documented notification of the copyright holder (Eidos, s.b.) is needed. (Shall I ask him whether this can happen via email or should better be done via certified mail?) > >>> 2. Is there a way to legally distribute the game data without further > >>> word from the copyright holders? > > The best course of action is to probably tell your licensees what the > facts are: > > (1) The source code has been licensed under the GPL; > (2) Other aspects of the program have been released for free to the > community under terms that imply the right to modify and redistribute; > (3) Attempts to clarify the licensing of those other portions have been > to no avail because the copyright holder has not responded to express > requests for clarification. > > ... and not draw a legal conclusions. You could include something along > these lines with supporting references in the license file or copyright > notice. That sounds similar to the idea to simply use the readme.txt as a license for the data, doesn't it? Sounds sensible to me, we just need to setup a text for distribution... > >>> 3. How can we best ensure that the possible legal ambiguity of the > >>> license does not threaten or opens up to lawsuits on the project and > >>> anyone who distributes our builds of the game? > > Attempting to contact the copyright holder in a documented fashion is > one excellent step to take. If you've done a good faith analysis of the > situation and attempted to ensure you are complying with the copyright > holder's wishes, that goes a long way towards mitigating your and your > licensees potential exposure for any legal action. Again he says we should contact the copyright holder. > >>> 4. Does it make sense to try to contact Eidos on this matter? > > Yes, you should attempt to contact them, as they may very well now be > the copyright holder since they acquired the original developer. Make > sure to retain copies of all correspondence you send to or received from > them. Eidos is possibly the copyright holder and we shall contact them for that matter. --Dennis pgph2lqrlpbA1.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- Subject: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF Date: Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2006 18:55 From: Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mr. Schridde, Unfortunately, the Software Freedom Law Center cannot offer to represent you in this matter. However, I will try to assist by answering your questions in a general sense below. > Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 23:02 schrieben Sie: >>> 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)? The language itself may not confer an express license, but the conduct associated therewith may confer an implied license. Further, if you or others have put the copyright holder on notice of your use and they do nothing to object to that use, you may also claim laches and equitable estoppel against them to prevent them from asserting their claims against you for the use you identified to them. >>> 2. Is there a way to legally distribute the game data without further >>> word from the copyright holders? The best course of action is to probably tell your licensees what the facts are: (1) The source code has been licensed under the GPL; (2) Other aspects of the program have been released for free to the community under terms that imply the right to modify and redistribute; (3) Attempts to clarify the licensing of those other portions have been to no avail because the copyright holder has not responded to express requests for clarification. ... and not draw a legal conclusions. You could include something along these lines with supporting references in the license file or copyright notice. >>> 3. How can we best ensure that the possible legal ambiguity of the >>> license does not threaten or opens up to lawsuits on the project and >>> anyone who distributes our builds of the game? Attempting to contact the copyright holder in a documented fashion is one excellent step to take. If you've done a good faith analysis of the situation and attempted to ensure you are complying with the copyright holder's wishes, that goes a long way towards mitigating your and your licensees potential exposure for any legal action. >>> 4. Does it make sense to try to contact Eidos on this matter? Yes, you should attempt to contact them, as they may very well now be the copyright holder since they acquired the original developer. Make sure to retain copies of all correspondence you send to or received from them. >>> I intend to post your replies to our mailing list (warzone-dev@gna.org) >>> to keep the other members updated; if you do not want your answer >>> publicised, please state so clearly. Feel free to do so. Warm regards, Daniel B. Ravicher Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl. New York, NY 10023 (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.softwarefreedom.org -- This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. -- --- pgpvI9uXLMGHr.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF Date: Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 23:15 From: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 23:02 schrieben Sie: > The Software Freedom Law Center has received an email from you sent to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] We look forward to helping you in any way we > can, but before we can do that we need to make sure that you understand > that your email to us does not create an attorney-client relationship > with us and any information you send us will not be considered > confidential or privileged. If you understand that, just reply to this > message by keeping the text of this paragraph and adding "Understood" > and we will respond to your email shortly. However, if your message > contains any information that you would like to be considered > confidential or privileged (in other words, you do not want it to be > considered public information), please respond to this message with > "Delete my message" or just "Delete." We understand that this procedure > may seem burdensome, but it is required by law in order to ensure your > rights and the rights of our clients are protected Understood. > Dennis Schridde wrote: > > 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 of 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 th
Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- Subject: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF Date: Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 22:52 From: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 of 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... * (With FMV he refers to Full Motion Video.) The archive was put together by Alex McLean (as far as we 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 no restrictions" after that)? Parts of the game mechanics are implemented using a scripting language, with script files loaded and interpreted by the game code written in C; those scripts are in the data directory, but, depending on the point of view, they could be seen as source as well. What is legaly correct? The release was intended as a present to the fan community, so we believe that there was no intention of keeping anything closed, except what was necessary because of third party rights. There were third party rig
