Re: Derivative works for songs
On Fri, 11 May 2007 16:05:34 +0100 Matthew Johnson wrote: > For the Frets on Fire arcade game which we are packaging I have found > an original artist willing to licence his works under the MIT licence. That's great news, indeed! :) > Four of the five songs are completely original works; the fifth, > however, whilst being an original composition is inspired by another > song. The email I have from the artist is below; I think that probably > this counts as a derivative work, and hence would need permission from > the original author, but I am not sure. Mmmmh, the author says | The song "Ryu´s theme" is a heavy metal version of the Ryu´s Song in | the famous videogame Street Fighter 2 I really cannot remember the original Ryu's theme (it's been a looong time since I last saw Street Fighter 2 in an arcade, and the audio is usually set pretty low volume in arcades anyway...), hence I'm not qualified to evaluate by myself. However, if the author says that it's a metal version of Ryu's theme, I think he means that the melody is the same, even though the musical genre is changed. *If* this is the case, I would call it a "cover" and hence I'm afraid it qualifies as an adaptation or derivative work of the original soundtrack, which is copyrighted by CAPCOM (most probably). > Obviously debian-legal are not lawyers, but I would appreciate your > opinions. I could just leave it out to be on the safe side, I could > leave it in, hope that the ftp-masters accept it and hope that nothing > comes of it or I could try and get an opinion from someone like SPI. I would leave it out. There's another issue with the remaining four songs, though. Is their source available? I mean: what's the preferred form[1] for making modifications to the songs? Is this form available? I ask it because I'm convinced[2] that DFSG#2 mandates the distribution of source, even for works whose license does not mandate it. Moreover, I see that some of the songs have a comment that claims "Made with Sony ACID Pro 5.0". Are they made with this proprietary sequencer[3]? If this is the case, I'm afraid that those songs Build-Depend on non-free software... [1] this is the most widely accepted definition of source code (it's the one found in the GNU GPL) [2] however, surprisingly enough, release managers don't seem to agree with me for non-programmatic works... [3] http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/products/acidfamily.asp -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp5Ck6QpEEU5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dual licensing
2007/5/11, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi! :) Thanks for your reply :) What do you mean by "announcement clause"?] Do you mean the Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC, hereinafter)? See[1] for more information about the OAC. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html Yep, I mean that one. Not my choice, but upstream's I did't searched hard in the list archive, but I think we can draft an appropriate permission notice, starting from the Perl one... Copyright (c) [] [author list] This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the "4-clause BSD license" which is quoted below. This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License, or the "4-clause BSD license" below for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA The text of the "4-clause BSD license" follows: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. * Neither the name of the copyright holders nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Of course, the usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. Corrections and/or improvements from other debian-legal contributors are welcome! Thanks, I'll suggest it to upstream, it seems good to me :) P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. It's harmful for your own and your correspondents' privacy. See the following links for more details: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001398.php http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ Thanks for the advice, at some point in the future I'll probably switch out to it, but right now It's much better for me to be using a webmail, and yahoo, the other one in which I have an account, works like hell lately. Greetings and thanks, Miry PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me in your answers
Re: Dual licensing
On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:58:57 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote: > Hi, Hi! :) > > If anyone should dual-license a code, lets say like [BSD+announcement > clause] What do you mean by "announcement clause"?] Do you mean the Obnoxious Advertising Clause (OAC, hereinafter)? See[1] for more information about the OAC. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html > and [GPL], what should they better put in the header of the > files? Are there examples of something like this in the archive? I did't searched hard in the list archive, but I think we can draft an appropriate permission notice, starting from the Perl one... Copyright (c) [] [author list] This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the "4-clause BSD license" which is quoted below. This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License, or the "4-clause BSD license" below for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA The text of the "4-clause BSD license" follows: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. * Neither the name of the copyright holders nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Of course, the usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. Corrections and/or improvements from other debian-legal contributors are welcome! > > Thanks a lot, > Miry You're welcome! > > PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, please CC me :) Done. P.S.: I recommend you against the use of Google Gmail. It's harmful for your own and your correspondents' privacy. See the following links for more details: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001398.php http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpoImpVdJtJC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Derivative works for songs
For the Frets on Fire arcade game which we are packaging I have found an original artist willing to licence his works under the MIT licence. Four of the five songs are completely original works; the fifth, however, whilst being an original composition is inspired by another song. The email I have from the artist is below; I think that probably this counts as a derivative work, and hence would need permission from the original author, but I am not sure. Obviously debian-legal are not lawyers, but I would appreciate your opinions. I could just leave it out to be on the safe side, I could leave it in, hope that the ftp-masters accept it and hope that nothing comes of it or I could try and get an opinion from someone like SPI. What do you think is the best way to proceed? Thanks, Matt - Forwarded message from Carlos Viola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Carlos Viola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Sectoid´s Frets on Fire Song Pack Hello Matt, I´ve added the file "License.txt" with que MIT license agreement, and put the license text in the comments of the .ogg files too. I think I´ve well done, if I forget something or I´ve done it wrong please tell me (I´m newbie in license stuff). Well, here is the link: http://www.nivel21.net/personal/sectoid/fretsonfire/Sectoid_Frets_on_Fire_Song_Pack.zip I have a little question: The song "Ryu´s theme" is a heavy metal version of the Ryu´s Song in the famous videogame Street Fighter 2, the song is completely made by me, but it´s a version of another, I don´t know if there is a problem with this. I suppose you need my name or email to put somewhere in the credits, I give you information about me if you need it. Name : Carlos Viola Iborra Musician´s Nickname : Sectoid Nacionality : Spain E-mail: (this) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks a lot, I´m waiting your reply. Sectoid. - End forwarded message - -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Dual licensing
Hi, If anyone should dual-license a code, lets say like [BSD+announcement clause] and [GPL], what should they better put in the header of the files? Are there examples of something like this in the archive? Thanks a lot, Miry PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, please CC me :)
