Re: Is the old trademark suggestion still reasonable?
On 17/04/11 16:36, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:05:44 +0100 Arand Nash wrote: Hello. I'm shallowly involved with a game project which I hope someday might make it into Debian. You mean http://www.redeclipse.net/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/redeclipse/ don't you? Indeed Impressive screenshots, I wonder which is the license for the game data... Also, I seem to remember a number of licensing issues for the Cube engine: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00093.html and the thread that followed (also with some messages that broke the thread). Have those issues been solved in the meanwhile? Partly solved I would say, currently for Red Eclipse (and from how I interpret the license) there are only a few bits (sounds[in progress upstream], font, logo, name) which is non-DFSG. My plan is to attempt to, for the next minor release of the game, try to fit it into non-free and work with upstream to maybe, hopefully, take care of these bits and make it into main eventually. The majority of game data is CC-BY/CC-BY-SA (disagreement noted). [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00122.html I personally think that that trademark license *draft* is still a good starting point for a possible trademark license which doesn't cause DFSG troubles. Two big warnings, though: A. that trademark license was a *draft*, not a final ready-to-be-adopted text; I was waiting for additional input before going on, but that input has never arrived: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00154.html Noted, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't considered the plague or so, now when it has had some time to sit. B. that trademark license was being drafted as a proposed fix for the non-free Debian logos; the issue with Debian logos was later (partially) fixed in a different way: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00048.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00063.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00066.html The announcement was then done on a DPN issue: http://www.debian.org/News/project/2008/15/ One additional warning is that I was personally involved in the drafting of that proposed trademark license: as a consequence, I may of course be a little biased in my opinion on it... Let's wait for the answers of other debian-legal regulars! Yes I'm aware of this, but the way I understand things is that using the Expat/MIT straight off (as in the case of the swirl) ends up with a very weak trademark protection. And using the restrictive with-debian license would end up non-free. Or am I mistaken here? -- aran -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dab11a1.6060...@gmail.com
Is the old trademark suggestion still reasonable?
Hello. I'm shallowly involved with a game project which I hope someday might make it into Debian. Currently they use a rather non-free trademark/logo license. I read an interesting suggestion in the archives here[1] which I figured might be worth proposing as an alternative to the main developers. My adapted version would read something like:[2] Is this still a suggestion for a trademark license which you would still consider reasonably "OK" and fit for DFSG? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00122.html [2] The name "Red Eclipse" and the works know as the Red Eclipse logos (hereafter individually "the Mark") are trademarks, rights to which are held by the Red Eclipse Team (hereafter "the Mark Holder"), representing the codebase and data for the Red Eclipse game, and any work closely based on it. The Mark Holder hereby licenses you to use the Mark, or a modified version thereof, in any way and for any purpose, with the exception of the following: You are not authorized to use the Mark, or a modified version thereof, in commerce in any way that is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive (1) as to the affiliation, connection, or association of you or your product, service or other commercial activity with the Mark Holder, or (2) as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of your product, service or other commercial activity by the Mark Holder If the Mark qualifies as an original work of authorship under copyright law, then the Mark Holder separately grants you a copyright license, but that is not a trademark license and should not be construed as one. -//- Copyright (c) 2010 Red Eclipse Team This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. -- arand -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4daae5a8.1090...@gmail.com
Fwd: Re: game: redeclipse
Sometimes... My email client... Original Message Subject: Re: game: redeclipse Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:04:54 + From: Arand Nash To: Paul Wise On 22/03/11 00:03, Paul Wise wrote: Ugh, yet another game engine fork with other embedded code copies. Doesn't look like the license gives us permission to recompress the data and the redistribute that, "... redistribute or recompress...". I would suggest you ask them to fix that since it seems pointless to be able to recompress but not redistribute the result. That whole section you quote is really in conflict with the claimed zlib and CC-BY-SA licenses. Do they want it to be "open source" or not? Removing it might put the packages in main as long as the license document you pointed to is accurate on the "all content ... is "open source" friendly" point. I very much doubt that there is not a bit of non-free code hiding somewhere. At the very least for it to go into main, you will need to remove the logo: "[CC-BY-SA] ... does not apply to the Red Eclipse logo", which is similar to what happened with the Firefox/Iceweasel case. The trademark bit is redundant, IIRC trademark law does not restrict the activities allowed by that section. The "... redistribute or recompress..." is most definitely a wording error, this should be easily fixed. There are indeed several non-free items, ranging from CC-*-NC to All Rights Reserved (a particular wincompat.h item, which is unnecessary, but removing would mean modifying...) The "all content...open source friendly" mention is clearly non-true, so I am simply ignoring that. The way I am interpreting the license: If you want to redistribute the data which would otherwise be undistributable, you would need to do so under the "gratis-ware" clause and include everything unchanged. The client/server/enet code would be *possible* to distribute separately under a Zlib/Expat license provided the name "Red Eclipse" or the logo is not used. As of now I guess the data would need to be given special permission in order to be redistributed in a packaged version (which I presume is hard to do without changing it, regardless of what the license says about "recompress...deb"). This I have already been told is OK, by upstream. Basically that I as their "For the sake of argument" "release manager" Would be allowed to release my packaging (i.e. modified version) under the same terms as that of the upstream version. I guess that this might at least fulfill requirements for non-free? Am I correct in any of these points? - arand -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d881256@gmail.com
game: redeclipse
Hello, I am currently working on packaging the game "Red Eclipse": http://www.redeclipse.net/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/redeclipse/ (Getting it into Debian would be nice _if_ issues are resolved...) The license is causing me headaches: http://redeclipse.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/redeclipse/license.txt Specifically: Limited rights are granted to redistribute or recompress the entire distribution using different archival formats suitable for your OS (zip/tgz/deb/dmg), any changes beyond that require explicit permission from the developers. And: Use of any logos, trademarks, or other advertising/promotional material for Red Eclipse are free to use without consent, when used in conjunction with a Red Eclipse article, comment, review, advertisement, or redistribution of the game; regardless of the media featured in said material. Use for any other reason is strictly prohibited without explicit permission from the developers. (...I have already nagged about some points which have changed in the license... still barely better than bad though) What kind of modifications to the license/permissions as a packager would I request from the upstream authors in order for this to at least fit into non-free (preferably contrib/non-free)? sauerbraten and warsow have very similar licenses and are currently split in that way, with data residing in non-free: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/w/warsow-data/current/copyright http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/s/sauerbraten-data/current/copyright - arand -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTikDy1cunFm+wCTo15SLjUXV_4hRQSW5=n25_...@mail.gmail.com
