Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
** Sean Kellog :: On Saturday 27 August 2005 09:08 am, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: That said, it looks to me like this license grants you the right to use those game mechanics, including making and distributiong modified versions of them. If you've spotted someplace in this license which prohibits that kind of thing, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out to me. Since game mechanics are not copyrightable, without a license at all you still have the right to use them. Although the license does grant you the right to use them, it grants you that with conditions. Granting you the right to use something under some conditions, when previously you could use it without conditions, is taking away rights, not granting them. Without violating any of my NDA's with Wizards here, I've got to say that they very much believe that game mechanics are copyrightable. The mechanics are a work of authorship put in a tangible form. There are ways around copyright law, like independent invention, that are not available with patent law... but aside from that, you would need a license if you intend to just copy the d20 system (or create a derivative thereof). If you still think that game mechanics are not copyrightable, can you point me to some authority to support your claim. I'd be interested to see how they are distinguished from things like cookbooks (which are copyrighted). -Sean Ok, without consulting 17USC, I can tell you that in Brasil, game mechanics are uncopyrightable *and* unpatentable: i.e., unprotected at all. Let's see, translation mine: Author's Rights Act (Lei 9610/98), art 8: ''' It won't be object of author's rights protection, as described by this Law: [...] II - schemes, plans or rules for performing mental acts, games, or businesses; [...] ''' Industrial Property (*) Act (Lei 9279/96), art 10: ''' It's not considered an invention or utility model (**): [...] VII - gaming rules; [...] ''' -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 8/27/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 27 August 2005 07:10 pm, Ken Arromdee wrote: Some searching on the Copyright Office's website showed me this: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Hmmm... interesting. Now I wish I still worked at WotC to ask them what they think about this. My gut says their response would go something like this: The Copyright's office isn't a court of law, so they can't just say what is and is not copyrightable. Some fine legal reasoning, to be sure :) Remind you that thinness is an issue, when it comes to how copyright cases are judged. I'm pretty sure that an identical game could be protected by copyright, even if the rules describing that game were completely different in the tangible sense. But similar games? The line between an identical game and a similar game is a judgement call. This is complicated by the fact that WotC expects that individuals will put invest significant creativity of their own into games. They're producing more of a game-making kit than an actual game. They probably have only partial copyright on the actual games that get played. Anyways, they still have some copyright protection, but it's clear from the OGL license FAQ that they recognize that they want more protection than is provided by law. Not that any of their blustering about their copyright protection is necessarily illegal. -- Raul
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:17:16 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote: I happen to agree with you... but there are legal arguments to the countrary that seem to be well excepted among the game industry. But are they well accepted[1] among courts? [1] I think you meant accepted, right? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpK9VaJsYhU8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sunday 28 August 2005 01:16 pm, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:17:16 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote: I happen to agree with you... but there are legal arguments to the countrary that seem to be well excepted among the game industry. But are they well accepted[1] among courts? Well... the Fed Circuit certainly doesn't have a lot of regard for the PTO and its legal opinions. But then again, most times the Supreme Court accepts an appeal from the Fed Circuit it overturns and slaps them down for failing to pay attention to the experts at the PTO. So, it's really any one's guess. [1] I think you meant accepted, right? Curse my awful spelling and spellchecks inability to analyze context :) -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: That said, it looks to me like this license grants you the right to use those game mechanics, including making and distributiong modified versions of them. If you've spotted someplace in this license which prohibits that kind of thing, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out to me. Since game mechanics are not copyrightable, without a license at all you still have the right to use them. Although the license does grant you the right to use them, it grants you that with conditions. Granting you the right to use something under some conditions, when previously you could use it without conditions, is taking away rights, not granting them. I suggest doing a Google groups search for rec.games.frp.dnd, TSR, and game mechanics to see just what was going on at the time. The fact that they've used other licenses in the past, and might not offer all their material under this license does not constitute a flaw in this license. It helps show that your interpretation is rather strained. TSR claimed pretty close to the time of the OGL that game mechanics are copyrightable in ways contrary to copyright law. The OGL's claim to license you to use game mechanics needs to be seen in light of that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Saturday 27 August 2005 09:08 am, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: That said, it looks to me like this license grants you the right to use those game mechanics, including making and distributiong modified versions of them. If you've spotted someplace in this license which prohibits that kind of thing, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out to me. Since game mechanics are not copyrightable, without a license at all you still have the right to use them. Although the license does grant you the right to use them, it grants you that with conditions. Granting you the right to use something under some conditions, when previously you could use it without conditions, is taking away rights, not granting them. Without violating any of my NDA's with Wizards here, I've got to say that they very much believe that game mechanics are copyrightable. The mechanics are a work of authorship put in a tangible form. There are ways around copyright law, like independent invention, that are not available with patent law... but aside from that, you would need a license if you intend to just copy the d20 system (or create a derivative thereof). If you still think that game mechanics are not copyrightable, can you point me to some authority to support your claim. I'd be interested to see how they are distinguished from things like cookbooks (which are copyrighted). -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 11:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: but aside from that, you would need a license if you intend to just copy the d20 system (or create a derivative thereof). I think there is a miscommunication here: I think Ken is not talking about copying the d20 system but, for example, making a game system that is compatible with the d20 system rules. Of course, copying the d20 system, text and all, would clearly be copyright violation, but would using the d20 mechanic, the d20 attributes or some other mechanical aspect of the d20 system be copyright infringement. I would argue not. If you still think that game mechanics are not copyrightable, can you point me to some authority to support your claim. I'd be interested to see how they are distinguished from things like cookbooks (which are copyrighted). AFAIK, there is no pre-existing case law that demonstrates that game mechanics are or are not copyrightable. There have been cases of people being brought to court for making compatible rules (Palladium I believe did this) but I think the case was settled out of court. I would also note that there is a long history in the RPG industry of publishing games with mechanics that are identical if not the same as Dungeons and Dragons. That said, I would argue that, in the same way you cannot copyright mathematical formula, you cannot copyright game mechanics, only their representations. For example, you can copyright cookbooks, but I don't think you can copyright the mere recipes themselves. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Saturday 27 August 2005 11:38 am, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 11:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: but aside from that, you would need a license if you intend to just copy the d20 system (or create a derivative thereof). I think there is a miscommunication here: I think Ken is not talking about copying the d20 system but, for example, making a game system that is compatible with the d20 system rules. Of course, copying the d20 system, text and all, would clearly be copyright violation, but would using the d20 mechanic, the d20 attributes or some other mechanical aspect of the d20 system be copyright infringement. But the text is an embodiment of the expression of the game... and the expression is what copyright law protects. The operative question is whether d20 is a pure idea (and thus only protectable under patent law) or idea/expression, which means it can be covered under both. I'm really uncertain about that... But if it's idea/expression, then using d20 as a reference to create compatible rules violates the copyright in the expression. I would argue not. If you still think that game mechanics are not copyrightable, can you point me to some authority to support your claim. I'd be interested to see how they are distinguished from things like cookbooks (which are copyrighted). AFAIK, there is no pre-existing case law that demonstrates that game mechanics are or are not copyrightable. There have been cases of people being brought to court for making compatible rules (Palladium I believe did this) but I think the case was settled out of court. I would also note that there is a long history in the RPG industry of publishing games with mechanics that are identical if not the same as Dungeons and Dragons. Well, the industry is very much of the opinion that it is copyrightable... so absent case law or clear statutory language to the contrary, I'm having a tough time believing they are not copyrightable. In these instances, industry custom carries a lot of weight. That said, I would argue that, in the same way you cannot copyright mathematical formula, you cannot copyright game mechanics, only their representations. For example, you can copyright cookbooks, but I don't think you can copyright the mere recipes themselves. But a math formula is not original expression, nor is it an original idea (which is why it's not protectable under patent law either). As for recipes, yes, they are copyrighted. The copyright cannot prevent you from using the recipes to prepare delicious foods... but you are not permitted under copyright law to write down someone else's recipe and share it with someone else. Of course, recipes are strange because most food has been around since the dawn of time, so the public domain is so thoroughly infused with recipes that it's near impossible to distinguish original expression from PD expression. As a broader point... the line that distinguishes ideas from expression (and thus copyright law from patent law) is anything but clear. The two are very interwoven, and although there is a RIGHT answer (in the sense that the law should mean one, and only one, thing), the chances that the courts will settle on a single meaning is unlikely. -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 12:01 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: But the text is an embodiment of the expression of the game... Is it? If I take, for example, the experience progression tables from the d20 system I can easily determine that they use a simple mathematical formula. I can extract this formula and then use to it produce my own tables for experience. Clearly, in this case, the text is not the embodiment of the game. I would imagine it depends on what you define a game mechanic to be. Well, the industry is very much of the opinion that it is copyrightable... so absent case law or clear statutory language to the contrary, I'm having a tough time believing they are not copyrightable. In these instances, industry custom carries a lot of weight. I would point you to games such as Tunnels and Trolls, Warhammer FRP and others which closely mimic the rules of Dungeons and Dragons and have been published for years within the industry. The industry has a long history of copying rules from other games and, is in fact reliant on the sharing of game mechanics and concepts (dice pools, alignment, attributes, etc). Wizard's of the Coast do not constitute the industry. But a math formula is not original expression, nor is it an original idea (which is why it's not protectable under patent law either). As for recipes, yes, they are copyrighted. I understood mere lists of ingredients were not copyrightable unless accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.[1] As a broader point... the line that distinguishes ideas from expression (and thus copyright law from patent law) is anything but clear. I would agree there is no clear legal precedent here, one way or the other. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Saturday 27 August 2005 12:27 pm, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 12:01 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: But the text is an embodiment of the expression of the game... Is it? If I take, for example, the experience progression tables from the d20 system I can easily determine that they use a simple mathematical formula. I can extract this formula and then use to it produce my own tables for experience. Clearly, in this case, the text is not the embodiment of the game. I would imagine it depends on what you define a game mechanic to be. Sure, there is an underlying mathmatical formula. And you are free to use any mathmatical formula to create charts to your heart's content. But the DD people chose a particular formula and have created tangible works of authorship with that formula. When you use their underlying formula to create your own new tables, you are copying their expression. It may not be literal copying but my spidy-sense says a court would quickly find substantial similarity. There is this famous copyright's concept called anylitic disection where you take two works, split them into their various components, remove the stuff from the PD, and see what you have left. If there are identical things on both sides of the column, then one of the works is infringing on the other... UNLESS, the infringing author can prove independent creation. Well, the industry is very much of the opinion that it is copyrightable... so absent case law or clear statutory language to the contrary, I'm having a tough time believing they are not copyrightable. In these instances, industry custom carries a lot of weight. I would point you to games such as Tunnels and Trolls, Warhammer FRP and others which closely mimic the rules of Dungeons and Dragons and have been published for years within the industry. The industry has a long history of copying rules from other games and, is in fact reliant on the sharing of game mechanics and concepts (dice pools, alignment, attributes, etc). Wizard's of the Coast do not constitute the industry. You're absolutely right. Microsoft and IBM violate eachother's patents all the time, but I assure you they both believe patents cover software. Just because industry players violate eachother's IP does not mean the industry does not believe the IP exists. Lots of reasons not to sue... and a bit one is the chance the court may totally disagree with the argument and end IP on games all togehter. But for the record, WoTC's market share in the game industry is of good size, and when you remember they are actually owned by Hasbro, it is nearly 80% of the game market. But a math formula is not original expression, nor is it an original idea (which is why it's not protectable under patent law either). As for recipes, yes, they are copyrighted. I understood mere lists of ingredients were not copyrightable unless accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.[1] Sure, a list is just a list. Nothing creative about that. But once you add directions to the list, directions necessary to make the list become a recipie, it is copyrighted. The charts in the DD players books are not just a list of numbers. They are a list of numbers combinded with extensive instructions (wow, extensive... I've been learning them again in preperation for starting a campaing... the stuff is as complicated as case law). One migth even call it substantial literary expression in the form of explanation or directions. As a broader point... the line that distinguishes ideas from expression (and thus copyright law from patent law) is anything but clear. I would agree there is no clear legal precedent here, one way or the other. Yay! Agreement. -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 13:07 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: Sure, there is an underlying mathmatical formula. And you are free to use any mathmatical formula to create charts to your heart's content. But the DD people chose a particular formula and have created tangible works of authorship with that formula. When you use their underlying formula to create your own new tables, you are copying their expression. My point is not that you can cheat copyright by skipping through mathematics, but that the game mechanics - the rules themselves - are not expressive enough. I think there is a distinction between the rules and the description of the rules. One can describe how the rules work and can copyright that description or expression, but can one copyright the underlying concepts and ideas the rules themselves? In the same way that lists of items for recipes are not copyrightable, one could similarly argue that tables of numbers are not copyrightable either. I think what you are trying to say is that, for example, the combination of the idea of experience progression (gain points to gain levels and extra powers) and the tables is a substantial or original expression. I would argue not. I also think this argument is centering around whether it is possible, through the existing law, to copyright game mechanics, and not so much on whether it is right to do so. As we have seen from recent legal shenanigans, it's possible to do lots of things with law in certain territories as long as you have enough money. I would say, it does not necessarily follow that it is right to do so. You're absolutely right. Microsoft and IBM violate eachother's patents all the time, but I assure you they both believe patents cover software. Just because industry players violate eachother's IP does not mean the industry does not believe the IP exists. Lots of reasons not to sue... and a bit one is the chance the court may totally disagree with the argument and end IP on games all togehter. But for the record, WoTC's market share in the game industry is of good size, and when you remember they are actually owned by Hasbro, it is nearly 80% of the game market. I'm not really talking about big companies: roleplaying is a pretty small industry, if you can call it an industry. It's made up of a couple of big companies and lots and lots of little companies. Neither am I talking about violating patents: I don't think a patent for game mechanics would stand up, although WotC have certainly tried. I don't think one could simply characterize the general opinion of the industry in that way. We know WotC consider game mechanics copyrightable, but I would pause to state that the rest of the industry would consider it so. I would also note how undemocratic it is that those companies with the highest market share would seem to be able to dictate interpretation of the law. IANAL but I hope the law doesn't always work that way, certainly for the sake of smaller companies and groups like the Debian Group, and free software in general. Certainly in Europe, despite the efforts of various market leaders, we are still fortunate enough not to have software patents, yet. They are a list of numbers combinded with extensive instructions (wow, extensive... I've been learning them again in preperation for starting a campaing... the stuff is as complicated as case law). One migth even call it substantial literary expression in the form of explanation or directions. I would agree the extensive instructions are copyrightable, but the disagreement would center on whether the underlying concepts and ideas (i.e. the actual mechanics) are copyrightable. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:07:37 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote: Sure, there is an underlying mathmatical formula. And you are free to use any mathmatical formula to create charts to your heart's content. But the DD people chose a particular formula and have created tangible works of authorship with that formula. When you use their underlying formula to create your own new tables, you are copying their expression. Sean, I really cannot believe that using the same mathematical formula for the same job is copyright infringement. What about using the same algorithm (e.g. bubblesort) for the same job (e.g. ordering an array of objects)? What about using the same physical laws for simulating the same phenomenon (think about simulation and scientific calculation programs)? Did I misunderstand what you said? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpkhVrnlhfRR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: AFAIK, there is no pre-existing case law that demonstrates that game mechanics are or are not copyrightable. There have been cases of people being brought to court for making compatible rules (Palladium I believe did this) but I think the case was settled out of court. I would also note that there is a long history in the RPG industry of publishing games with mechanics that are identical if not the same as Dungeons and Dragons. Some searching on the Copyright Office's website showed me this: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Saturday 27 August 2005 04:01 pm, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:07:37 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote: Sure, there is an underlying mathmatical formula. And you are free to use any mathmatical formula to create charts to your heart's content. But the DD people chose a particular formula and have created tangible works of authorship with that formula. When you use their underlying formula to create your own new tables, you are copying their expression. Sean, I really cannot believe that using the same mathematical formula for the same job is copyright infringement. What about using the same algorithm (e.g. bubblesort) for the same job (e.g. ordering an array of objects)? What about using the same physical laws for simulating the same phenomenon (think about simulation and scientific calculation programs)? Did I misunderstand what you said? No you're not misunderstanding me, and I'm willing to admit that I'm taking this a bit far and pushing a very strong line on what copyrights do and don't protect. As for teh two examples you listed above, they are both methods and thus patentable... but probably not copyrighable (unless they are combined with more authorship like things). What I have been propoing is a very content industry friendly position. It's not my personal position, but it is the counterpoint to the position that game mechanics are not copyrightable. I believe there are a ton of issues that would be wrapped into this discussion that are important... your place in the world and intent is one thing that I would say is important. You just directly copy D20 and produce a near identical game and sell it on the open market, undercutting WotC's price margins... the court will do whatever is necessary to find infringement. You model a few ideas in your system on things similar to D20 for your own internal use, the court will probably find fair use. It's just not a very black and white issue... I have the luxury of saying that since I don't have to pick a side in the issue. Suffice to say, when you are representing someone, the issue is clear as day :) For the record, everytime I heard the WotC legal people say that game mechanics are copyrightable I had to bite my tounge. I happen to agree with you... but there are legal arguments to the countrary that seem to be well excepted among the game industry. But going back to the larger picture in all of this... copyrights are not a clear cut art, and license drafting is even less so. Because there is so much uncertainty, so many questions as to what is and is not copyrightable, fair use, or derivative, so many strange corner cases, its just really hard to be 100%. Which is why licenses are such a popular tool. It's quite possible I could get away with using someones IP in this particular way, but why take the risk? Might as well seek a license and pay some small royalty. It's certainly not the way I would design an IP regeime, but it seems to be how things work in the United States. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Saturday 27 August 2005 07:10 pm, Ken Arromdee wrote: Some searching on the Copyright Office's website showed me this: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Hmmm... interesting. Now I wish I still worked at WotC to ask them what they think about this. My gut says their response would go something like this: The Copyright's office isn't a court of law, so they can't just say what is and is not copyrightable. Some fine legal reasoning, to be sure :) -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 25/08/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/24/05, Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words, it discriminates against the legitimate field of endeavour of writing games and other works compatible with other trademarked works. Please also see my notes on restrictions on software usage. This might be a real issue, but I'm not certain about that. Essentially they're saying that you can't use other people's trademarks without their permission. I think it goes beyond merely a note that the license is not a grant of trademark right. It excludes the ability to indicate compatability with other trademarked works. Imagine if a license prevented you from writing an import/export license for MS Word or some other trademarked work in a word processor for fear of indicating compatibility or co-adaptability. From what I understand from the author's opinion on marking compatability I would argue that this interpretation is the original intent. It's specific intent is to require downstream user's to use a seperate license for the purposes of using Wizard's of the Coasts d20 trademark license and restricting claims of compatability with their Dungeons and Dragons trademark. As I understand it Section 7 is there because of some dispute over how trademark law can be interpreted for claiming compatability. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 8/25/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable. To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work, their implementations are copyrightable. But that's not what TSR means. They're claiming that if you use their game mechanics in your own work, even without copying a concrete implementation, you're violating copyright. Well... to the degree that those game mechanics are creative elements, (as opposed to mechanical elements) they are copyrightable. Copyright regulates the tangible expression of creative works. For material which is not very creative the protection is thin. For material which is highly creative it's... not so thin. Copyright will protect against using characters and material unique to one book in some other book written by some other author with a different plot. That said, it looks to me like this license grants you the right to use those game mechanics, including making and distributiong modified versions of them. If you've spotted someplace in this license which prohibits that kind of thing, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out to me. [Note: I do agree that their trademark language should be upgraded so that the usual implicit rights to use trademarks are retained by users of this license.] I suggest doing a Google groups search for rec.games.frp.dnd, TSR, and game mechanics to see just what was going on at the time. The fact that they've used other licenses in the past, and might not offer all their material under this license does not constitute a flaw in this license. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:05 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: [Note: I do agree that their trademark language should be upgraded so that the usual implicit rights to use trademarks are retained by users of this license.] I would note that the official Open Game License FAQ by the license authors specifically notes that the OGL restricts a users' implicit right to use trademarks by deliberately excluding the (legitimate [1]) ability to indicate compatibility with any trademark.[2] The interpretation that this is simply a language mistake and that Section 7 is simply claiming the license is not a grant of trademark rights seems incorrect to me, and I would imagine a court would interpret the section as it reads[3]. [1] http://www.inta.org/info/faqsU.html - International Trademark Association FAQ. [2] http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f - Open Game License:Frequently Asked Questions. Do a page search of compatibility. [3] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
(resend with better To: line) On 8/26/05, Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [2] http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f - Open Game License:Frequently Asked Questions. Do a page search of compatibility. Where they say: The Open Game License expands the control a Trademark owner has over your ability to use that Trademark beyond the restrictions normally allowed by trademark law. Ok, point taken -- this license is non-free and is likely to stay non-free. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 8/24/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable. To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work, their implementations are copyrightable. -- Raul
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 8/24/05, Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Section 7 of the OGL also states that: You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. In other words, it discriminates against the legitimate field of endeavour of writing games and other works compatible with other trademarked works. Please also see my notes on restrictions on software usage. This might be a real issue, but I'm not certain about that. Essentially they're saying that you can't use other people's trademarks without their permission. What this *probably* really means (and probably should say) is that this license is not a grant of trademark rights. It's probably the case that that's how a court would interpret that clause. Then again, it's probably ok to suggest that they make this clearer. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable. To the degree that their concrete implementations are a creative work, their implementations are copyrightable. But that's not what TSR means. They're claiming that if you use their game mechanics in your own work, even without copying a concrete implementation, you're violating copyright. This started in the mid-1990s when TSR tried to shut down a lot of sites for using game mechanics (whether or not anything was copied). For instance, see http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/browse_thread/thread/ce23543781715cdf . TSR claimed that if you created material using TSR game mechanics and posted it elsewhere than on TSR's own site, you were violating copyright. Later, TSR changed hands, and they created the OGL, which seemed to take a more lenient stance, but which was still based around the idea that TSR can copyright game mechanics and that you need a license to create materials that use them. I suggest doing a Google groups search for rec.games.frp.dnd, TSR, and game mechanics to see just what was going on at the time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 24/08/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: The problem is that the GPL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that you otherwise can't do. The OGL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that are otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt you with baseless lawsuits that we know you can't afford to defend against. Game rules can't be copyrighted (though their specific text can), but the OGL is based around TSR's/WotC's attempt to assert copyright in its game rules and claim that nobody can use them without a license. I disagree. OGL says: 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content. Yes--but it also defines open game content as follows: Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable. This license is an attempt to license something that TSR (or its successors) don't own. A license which licenses something that can't be owned isn't a DFSG-free license. The Section 7 of the OGL also states that: You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. In other words, it discriminates against the legitimate field of endeavour of writing games and other works compatible with other trademarked works. Please also see my notes on restrictions on software usage. Kind regards.. -- Ricrdo Gladwell
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
quote who=Ricardo Gladwell date=Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:45:25AM +0100 I've still yet to figure out exactly what the Creative Commons stands for but I don't really see them taking a stance similar to free software in a few areas, such as non-commercial licenses. I agree completely and Richard Stallman and a number of people in the Free Software and even Creative Commons communities have recently started saying this as well. If you can you look past the shameless self-promotion, you may be interested in a short paper I wrote on *exactly* this subject. It was published on Advogato but the latest version is available here: http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:09:36PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. I think this is a dubious claim I think is speaks more to a light understanding of how Linux is licenced and the OGL structured than anything else. If your understanding of free is focused on whether or not there is a requirement for a cash transaction then the stated belief makes sense. In my experience, when free/open licencing is considered outside our community that is the depth of understanding at the table. Dave -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 12:09 pm, Dave Hornford wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:09:36PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. I think this is a dubious claim I think is speaks more to a light understanding of how Linux is licenced and the OGL structured than anything else. If your understanding of free is focused on whether or not there is a requirement for a cash transaction then the stated belief makes sense. In my experience, when free/open licencing is considered outside our community that is the depth of understanding at the table. Gotta agree here. The Legal team at Wizards were a nice bunch and knew quite a bit... but advanced copyrights and how people are using them in things like FOSS was certainly not one of them. I really think they were under the impression that since WoTC didn't get any money and people were free to share things with others that it was linux-like. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:47:22 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:49:57PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: [...] I actually find few people agree that the freedoms that apply to software should similarly apply to other types of work, especially digital works such as documents, images, etc. Only debian-legal really seems to take such a stance Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost, badly. Please don't be so rude... He was just making a statement of fact, not insulting us, AFAICT. Ricardo meant (I think) that debian-legal (and the Debian project as a whole) takes a stance that very few groups (outside Debian) take. And that seems to be true. Sad but true. Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people. Please re-read the non-commercial and no-derivatives license elements, before claiming that Creative Commons is about promoting the freedoms we (at Debian) care about... There are other issues in all CC licenses that do not meet the DFSG, but the two above-mentioned features are really easy to detect and many CC fans do not object to them. On the contrary, some CC supporters really like them... :-( -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpkJIUMemGNz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 8/22/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that the GPL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that you otherwise can't do. The OGL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that are otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt you with baseless lawsuits that we know you can't afford to defend against. Game rules can't be copyrighted (though their specific text can), but the OGL is based around TSR's/WotC's attempt to assert copyright in its game rules and claim that nobody can use them without a license. I disagree. OGL says: 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content. And, in the definitions section: Use, Used or Using means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. It does say you can't use someone else's trademarks without their permission, which is redundant from a copyright point of view, but not from a contractual point of view (otherwise their license is so broad it could be considered as some kind of grant of trademark rights). There might be something wrong with this license, but at the moment I don't see what that would be. -- Raul
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: The problem is that the GPL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that you otherwise can't do. The OGL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that are otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt you with baseless lawsuits that we know you can't afford to defend against. Game rules can't be copyrighted (though their specific text can), but the OGL is based around TSR's/WotC's attempt to assert copyright in its game rules and claim that nobody can use them without a license. I disagree. OGL says: 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content. Yes--but it also defines open game content as follows: Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable. This license is an attempt to license something that TSR (or its successors) don't own. A license which licenses something that can't be owned isn't a DFSG-free license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 19/08/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Granted. But when the question is is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation? their answer is very different from our... :-( That's the main reason I came to debian-legal first. If someone could point me in the direction of a more appropriate forum I would be most grateful. We have so *few* DFSG-free non-programs, that I don't consider this as a minor issue... I'm worried about this possible scenario: * a user comes to us seeking for license analysis or recommendation * we tell her if you are not talking about a Debian (prospective) package, go away * she finds another 'forum' and follows their analyses and recommendations * sooner or later she becomes an author and writes something useful * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended * many other people contribute to her work * an RFP or ITP is filed against that work in the Debian BTS * it's time for debian-legal to check the license * ouch! the work does not comply with the DFSG: must be rejected from main * it's too late to persuade people to relicense: another work is lost Maybe we could have talked to her earlier in this process... :-( I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/08/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But when the question is is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation? their answer is very different from our... :-( We don't really have a shared concept of free documentation distinct from free software because the whole how do I tell if this bitstream is documentation or program debate is rather painful. That's the main reason I came to debian-legal first. If someone could point me in the direction of a more appropriate forum I would be most grateful. I wonder if the freeculture.org groups are good for this? You will find a range of opinions there, but other than the anti-commercial strand, it's not that different most of the time. We have so *few* DFSG-free non-programs, that I don't consider this as a minor issue... I'm worried about this possible scenario: * a user comes to us seeking for license analysis or recommendation * we tell her if you are not talking about a Debian (prospective) package, go away * she finds another 'forum' and follows their analyses and recommendations * sooner or later she becomes an author and writes something useful * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended [...] Well, if she takes advice from one topic and mindlessly applies it to another, that's always going to be painful. Other forums may give bad advice for our use, but we may give bad advice for other uses. I don't suggest a blanket go away is healthy, but I'm really not sure what other forums are out there right now. You write there are few non-program packages. Do you know how few? I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:48:13AM +, MJ Ray wrote: I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. Because they where trying to ride the open source is cool wave with their gaming stuff, and people have been bothering them for ages about stuff like pcgen and others. They don't really come from the software community though, so probably didn't even consider the free software licences. Probably pushed for creation of NWN content and such also. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22 Aug 2005 10:48:13 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if the freeculture.org groups are good for this? You will find a range of opinions there, but other than the anti-commercial strand, it's not that different most of the time. I actually find few people agree that the freedoms that apply to software should similarly apply to other types of work, especially digital works such as documents, images, etc. Only debian-legal really seems to take such a stance, even if there seems to be some disagreement with the list on this point. Otherwise, the FSF doesn't seem to have any similar forums. The closest thing would seem to be your own mailing list. I would also note that the freeculture.org site seems to be down. I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. Neither do I. For future reference I would also note the OGL would seem to have restrictions on using content in software[1] and allows the mixing of copyleft open content and closed content in a manner similar to the invariant sections in the FDL. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22 Aug 2005, MJ Ray wrote: I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. I've complained about the OGL from almost the moment it was introduced. The problem is that the GPL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that you otherwise can't do. The OGL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that are otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt you with baseless lawsuits that we know you can't afford to defend against. Game rules can't be copyrighted (though their specific text can), but the OGL is based around TSR's/WotC's attempt to assert copyright in its game rules and claim that nobody can use them without a license. Something which purports to license you to use game rules can't be DFSG-free. It's like a license to write critical articles, or a license to allow fair use, or a license to breathe air. Part 7 also seems to be unfree because it forbids you from using trademarks in legal ways, but that isn't the biggest problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Monday 22 August 2005 02:45 am, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. Funny story about the Open Game License!!! This summer I intered for Wizards of the Coast in their legal department. During my interview, and before I signed the NDA, we had a brief discussion about the OGL prompted by my statement that I study open source licenses in law school. The following interesting things came out of that discussion. 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. 2) no one at Legal has really looked at the OGL for some time. 3) had my contract money not run out, I was to look over the OGL and suggest how to revamp it to make it more user friendly Unfortuantely, Wizards didn't do so well last quarter and they had to let go a bunch of their contract employees. It's a shame :( -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22/08/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny story about the Open Game License!!! This summer I intered for Wizards of the Coast in their legal department. Your kudos just went up in the gamer community. In some circles, people would happily give up their right arms to inter at Wizard's of the Coast just cleaning the toilets. :-) 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. I think this is a dubious claim: Wizard's claim there are several restrictions for using open content in software, most notably that open content cannot be compiled into binaries. 2) no one at Legal has really looked at the OGL for some time. That is interesting. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:49:57PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: On 22 Aug 2005 10:48:13 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if the freeculture.org groups are good for this? You will find a range of opinions there, but other than the anti-commercial strand, it's not that different most of the time. I actually find few people agree that the freedoms that apply to software should similarly apply to other types of work, especially digital works such as documents, images, etc. Only debian-legal really seems to take such a stance Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost, badly. Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:09:36PM +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. I think this is a dubious claim It's so vague that you can claim it about just about anything. Windows is licensed in a similar manner to Linux because the license permits you to run a copy on your computer. 'similar' doesn't really mean anything when talking about licenses. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22 Aug 2005 10:48:13 GMT MJ Ray wrote: Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19/08/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But when the question is is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation? their answer is very different from our... :-( We don't really have a shared concept of free documentation distinct from free software because the whole how do I tell if this bitstream is documentation or program debate is rather painful. I'm definitely aware of that. But when someone asks about free documentation, most of us (at least I...) think about free software that can roughly be classified as documentation (recalling that the classification inside software is made up of blurred boundaries and overlapping concepts). FSF folks, instead, think about something different and distinct from free software [read: programs]. That (at least partially) explains why debian-legal and FSF give different answers... OK, I'm going to try and be clearer... :-( If someone asks you which license would you recommend for releasing free documentation?, you understand what she's talking about and suggest the same licenses you would recommend for free programs. Right? Even if we do not draw clear lines to distinguish programs, documentation, images, and so forth, we *know* how to determine whether some piece of documentation is free or not. We apply the same criteria we would use for programs. People at FSF apply different criteria to analyze programs and documentation. And they reach different conclusions... [...] * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended [...] Well, if she takes advice from one topic and mindlessly applies it to another, that's always going to be painful. That's not what I'm talking about, AFAICS. She takes, say, advice on which license is good for a tutorial, and then *writes* a tutorial! Other forums may give bad advice for our use, but we may give bad advice for other uses. OK, but the hypothetical user in question came to us first, maybe because she was seeking good advice from a Debian standpoint. We may give bad advice for other uses, but I think that, if we are here, we are concerned about Debian uses... Anyway, note that, in most cases, what we suggest is not considered non-free by other groups. Simply more permissive than required... For instance, FSF people consider acceptable to prevent users from modifying or removing some secondary parts of a manual. We instead think that this should not be done. But FSF folks do *not* say that a manual *must* have unmodifiable and unremovable parts in order to be free. They simply say that it *may* have them and be free, as long as those parts are secondary... I don't suggest a blanket go away is healthy, but I'm really not sure what other forums are out there right now. If someone wants to know whether something complies with the DFSG, I'm having a bad time in thinking about any other 'forum' but debian-legal... YMMV You write there are few non-program packages. Do you know how few? Not exactly. I've never counted them. My *impression* is that we lack DFSG-free documentation for many topics, while there's much non-free documentation under GFDL, CC-*, OPL, ... licenses. See http://packages.debian.net/non-free-docs.html The same holds for images, music, and so forth. IOW, I feel that the lack of DFSG-free non-programs is more problematic than the lack of DFSG-free programs. At least because other groups push in different directions for non-programs and promote licenses that do not comply with the DFSG... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpSTB6RhzSvA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:47 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost, badly. Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people. Wow. That seemed unnecessarily hostile. I'm not really sure what you think I lost but I thought the Debian Group generally held that the DSFG should similarly apply to documentation. I've still yet to figure out exactly what the Creative Commons stands for but I don't really see them taking a stance similar to free software in a few areas, such as non-commercial licenses. -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 03:07 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: I prefer the more charitable interpretation that you want debian-legal's advice because you think you'll agree more with our viewpoints than with other possible suppliers of license advice. Thank you for the polite summary: your charitable interpretation would indeed be correct. I have to admit to being unfamiliar with any internal disagreement within the Debian Group and I had no wish to stir up any old enmities. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Scripsit Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:47 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost, badly. Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people. Wow. That seemed unnecessarily hostile. I'm not really sure what you think I lost You may not be aware that there's a rather vocal minority within Debian that asserts that the debian-legal interpretation of software freedom does not correspond to the views of the project in general, which (so the minority claims) would prefer a more tolerant stance towards license restrictions, lack of real source code, etc. When you said that only debian-legal really seems to take such a stance, Andrew apparently thought you meant that in contrast to other parts of Debian rather than in contrast to parts of the free software movement outside Debian. That would apparently put you in the aforementioned minority group, which wetm do not have much patience with after several years of flamewars and two project-wide referenda on the matter. I prefer the more charitable interpretation that you want debian-legal's advice because you think you'll agree more with our viewpoints than with other possible suppliers of license advice. -- Henning MakholmWe can hope that this serious deficiency will be remedied in the final version of BibTeX, 1.0, which is expected to appear when the LaTeX 3.0 development is completed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying other 'forums' will probably produce a *different* answer. We use the DFSG as the guidelines to determine if a work is free or not. Other groups/foundations/projects use *different* criteria. Maybe, but there's not really much difference in result most times. I'm referring to well-known cases such as Debian and FSF disagreeing about the GFDL, and similar ones. Do they? FSF don't claim it's a free software licence, but that the desire for it to be one isn't sensible (or something like that). Anyway, yes, non-program licences and patent-related problems are things where debian-legal has a slightly different opinion to FSF leadership, but most aren't about those, licence proliferation is bad and we've done what licence for text to death in the archive. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 19 Aug 2005 07:28:20 GMT MJ Ray wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying other 'forums' will probably produce a *different* answer. We use the DFSG as the guidelines to determine if a work is free or not. Other groups/foundations/projects use *different* criteria. Maybe, but there's not really much difference in result most times. I'm not so sure... :-( See MPL, QPL, GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa, ... in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html See MPL, QPL, ... in http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html I'm referring to well-known cases such as Debian and FSF disagreeing about the GFDL, and similar ones. Do they? FSF don't claim it's a free software licence, but that the desire for it to be one isn't sensible (or something like that). Granted. But when the question is is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation? their answer is very different from our... :-( Anyway, yes, non-program licences and patent-related problems are things where debian-legal has a slightly different opinion to FSF leadership, but most aren't about those, licence proliferation is bad and we've done what licence for text to death in the archive. We have so *few* DFSG-free non-programs, that I don't consider this as a minor issue... I'm worried about this possible scenario: * a user comes to us seeking for license analysis or recommendation * we tell her if you are not talking about a Debian (prospective) package, go away * she finds another 'forum' and follows their analyses and recommendations * sooner or later she becomes an author and writes something useful * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended * many other people contribute to her work * an RFP or ITP is filed against that work in the Debian BTS * it's time for debian-legal to check the license * ouch! the work does not comply with the DFSG: must be rejected from main * it's too late to persuade people to relicense: another work is lost Maybe we could have talked to her earlier in this process... :-( -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpbxEdKG5ova.pgp Description: PGP signature
Rules for submitting licenses for review
Hi, I'm new to this list and I'm planning to submit a license for review. I'm not sure of the procedure for doing so: I know I should send the entire text of the license in the body of my email, but what other rules are there and what is the scope? Could I submit a license for review just for my own personal interest and even though it is unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? TIA... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Thu, 2005-18-08 at 12:10 +0100, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: Could I submit a license for review just for my own personal interest and even though it is unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? Please don't. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms. -- Walt Whitman, Song of Myself -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm new to this list and I'm planning to submit a license for review. I'm not sure of the procedure for doing so: I know I should send the entire text of the license in the body of my email, but what other rules are there and what is the scope? Text in the body isn't a rule, but it is strongly preferred. Otherwise, I suggest you follow the lists code of conduct (below). The scope is packages which are either in or intended (preferably with an Intent To Package on http://bugs.debian.org/wnpp) for the debian archive. People (many with copyright scars) offer advice to packagers, upstream authors and others involved. Could I submit a license for review just for my own personal interest and even though it is unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? You could, but you will probably get a lower response. Please try more general forums like those hosted by the FSFs or on Usenet. (I'm not really up-to-date: where should we refer to?) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 18 Aug 2005 17:42:47 GMT MJ Ray wrote: [...] Could I submit a license for review just for my own personal interest and even though it is unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? You could, but you will probably get a lower response. Please try more general forums like those hosted by the FSFs or on Usenet. (I'm not really up-to-date: where should we refer to?) It's true that discussing licenses in a vacuum is not (should not be) debian-legal business, but nonetheless there is an issue with your advice, IMHO. Trying other 'forums' will probably produce a *different* answer. We use the DFSG as the guidelines to determine if a work is free or not. Other groups/foundations/projects use *different* criteria. I'm referring to well-known cases such as Debian and FSF disagreeing about the GFDL, and similar ones. So, what I ask myself is: | if you feel that the DFSG are the best criteria to determine the | freeness of a work, what's the most appropriate place to discuss about | the freeness of works released under a particular license? To me it's difficult to answer anything but debian-legal... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgphdyOWIYw8P.pgp Description: PGP signature
