Re: about licenses for 3D models
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:27:43PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I think starting or ending an analysis with "well, I can't find anything > that directly contravenes the DFSG" is a risky approach to take. > > DFSG-conformance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a work > to be Free Software. I thought I'd covered the bases fairly well, but I'll make sure I do a more thorough job in future of enumerating the issues involved. Personally, mentioning that there aren't any DFSG issues noticable is useful, because it means that part of the necessary conditions are satisfied. I can see, though, that only saying "there are no DFSG problems" only gives the OP half the story. - Matt
Re: about licenses for 3D models
Jiba wrote: > Hi all, > > About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur > in a free license: > > "You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, > and his background". No. The requirement is quite definitely non-free. It also doesn't consider modified models at all, which you may *want* to have renamed, depending on the modification. :-) > The idea is to create a recurrent character in different games, like > Mario of Link. Just use a free license and then *request* that people use the same name and background in their games. They probably will honor your request. > Jiba
Re: about licenses for 3D models
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 04:08:23PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I'm not trying to read the DFSG as narrowly as possible. I was merely > observing that I couldn't find a clause of the DFSG that really stated that > what the OP was proposing was non-free. You conveniently cut the parts of > my message that gave some possible DFSG problems, depending on > interpretation, and some practical problems that may be significant, > depending on the licensor's interpretation of the given statement. That's because I was attempting to point out potential problems in your approach, not challenge your findings. I think starting or ending an analysis with "well, I can't find anything that directly contravenes the DFSG" is a risky approach to take. DFSG-conformance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a work to be Free Software. I didn't mean to give personal offense. -- G. Branden Robinson| One man's "magic" is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: about licenses for 3D models
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 12:26:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:42:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > [CCing you because of the address in the To: field; apologies if you didn't > > want the CC] > > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:54:16PM +0200, Jiba wrote: > > > About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur > > > in a free license: > > > > > > "You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, > > > and his background". > > > > I can't find anything which immediately contravenes the DFSG. > > Then you're not reading it correctly. The "G" in DFSG stands for > "Guidelines". > > We pledge to keep Debian 100% Free Software, not read the DFSG as > narrowly as possible. Sigh. Thanks for that, Branden. Keeping d-legal as happy and healthy as ever. I'm not trying to read the DFSG as narrowly as possible. I was merely observing that I couldn't find a clause of the DFSG that really stated that what the OP was proposing was non-free. You conveniently cut the parts of my message that gave some possible DFSG problems, depending on interpretation, and some practical problems that may be significant, depending on the licensor's interpretation of the given statement. - Matt
Re: about licenses for 3D models
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:42:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > [CCing you because of the address in the To: field; apologies if you didn't > want the CC] > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:54:16PM +0200, Jiba wrote: > > About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur > > in a free license: > > > > "You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, > > and his background". > > I can't find anything which immediately contravenes the DFSG. Then you're not reading it correctly. The "G" in DFSG stands for "Guidelines". We pledge to keep Debian 100% Free Software, not read the DFSG as narrowly as possible. -- G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when Debian GNU/Linux | you laugh at them. Humor teaches [EMAIL PROTECTED] | them tolerance. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- W. Somerset Maugham signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: about licenses for 3D models
[CCing you because of the address in the To: field; apologies if you didn't want the CC] On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 02:54:16PM +0200, Jiba wrote: > About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur > in a free license: > > "You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, > and his background". I can't find anything which immediately contravenes the DFSG. You might have a problem with DFSG 10 (if the name and background of the "character" would be a considerable chunk of information to have to include in your software), although I think it's a stretch. The other problem is going to be modification -- the licence to the model must allow free modification and redistribution of modified forms, and how modified should the work be before we can change the name? If never, then it's going to be a bit weird with all these different-looking characters with the same name and background... Basically, I can't think of anything which is immediately problematic, but I can think of plenty of potential problems that could occur. Are you looking at this licence term from a producer or consumer point of view? - Matt
Re: about licenses for 3D models
Hi Jiba, Am Di, den 20.04.2004 schrieb Jiba um 14:54: > About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur > in a free license: > > "You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, > and his background". This would render the licence non-free, since you restrict modification (the background can't be changed). I am not sure about the name thing, and leave that to debian-legal. > The idea is to create a recurrent character in different games, like > Mario of Link. I'd suggest you to keep the licence free, and especially use a proven one, like the MIT or GPL licences. You can then add a note, that does not belong to the licence, stating what you intend. Most people will stick to that - the world is not as bad as it seems :-) nomeata, guest on debian-legal -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
about licenses for 3D models
Hi all, About a character 3D model, I am wondering if such a statement can occur in a free license: "You can re-use the model, but you must keep the name of the character, and his background". The idea is to create a recurrent character in different games, like Mario of Link. Jiba
