Hey,
I am making Debian packages of openttd and am thinking of getting them
uploaded into Debian. Though it is licensed under GPL, I was wondering in what
section it belongs.
There are two reasons for this.
First, openttd is non-working on itself, it needs the user to supply it with
data files fr
On 5/15/05, Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am making Debian packages of openttd and am thinking of getting them
> uploaded into Debian. Though it is licensed under GPL, I was wondering in what
> section it belongs.
> There are two reasons for this.
>
> First, openttd is non-worki
I wrote:
> Also, unless openttd includes design features which are clearly unique
> content, the original publishers probably won't have any legal grounds
I meant, and should have said "... which are clearly unique content of
the publishers of the original game..."
Obviously, openttd's authors ha
> The requirement for content from the original game means that it
> should probably go in contrib.
That is what I thought too, yes.
> Of course, if you
> have any serious doubts about that you can contact the original
> game's publisher and ask them.
This has been tried by several people withou
Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd infringes
the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction that recognizes
the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty much any jurisdiction
that has a copyright law. See Micro Star v. FormGen.
In general, Debian should not be dis
De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd
> infringes the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction
> that recognizes the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty
> much any jurisdiction that has a copyright law. See Mi
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd infringes
> the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction that recognizes
> the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty much any jurisdiction
> that has a copyright law.
On 5/16/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd infringes
> > the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction that recognizes
> > the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, the artwork (if included) would be literally infringing. The
> "mise en scene" doctrine is not about literal copying, it's about the
> creation of sequels (parodies, clones, etc.) that plagiarize the
> original work and siphon off the
De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The issue isn't functional cloning. It's the fact that a video
> game is a "literary work" in the sense of having characters,
> settings, plot lines, etc., and therefore can be infringed in the
> non-literal sense of Micro Star v. FormGen -- ev
On 5/16/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, the artwork (if included) would be literally infringing. The
> > "mise en scene" doctrine is not about literal copying, it's about the
> > creation of sequels (parodies, clones, e
On 5/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > The issue isn't functional cloning. It's the fact that a video
> > game is a "literary work" in the sense of having characters,
> > settings, plot lines, etc., and therefore c
> > So where is the plagarism? How does your "siphon off the
> > commercial potential" work in this case?
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you like the very paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen?
...
> radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create
On 5/16/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So where is the plagarism? How does your "siphon off the
> > > commercial potential" work in this case?
>
> On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would you like the very paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen?
> ...
>
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It lets you play the original. In concept, it could let you play a sequel.
> > Or, it could let you play an entirely different game. But no one has
> > presented any reason to think that openttd represents a sequel.
>
> Have you read a
On Monday 16 May 2005 05:31 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Raul, a work made by collecting X, Y, and Z is not a derivative work
> of X. Not even if the "selection and arrangement" involved is
> original enough to be copyrightable, and a fortiori if it is not (as
> in the case of Quagga + Net-SNMP
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of
> snippets from the "About" page:
>
>
> An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe".
>
> OpenTTD is modeled after the original Transport Tycoon game by Chris
On 17 May 2005 05:14:13 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of
> > snippets from the "About" page:
> >
> >
> > An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe".
On 5/16/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 16 May 2005 05:31 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Raul, a work made by collecting X, Y, and Z is not a derivative work
> > of X. Not even if the "selection and arrangement" involved is
> > original enough to be copyrightable, and a
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But when someone does so -- as the drafter of the GPL has done
> -- I think a court should have no difficulty in acknowledging the
> licensee's right to have it construed narrowly if he or she so requests.
I agree -- especially since it'
>
> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
> Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
> it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable
> expression from Transport Tycoon.
Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right.
--
Cheers,
M
De: MJ Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of
> > snippets from the "About" page:
> >
> > An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport
> > Tycoon Deluxe".
> >
> > OpenTTD is m
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But when someone does so -- as the drafter of the GPL has done
> > -- I think a court should have no difficulty in acknowledging the
> > licensee's right to have it construed narrowly
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "it" = "the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and
> hence of 'work based on the Program'"
And, hence, something that's licensed under the GPL.
> > I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being
>
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "it" = "the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and
> > hence of 'work based on the Program'"
>
> And, hence, something that's licensed under the GPL.
Did you happen
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But for future reference, if you think that something I have written
> leads inexorably to the conclusion that Debian is prohibited from
> distributing Sarge CD #1, you're probably misreading it -- except when
> I express that fear myself,
On 5/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd
> > infringes the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction
> > that recognizes the doctrine of "mise en scene
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
>> Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
>> it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable
>> expression from Transport Tycoon.
De: Måns Rullgård [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my
> >> response to Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in
> >> reference to artworks, it's the fact that the game experience
> >>
On 5/17/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * personal attacks: yeah, this was the low point of this thread, and
> I think both Raul and Michael should moderate themselves...
> myself, if I exceeded any courtesy boundaries, I apologize;
I've been trying to keep my tone mo
On 5/17/05, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
> >> Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
> >> it's the fact that the game experien
On 5/17/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * personal attacks: yeah, this was the low point of this thread, and
> I think both Raul and Michael should moderate themselves...
> myself, if I exceeded any courtesy boundaries, I apologize;
Look, moderation is great when the
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Up until a day or two ago I could chalk that up to difficulty with
> reading comprehension, but the whole business with citing Sun v.
> Microsoft as proof that some courts skip contract analysis, and then
> refusing to acknowledge that he
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Up until a day or two ago I could chalk that up to difficulty with
> > reading comprehension, but the whole business with citing Sun v.
> > Microsoft as proof that some courts skip con
For more observations on the legal basis for finding a derivative work
where no literal copying has taken place, see Palladium Music v.
EatSleepMusic at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/10th/046061.html . For GPL
purposes, it is significant that Palladium's copyrights were held
"invalid a
In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder,
and didn't even have have license.
That doesn't seem very interesting.
--
Raul
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder,
> and didn't even have have license.
>
> That doesn't seem very interesting.
You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
> precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather
> than the reasoning that they contain.
Actually, I made the (perhaps false) assumption that you had
quoted
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal
> > precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather
> > than the reasoning that they contain.
>
> Actua
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyways, I've never advocated relying on the circulars
> > in place of the copyright act. I was just thinking that
> > the circulars explained some reasoning about the copyright
> > act that you seemed to be having difficulty with. Thi
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Still working on your proof by repeated assertion, are you?
> > Collective works are not derivative works under copyright law, as I,
> > Humberto, and Batist have proven to our own and
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You've failed to offer any authority for your assertion that
> > derivative and collective works are disjoint.
>
> BS. I've given you treaty, statute, case law, Nimmer, the works.
You've adequately proven that derivative works and col
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip horsepucky and irrelevancies]
> > This is relevant to OpenTTD, for instance, because its authors don't
> > (AFAIK) have a license from the copyright holder on Transport Tycoon
> > Deluxe to create a sequel/adaptation/whatever, and so they don
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the
> > functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't
> > copyrightable in the first place.
>
> "Mise en scene", my friend, "mise en scene".
We're not talk
Michael K. Edwards said:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about
>> the game engine.
>
> We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require
> literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the
> > > functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't
> > > copyrightable in the first place.
> >
>
On 5/19/05, Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm slightly confused by this.
>
> In the case of OpenTTD, you seem to be asserting that because OpenTTD has
> no use other than to combine with the copyrighted data files -- to present
> a scene similar to the original Transport Tycoon, the work
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We're talking about something more like the Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.
> > v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. case.
>
> So there are as wide a variety of games playable on the Transport
> Tycoon D
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It probably would be a good idea for the openttd people to
> make sure their engine can do other stuff -- maybe implement
> a ship-based game, maybe a photo organizer, whatever...
> That would certainly make their position stronger.
Not if it we
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Also, I continue to be annoyed by your personal attacks, but
> > I refuse to believe that personal attacks have any redeeming
> > value.]
>
> I acknowledge that the level of acrimony in some o
On 5/17/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do have a point, too. But in the specific case of TTD, could the
> game engine be *really* generic? I don't really think so.
Maybe. But openttd is more generic than MicroStar's game mods.
MicroStar's game mods were designed an
51 matches
Mail list logo
