On Monday, 25 September 2006 at 14:47, Per Inge Mathisen wrote: > On 9/25/06, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >(*) Except FMV and music..." > >******************************************************************************* > > You should add a note here explaining what FMV means (Full Motion Video). > > >The archive was put together by Alex McLean (as far as I know) > > ("as far as we know")
Or clarify that by askin Virgil? > >source was released under the GPL. This leaves the question about the data. > >Is "as is with no guarantees" some kind of license itself (ie. can we just > >assume an implicit "... and any restrictions" after that)? > > "... and no restrictions" > > >Parts of the game are implemented in a scripting language. Is that source > >or > >data? > > "... in a scripting language, with script files loaded and interpreted > by the game code written in C." Integrate that into my changed paragraph? > >The release was intended as a present to the fan community, so there was no > >intention of keeping anything closed (except for a few code parts like the > >movie codec, sound and networking which were licensed, and the music and > >movies themselves, probably just for size reasons). > > "The release was intended as a present to the fan community, so we > believe that there was no intention of keeping anything closed, except > that which was necessary because of third party rights. There were > third party rights parts of the code (movie codec, sound and ... third party rights _to_ parts of the code ... ? > networking), and to the music sound track, both of which were omitted. > The movie files were also omitted, although we believe this was > because they thought we could not play them (legally or otherwise) > without the source to the movie codec." > > (The sound track on the CD is from a published album, IIRC.) > > >ex-Pumpkins and they inturn have liberated it". Is this possible? So now we > >have to contact them for any clarifications on the license? Does it make > >sense > >to contact Eidos on that matter? (Not that they'd have answered any past > >inquiries; they have been bought by SCi, and at least Jonathan Kemp isn't > >employed there anymore, so it might be quite difficult to reach someone > >knowledgeable on this matter.) > > Replace by: "They have not answered any past inquiries; they have been > bought by ..." > > (ie drop the questions here, and remove the paranthesis around the last > fact) > > >This is all quite frustrating, since several members of the fan community > >have > >stated that the intention of the release was to free the game and it's > >probably just an unlucky wording of the readme.txt. I am quite sure there > >will > >be no legal action against us (there's no indication anyone will bother, > >and > >with the frequent inquiries, they must be quite aware of our project), we > >just > >need a legal clarification for Distributions to be able to include Warzone > >(and for hosting the game on gna.org, though they haven't complained yet). > > It is irrelevant what the fan community have stated. I suggest the > entire paragraph above is dropped. Your own musings about what you > think is probable is all beside the point. > > >2. Is there a way to distribute the game data without further word of the > >copyright holders? > > "2. Is there a way to legally distribute the game data without further > word from the copyright holders?" > > >3. Is it possible for Eidos to transfer the copyright of the game to the > >Ex-Pumpkin employees to do as they please? > > Of course it is. (Unless you are German, in which case you only > transfer commercial rights, but I digress.) I suggest instead: "3. How > can we best ensure that the possible legal ambiguity of the license > does not threaten or opens up to lawsuits the project and anyone who > distributes our builds of the game?" > > >4. If so, what proof of that is necessary and who has that? > > > >5. Does it make sense to try to contact Eidos on this matter? > > > >6. Any other possible solutions? How shall we proceed? > > Drop these. If they think of anything, they will mention it. We have > contacted Eidos, as you stated above. We should not ask them to > instruct us, as they may not want to get into that position. Getting > some general advice, and getting legal advice on a very specific > matter and being told what to do, is, I think, two very different > matters for them. > > >Thanks for your help, and if you have any further questions, don't > >hesitate to > >contact me. > > You should give them your phone number too. > > >I, along with a very active Warzone 2100 community, await any response > >you are able to offer > > ... and are thankful for any advice you can provide. > > Otherwise, great! Good points otherwise. Let's concentrate our questions on what possibilities we have if we can't get any further word from Alex/whoever, as Virgil said he'll ask again (perhaps mention that as well). -- Mathematicians take it to the limit. _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev