---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ----------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Warzone-dev] Draft for a mail to the FSF Date: Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 23:15 From: Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2006 23:02 schrieben Sie: > The Software Freedom Law Center has received an email from you sent to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] We look forward to helping you in any way we > can, but before we can do that we need to make sure that you understand > that your email to us does not create an attorney-client relationship > with us and any information you send us will not be considered > confidential or privileged. If you understand that, just reply to this > message by keeping the text of this paragraph and adding "Understood" > and we will respond to your email shortly. However, if your message > contains any information that you would like to be considered > confidential or privileged (in other words, you do not want it to be > considered public information), please respond to this message with > "Delete my message" or just "Delete." We understand that this procedure > may seem burdensome, but it is required by law in order to ensure your > rights and the rights of our clients are protected Understood. > Dennis Schridde wrote: > > Dear Sir or Madam, > > > > I am writing to you on behalf of the Warzone Resurrection Project > > (http://www.wz2100.net/, http://gna.org/projects/warzone/), since we have > > questions regarding the license under which the source and data of the > > game Warzone 2100 were released. (I'll repeat the most important ones at > > the end again.) > > > > The game Warzone 2100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warzone_2100) was > > developed by Pumpkin Studios and published by Eidos in 1999. After ten > > patches to the game, Pumpkin Studios ceased development on Warzone 2100, > > and was disbanded by Eidos in early 2000. Pumpkin Studios then reformed > > into Pivotal Games (http://www.pivotalgames.com/). > > > > The fan community produced two further patches. Feeling that they could > > not realize their plans for the game without access to the source code, > > the community started petitioning Pumpkin Studios to release the source > > code. > > > > On December 6, 2004 Alex McLean, Lead Developer of the game, uploaded an > > archive file to a community member's FTP server. This archive, > > downloadable at > > http://www.3ddownloads.com/liberatedgames/Warzone2100.rar, > > contains the source code to the game and several utilities (as far as > > they could release it), and a copy of the game stripped of only the music > > (which were CD audio tracks in the commercial release) and most of the > > larger video sequences telling the story of the single player campaign. > > In addition to that, a gpl.txt (version 2) and a readme.txt were > > included. I'll quote the readme.txt in full here: > > > > ************************************************************************* > >**** Warzone 2100 Source & Data > > > > 1) These source and data files are provided as is with no guarantees. > > > > 2) No assistance or support will be offered or given. > > > > 3) Everything you will require to make a build of the game should be > > here. If it isn't, you'll have to improvise(*). > > > > 4) None of us here at Pivotal Games are in a position to be able to offer > > any help with making this work. > > > > 5) This source code is released under the terms of the GNU Public > > License. Please be sure to read the entirety of this license but the > > summary is that you're free to do what you want with the source subject > > to making the full source code freely available in the event of the > > distribution of new binaries. > > > > Finally, the primary motivation for this release is for entertainment and > > educational purposes. On the subject of the latter, don't be surprised to > > see some pretty gnarly old-school C code in here; the game was a classic > > but large areas of the code aren't pretty; OO design and C++ evangelists > > beware! We haven't spent any time cleaning the code or making if pretty > > - what you see is what you're getting, warts n' all. > > > > Thankyou to Jonathan Kemp of Eidos Europe for permitting the release. > > Thanks also to Frank Lamboy for assistance with the release and for > > campaigning along with many many others over the years for the source to > > be made available. The correspondence, online petitions and persistence > > made this possible. We were constantly amazed at the community support > > for Warzone even after all this time; it's nice to be able to give > > something back, assuming you can get it to compile...;-) > > > > 6th December 2004 > > Alex M - ex Pumpkin Studios (Eidos) > > > > (*) Except FMV and music... > > ************************************************************************* > >**** (With FMV he refers to Full Motion Video.) > > > > The archive was put together by Alex McLean (as far as we know) without > > spending a lot of time on it, since they were busy with their newer games > > (thus also the refusal of any help or support), they basically just put > > everything together and added the gpl.txt and the readme.txt files. > > > > Now this was a bit unlucky. The readme.txt states in 1) "These source and > > data files are provided as is with no guarantees", but 5) says "This > > source code is released under the terms of the GNU Public License." As > > the source archive contains both source code and data, this seems to > > indicate that only the 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 no > > restrictions" after that)? > > > > Parts of the game mechanics are implemented using a scripting language, > > with script files loaded and interpreted by the game code written in C; > > those scripts are in the data directory, but, depending on the point of > > view, they could be seen as source as well. What is legaly correct? > > > > The release was intended as a present to the fan community, so we > > believe that there was no intention of keeping anything closed, except > > what was necessary because of third party rights. There were > > third party rights to parts of the code (movie codec, sound and > > 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. > > > > A previous debian-legal discussion > > (http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg30913.html) > > resulted in "probably everything is GPL, but you have to ask the author > > to be sure." Unfortunately, until now, none of our inquiries was > > answered. Some of those were done by Frank Lamboy aka Virgil (mentioned > > in the readme.txt, who had contact with Pumpkin Studios since the release > > of the game and was involved in the creation of the ten patches to the > > game, as well as being crucial to the petitions for the source), but even > > he received no answer. > > > > Now he has said > > (http://www.realtimestrategies.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=15347#15 > > 347, last sentence) that "the legal rights to the WZ Cam content were > > turned-over by Eidos to the ex-Pumpkins and they inturn have liberated > > it". They have not answered any past inquiries. > > Eidos was 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. > > > > > > Questions: > > > > 1. Does the readme.txt give us any indication on what license the data > > was released under, ie. does "as is with no guarantees" give us any > > permissions (like an implicit "with no restrictions", since they don't > > mention any)? > > > > 2. Is there a way to legally distribute the game data without further > > word from the copyright holders? > > > > 3. How can we best ensure that the possible legal ambiguity of the > > license does not threaten or opens up to lawsuits on the project and > > anyone who distributes our builds of the game? > > > > 4. Does it make sense to try to contact Eidos on this matter? > > > > I intend to post your replies to our mailing list (warzone-dev@gna.org) > > to keep the other members updated; if you do not want your answer > > publicised, please state so clearly. > > > > Thanks for your help, and if you have any further questions, don't > > hesitate to contact me. I, along with a very active Warzone 2100 > > community, await any response you are able to offer and am thankful for > > any advice you can provide. > > > > > > Yours faithfully, > > Dennis Schridde > > For the Warzone Resurrection Project > > > > Address: > > X > > > > Phone: X -------------------------------------------------------
pgp8QRRLZeuIr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
