Re: [tsc-devel] Licensing handling
Chris Jacobsen |
Wed, 11 Feb 2015 07:46:16 UTC
> We could add a document to the repository to outline the problem so a
distributor may choose to package that document as the assets
license. Separating code and assets license explanations into two
separate files is probably good anyway.
It's worth checking how big of a deal we need to make about this to distributors. I'm not saying to deceive them, but a prominent notice about license issues may actually CAUSE them to hesitate to distribute our game. If it just is something to help them with a standard licensing procedure, maybe it'll be different; it could vary depending on how it's presented. It's worth thinking about and of course discussing with Akien. Separating code and assets is probably a good idea, too.
> I’ll have to read your draft up again. I saw it on the ML, but I’ve not
read through it until now.
I'd be interested in seeing if Luiji might be willing to send the one to Bugsbane, if he has a mainstream email address. You are correct, Quintus, that your email was going to my spam folder in yahoo at one point.
> At least, DarkAceZ and syndey are easy to contact.
Anyone can become unavailable. If we know they've confirmed the licensing, though, we are good.
> I am sure Luiji will be opposed to this opinion, with good
reasons. Therefore, let us step back from these specific stone graphics
for now. They’re really not essential graphics but a nice-to-heave
feature. Couldn’t you just stonify other things that have a proper
licensing?
Yes, of course this is possible, except that we don't have any other state changing power ups we can stonify (which is a little bit of a loss).
Honestly, it's frustrating to trash work over a legal technicality (imagine removing a useful TSC scripting utility class because of a weird patent issue). Your suggestion to make new stone graphics is valid, but as long as we still have the main fruit graphics in the game, the stone fruit graphics are not much more of a problem. If we strip them out later, it will unexpectedly change user levels, of course (though by then we would have new power up graphics). I do not think we should reintroduce stone mushrooms -- those would be worse than the stone fruit graphics derived from Bugsbane's graphics.
The most cautious license for the stone fruit graphics is probably special. If needed, we can start throwing ideas around for alternate stone graphics, but I'd like to think more before discarding them.
-datahead
On Monday, February 9, 2015 2:33 PM, Quintus <…s@q…> wrote:
Chris Jacobsen <…9@y…> writes:
> Addendum: What license should my stone fruit graphics be assigned?
> They were derived from Bugsbane's fruit graphics SVG's.
How ever you turn it, Bugsbane’s graphics did not have a viral copyleft
license. That is, if you conclude to a modification right from the
circumstances as I would do, you are free to license them however you
want, probably as long as you state who was the original author.
I am sure Luiji will be opposed to this opinion, with good
reasons. Therefore, let us step back from these specific stone graphics
for now. They’re really not essential graphics but a nice-to-heave
feature. Couldn’t you just stonify other things that have a proper
licensing?
Vale,
Quintus
--
Blog: http://www.quintilianus.eu
I will reject HTML emails. | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.
|
Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung:
http://www.gnupg.org | http://gnupg.org/index.de.html