How To Distinguish "freebeer Games" And "freespeach Gam


Status
Not open for further replies.

Gnuku

Still Fresh
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
19
Exophase said:
Gnuku said:
Exophase said:
Gnuku said:
Parkydr said:
The license only practically affects the source code in the archive which should have a license file.

As there is no payment for downloading the games or even a ranking system, there is no way of indicating your support for a particular game anyway.

that's the reason why I ask a ranking system based on the type of licence


Let me try an argument of utility:

This shouldn't be a mandatory change because the only person who wants it is you.


hey God who knows what all people think and want in this community ,tell me

how you explain popularity of sites like www.tucows.com/ that allow to select and download a software based on the type of licence.
How you explain popularity of sites like magnatune, jamendo that provide music with concerns on the type of licence and restrictions to fit to artists and listeners interests.
How you explain popularity of the creative commons creations and the great variety of licences the the organisation provides to best fit interests of the creators and consumers.
how you explain that more and more politics and departments in the world ask this question to select the park of OS and software.

But Games (made with codes, music, pictures, texts (dialogues, stories)) would be the only world that should not be concerned by that issue, simply because you God of nothing don't find any personal interest and has decided that is not useful for your liliputian creation.
citizen-members propose and the community decides in a democratic community. not gods or kings. they were killed in 1789. if you, old man of the ancien Era, don't like democratic system, take a lift and come back to your world and create a theocracy where you will only accept mini-you.

son Gnuku - the power of freedom


How do you explain that you're the only person here getting all worked up over this and that no one is agreeing with you? Actually, the one missing out on "democratic process" appears to be you.

This isn't one of those sites you mentioned, no one cares.

Get off your high horse. You couldn't be more stuck up if you tried.


Check the forum and you will see that Evil Dragon himself don't see any problem with my request. and proposed to add one simple criterion to select the game according to the licence, but without being an obligation for the dev :D
For other people. The topic just started 2 days ago. that's too short to know if all the community feels concerned with that. I suspect that most people don't spend all there time on this website, and are concerned by other things than games. but they could be concerned by my question when they will read it.

A pleasure Exophasma :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moxie

The voice of reason, sense and exasperation
Staff member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,707
Age
49
Location
South of Sweden
Gnuku said:
Check the forum and you will see that Evil Dragon himself don't see any problem with my request. and proposed to add one simple criterion to select the game according to the licence, but without being an obligation for the dev :D
For other people. The topic just started 2 days ago. that's too short to know if all the community feels concerned with that. I suspect that most people don't spend all there time on this website, and are concerned by other things than games. but they could be concerned by my question when they will read it.
You've only been around for, what? 4 weeks?

We've had these kinds of discussions before. They always end up like this:

* The very large majority of people don't give a flying f-k about licenses, possibly beyond the fact that it shouldn't be illegal to download the programs (as long as we're talking stuff from the archives. That rule goes out the window for roms, apparently)

* Of those that do care, most are eminently able to state the license in the archive writeup of the program, if they are developers, or download and open the zip, check for the LICENSE file and toss the whole package if it doesn't confirm to their choice of licence religion, if users.

* Everybody, developers and users alike, have a deep, deep hatred for people who try to tell them what they should and sholdn't do with their contributions, be it about licensing, standardised buttons, or whatever. WeLike those that do, not those that demand that others do.

So, if this is very important to you, then do something. Make a wiki page that lists and links all Gnuku-approved software in the archives, or something. Yes, that means you'll have to do the footwork of checking the packages for yourself. If that is too much work for you, then it apparently isn't important enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Orkie

Super Duper Mega GP Mania
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
2,361
Location
UK
Website
www.gp2x.dev
Gnuku said:
No restrictions with the source code ... on the 4 core liberties : reading, sharing, modifying, sharing the modifications
Oh, I didn't know the GPL had no restrictions on sharing modifications. Thanks for pointing that out, something to think about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moxie

The voice of reason, sense and exasperation
Staff member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,707
Age
49
Location
South of Sweden
This is, incidentally, also a lesson in the value of respct and humility. If you'd gotten in here and written something along the lines of

"Hey all, I have a suggestion: Couldn't there be a licence field in the writeups for the stuff in the archives? I, personally, like to know the licenses on stuff before I use them"

...or something like that, and you'd have gotten a reasoned discussion and quite likely a license field with no fuss. Now, you go in spoutng religious dogma and offend the other members of the forum, ensuring that even if ED adds that field, most people will not fill it in out of principle. Good job.

Of course, it doesn't help when you apparently don't know what you're talking about either, whether about the releasing of the firmware soursce or about the GPL itself.
 

___

Advanced Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
3,376
@gnoku: you just don't understand the problem. Nobody has anything against your suggestion in particular as it is as valid as any suggestion. The point is, we do not see it necessary and apparently our opinion isn't worth as much as your own... at least that is how you come across. I hate people who expect everyone to be polite while being impolite and disrespectful themselves.
 

EvilDragon

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
29,794
Age
43
Location
Ingolstadt
Gnuku said:
how you explain popularity of sites like www.tucows.com/ that allow to select and download a software based on the type of licence.
How you explain popularity of sites like magnatune, jamendo that provide music with concerns on the type of licence and restrictions to fit to artists and listeners interests.
How you explain popularity of the creative commons creations and the great variety of licences the the organisation provides to best fit interests of the creators and consumers.
how you explain that more and more politics and departments in the world ask this question to select the park of OS and software.
That's simple: Most people don't bother about the license. They want free stuff and are fine with that.
Whether they provide Licence information or not... well, they actually don't really care (except for some that want to work with the sourcecode, graphics, etc.)
If you'd offer free files on Tucows or free music on Jamendo WITHOUT those licenses, they would be as popular as WITH licenses, that's my opinion.

I wonder: Why would you want to have a license field?
Will you search specific licenses and ONLY download those games, ignoring the rest?
That would make sense if there was a lot of "Shareware" or "Free for Private use"-Stuff, which we don't really have in the archive... 99,9% is free to play whenever you like.

If there is any license for modifying graphics, sourcecode, etc., most users put the restrictions in the readme... and you wouldn't bother to use sourcecode without trying it, do you?

So... what is the PRACTICAL use of such a field?


Gnuku said:
EvilDragon said:
Well, I couid add an optional field to the archive where a dev can specify a license... but it should stay optional and nothing more fancy. It's up to the dev whether he wants to include a license or just release it for free.
When I release something, I just say "It's free! Do whatever you want with it!" as (besides of the GPL), I have no clue about all those licenses around... and I guess there are more devs like that.

OhOh Evil Dragon himself.

thank you for your proposal.

but simple question. what I have to understand your sentence "It's free! Do whatever you want with it! as (besides of the GPL)" is it a licence or not? because licence GPL put some restrictions = no restrictions on four core liberties. that's different than a text quoting it's free do what you want. But you know better than me.


Well... sure, there are licenses. But most devs of the gp2x scene don't care about the licenses. They want to code and release. And they want to put in plain text what's okay with them or not.
If they have to select a license, they probably won't upload their stuff, as they don't want to check out all licenses to find an appropriate one.

If somebody writes "You can use the sourcecode and do what you want with it, simply send me an eMail if you do. Thanks :)" what license do you need?
The dev told you what he wants, and that's it :)

QUOTE

So is it a licence or not. If you don't put a licence on your games. how can you avoid that companies licence your work and make money on your sweat.



Simple: Put in your readme what's allowed to do with your work or not. It's as legal as any license.
And it's up to the devs if they put it in there.
According to most laws worldwide, if there's NOTHING in the readme, you can't use it for your own stuff. If you want, you need to contact the dev. Which is also fine.

QUOTE

If i want to licence and earn money on the games you cited ("I guess there are more devs like that") I can?



If there's NOTHING in the readme, you can't cause those games are protected by law.
If there IS something in the readme or if it is GPL, you may do so and get rich.

QUOTE

you or others could one day licence all the games and earn money on the sweat of the programers.


No, we can't. You can't license stuff without asking for permission. At least, that's the case within the EU and America, and I guess most other countries.
When there's no license included doesn't mean you can do with it what you want.
It's the other way round: A license can allow you to do some stuff with it.

QUOTE

hopefully the gnu/linux Angstrom codes are licenced.



? There's nothing to license, it's GPL and we need to release the sourcecode according to the GPL. Nothing more.

Moxie said:
...or something like that, and you'd have gotten a reasoned discussion and quite likely a license field with no fuss. Now, you go in spoutng religious dogma and offend the other members of the forum, ensuring that even if ED adds that field, most people will not fill it in out of principle. Good job.
Well, cfiles HAD a license field at first (mandatory) which lead to a lot confusion, so I made it optional.
Out of 500 programs, only 3 devs did use it, so I removed it...
 
Last edited:

klikklak

Oh neat, it's a ... field.
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
845
Location
helsinki, finland
Website
Visit site
Actually this isn't such a bad idea. I'm also quite interested in legalities and ED's proposal sounded quite decent. I mean, for sure there are people who care about licences since the main attraction of the site is that it's 'open source entertainment'. So +1 for optional licence field.
 

Alex.

Retired
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
4,617
More like freeware entertainment... most people don't play with source codes, they play with games right?

Gnuku said:
If you don't put a licence on your games. how can you avoid that companies licence your work and make money on your sweat. If i want to licence and earn money on the games you cited ("I guess there are more devs like that") I can? ouhouh, I feel I will be rich pretty soon. LOL I will never do that.
Don't confuse copyright with licensing. Games with no specific license are still the property of their creator(s), with the only notable thing being that they cost $0 (which apparently is not always good enough for some).

EvilDragon said:
I wonder: Why would you want to have a license field?
Will you search specific licenses and ONLY download those games, ignoring the rest?
That's his plan haha :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sphinxter

Says What?
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
2,897
Location
Silicon Valley California, USA
Website
fullsack.com
EvilDragon said:
Well, cfiles HAD a license field at first (mandatory) which lead to a lot confusion, so I made it optional.
Out of 500 programs, only 3 devs did use it, so I removed it...
As one of the three developers who actually used the field I'd just like to say not displaying it does not bother me in the slightest and I could not care less as long as said license is not altered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dunny

Exophase Approved® Forum Troll
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
1,112
Age
47
Location
Broughton, Brigg, UK
Website
www.zxspin.com
Gnuku said:
So is it a licence or not. If you don't put a licence on your games. how can you avoid that companies licence your work and make money on your sweat.
I'm surprised that you want to restrict someone's freedom in that way - you seem to be quite big on "freedom", but then claim that you want to remove a person's (or company's) freedom. That's not nice.

I personally release most of my software as public domain with source, so that I don't restrict anyone like you seem to want to.

D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CJ Maynard

Still Fresh
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
39
Wow...well, hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers, but I agree with the OP...coming from an O.S. background, and it being one of the selling points of the machine, a license field makes a lot of sense. As long as it's optional.

Personally, I don't care and haven't cared since I've been a part of this scene...but I do see the logic in it. I suppose if it were an optional field, what's the harm, right? It covers those who are concerned, and those who aren't, can just ignore it. Seems the most logical way, IMO.

On the other hand, I don't run the archive, I don't pay the bills, and frankly, it's none of my business...so take my post for what you will :)
 

Exophase

Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
10,308
Age
38
Location
Cleveland OH
CJ Maynard said:
Wow...well, hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers, but I agree with the OP...coming from an O.S. background, and it being one of the selling points of the machine, a license field makes a lot of sense. As long as it's optional.

Personally, I don't care and haven't cared since I've been a part of this scene...but I do see the logic in it. I suppose if it were an optional field, what's the harm, right? It covers those who are concerned, and those who aren't, can just ignore it. Seems the most logical way, IMO.

On the other hand, I don't run the archive, I don't pay the bills, and frankly, it's none of my business...so take my post for what you will :)
I don't think anyone here is against including the field.. or even not for it. We just don't really like the way the OP has been coming off about it..

I actually never really got the notion that open source was a selling point of the machine, though. Unrestricted access to developing for it, yes. Open.. not really. The hardware documentation is not 100% available, nor is the source for everything given (media player). It has Linux more because Linux is an obvious thing to put on it than because it's a huge promoter of open source software.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gnuku

Still Fresh
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
19
Moxie said:
Gnuku posted on Feb 2 2009 at 09:43 AM said:
Check the forum and you will see that Evil Dragon himself don't see any problem with my request. and proposed to add one simple criterion to select the game according to the licence, but without being an obligation for the dev :D
For other people. The topic just started 2 days ago. that's too short to know if all the community feels concerned with that. I suspect that most people don't spend all there time on this website, and are concerned by other things than games. but they could be concerned by my question when they will read it.
You've only been around for, what? 4 weeks?

It's been a long time that I read the forum without any nickname. I had nothing to say, that's all. Pandora project motivated me to join the community and having a nickname
And even that what's the problem. For the topic I don't want to force anybody to do anything. I think GPL is a good answer. OK. But I respect the secularity of the place. I just propose an improvement of the hierarchical selection of a game. A forum is a place to ask that. Isn't it.

[/quote] We've had these kinds of discussions before. They always end up like this:



* The very large majority of people don't give a flying f-k about licenses, possibly beyond the fact that it shouldn't be illegal to download the programs (as long as we're talking stuff from the archives. That rule goes out the window for roms, apparently)[/quote]

thank for the information. I did not know that

[/quote]* Of those that do care, most are eminently able to state the license in the archive writeup of the program, if they are developers, or download and open the zip, check for the LICENSE file and toss the whole package if it doesn't confirm to their choice of licence religion, if users.[/quote]

as I said in my text that's long because not everybody put a licence or even any text like you told me "do what you want bla bla bla." I asked if it was possible to had a selection criterion like in many sites dedicated on softwares, music, creative common projects etc.... that's a place here to ask that. isn't it? I discovered you were the top dog of the site and you seemed to accept that proposal if and only if it was not a constrain for the dev. I use this argument to defend my proposal. it was very fair and polite in comparison to the bashing I have received since the first reply.



[/quote] * Everybody, developers and users alike, have a deep, deep hatred for people who try to tell them what they should and sholdn't do with their contributions, be it about licensing, standardised buttons, or whatever. WeLike those that do, not those that demand that others do.[/quote]

If people had read carefuly my text, they would not think like that, would not be be so aggressive and would not snipe and bash me. The text was long, but that's the minimum to read it completely and not the first 3 lines or in diagonal before criticising. speaking about games in a forum is not a reason to let one's brain at the entrance of this forum. So if people had read carefully, they would see that I don't ask the dev to licence in GPL or any Gnuku-approved software. and there was no underlying intention to convert to any GPL religion. I only asked if it is possible that the top dog of the site (you apparently) could do something to help people like me to easily access to the licence type of a game using something like a selection criterion. Of course if and only if this proposal is interesting for a majority or a high proportion of members. By this, I think I respect everybody's licence interest. I do not shock anybody. That's a secular proposal to ask information. that's not religious. Don't see any underlying intention to convert to any GPL religion. I perfectly distinguish my personal conception, and the public sphere. The pubic sphere is secular, my proposal was secular.

But maybe the underlying rule in this forum is to be grateful to people that don't read the text completely and then bash the author of the text only because they have 4000 topic written since many years in comparison with the author that has only 1 topic written since 4 days. Meditate few seconds on that.

[/quote] So, if this is very important to you, then do something. Make a wiki page that lists and links all Gnuku-approved software in the archives, or something. Yes, that means you'll have to do the footwork of checking the packages for yourself. If that is too much work for you, then it apparently isn't important enough.[/quote]

As I am not good on internet programming, and that i think people that have a GP32X don't spend there life on games and on the website but like this community, For those reasons I ask if it was possible to do something easily. And I believed that you feel no problem for a simple criteria if and only if it was not a constrain for dev. but maybe it was a mistake.



With all the respect that I have to give to any member of the community

Best regard


Exophase said:
CJ Maynard said:
Wow...well, hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers, but I agree with the OP...coming from an O.S. background, and it being one of the selling points of the machine, a license field makes a lot of sense. As long as it's optional.

Personally, I don't care and haven't cared since I've been a part of this scene...but I do see the logic in it. I suppose if it were an optional field, what's the harm, right? It covers those who are concerned, and those who aren't, can just ignore it. Seems the most logical way, IMO.

On the other hand, I don't run the archive, I don't pay the bills, and frankly, it's none of my business...so take my post for what you will :)
I don't think anyone here is against including the field.. or even not for it. We just don't really like the way the OP has been coming off about it..

I actually never really got the notion that open source was a selling point of the machine, though. Unrestricted access to developing for it, yes. Open.. not really. The hardware documentation is not 100% available, nor is the source for everything given (media player). It has Linux more because Linux is an obvious thing to put on it than because it's a huge promoter of open source software.



Exophase,

the way that I wrote the topic (OP I think it is) was probably clumsy and probably too long. that's the reason I rewrited it. Now it's good I think
It was not a reason anyway to bash me. i have no intention to convert members to any religion. I respect secularity of the forums. I just wanted a way to know and select a game according to the type of licence. I explained just why, I realise it was a mistake.

Hope the pressure droped

Best regards


CJ Maynard said:
Wow...well, hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers, but I agree with the OP...coming from an O.S. background, and it being one of the selling points of the machine, a license field makes a lot of sense. As long as it's optional.

Personally, I don't care and haven't cared since I've been a part of this scene...but I do see the logic in it. I suppose if it were an optional field, what's the harm, right? It covers those who are concerned, and those who aren't, can just ignore it. Seems the most logical way, IMO.

On the other hand, I don't run the archive, I don't pay the bills, and frankly, it's none of my business...so take my post for what you will :)


Oh my god, the first one that is polite and agree with me.
Is it real?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gnuku

Still Fresh
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
19
Dunny said:
Gnuku said:
So is it a licence or not. If you don't put a licence on your games. how can you avoid that companies licence your work and make money on your sweat.
I'm surprised that you want to restrict someone's freedom in that way - you seem to be quite big on "freedom", but then claim that you want to remove a person's (or company's) freedom. That's not nice.

I personally release most of my software as public domain with source, so that I don't restrict anyone like you seem to want to.

D.




Public domain and no licence are different.
The first protect the original work, the second nothing.

In Public domain, the original work can be modified, and the new work with modifications can be licenced with the licence you want (even copyrighted) ... but your original work stay in the public domain. NB: Sometimes problems appears if the new licence can cover more than the original work. But that's not common. Exemple: Zorro. Zorro is in the public domain since a long time. But a company zorro production at zorro.com built a licence such as you have to ask now him and pay fees to release a game, a movie, a music based on zorro. that's crazy. This problem was one of the reason for GPL.

No licence: means that you do not protect your original work, and people can take your work, copyright it and sell it. So after You have no right on your original work. The work is owned by the first one that licence the work. That's like colonization. I migrated to Australia. Aboriginals lived since a long time on the land. English came, licenced the land and said: now that's mine because you did not licenced it. French did the same thing etc.. etc....

So Public domain propose at least a protection on the original work. So you're right to do that and not nothing if you want to protect the original work. That's the reason why I asked Evil Dragon what he means with "no licence". and why he promoted "No licence concept" in this forum.

I think that's an important question.

Now Evil Dragon can have good reason to tell me that, reasons we have to respect yes, but reasons I think it's important to clarify in this topic as he is the top dog of the site. If No licence was Public domain for EvilDragon. It's good as a top dog of the forum to promote at least one basic protection. But I still don't know what EvilDragon means by No licence as I still not have any reply on the topic. EvilDragon please, if you can give information on the topic? Even a simple link on previous discussion on the topic we could find the answer would be enough.

Regards
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gnuku

Still Fresh
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
19
Moxie said:
This is, incidentally, also a lesson in the value of respct and humility. If you'd gotten in here and written something along the lines of

"Hey all, I have a suggestion: Couldn't there be a licence field in the writeups for the stuff in the archives? I, personally, like to know the licenses on stuff before I use them"

Of course that's a basic right, as it is to know for a food product if it is organic, fairtrade, health founding licenced, and what type of restriction for each licence.

I don't mean that that all games must be all GPL games (as I don't mean that's products must be all organic, fairtrade, and health founded food ). I only mean that's a basic right to know what the game or the product is. And ask if it is possible to have a simple non constraining system for everybody to select the game on that criteria.

If I want to select only games on the licence, that's my right. If many people want to do so or not, that's also there right. I think what I want is not an offence to the dev or gamers that are not interested by that.
If you think that I miss good games when I only choose a game on the type of licence. All right. That's my business. I have good reason for that. My goal is not only playing with a game, using a software, or eating food. My goal is to be able (within the limit of my capacities) to do those things and considering the consequences of the things I do on the others, not on me. I don't care about me, I care about the concequences on the others. I have personal views. But i do not impose the others to do the same. The OP was not this goal.

That's easy to understand.


Now If you were really shocked by my OP and my replies, and you think that because of that, the thing I propose will be not realized in the website. OK, you are the top dog. I will have to accept it. I will accept the decision, and I will continue to scan the licence in the zip files, as I am not able to do differently.


Hope I dropped the pressure


Regards
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gnuku

Still Fresh
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
19
atomicthumbs said:
craigix said:
I think you are very misguided to ignore software just because it does not have a license you approve of.
game, set, match



No, I am guided by what I think is good and safed for everybody. I don't force the others to do like that. but that's my right, and I am free to think like that. And you have no reason to judge my opinion if I do not disturb the liberty of the others. I just ask a simple thing to simplify the access to enjoy my right and do not constrain the right of the others. If really I am the only one after this OP to think like that, or if it is too difficult for the webmaster, I will not find any reason to continue to ask a modification of the current system, and I will continue to do how I did before.

That's all
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gnuku

Still Fresh
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
19
EvilDragon said:
If somebody writes "You can use the sourcecode and do what you want with it, simply send me an eMail if you do. Thanks :)" what license do you need?
The dev told you what he wants, and that's it :)
So is it a licence or not. If you don't put a licence on your games. how can you avoid that companies licence your work and make money on your sweat.
Simple: Put in your readme what's allowed to do with your work or not. It's as legal as any license.
And it's up to the devs if they put it in there.
According to most laws worldwide, if there's NOTHING in the readme, you can't use it for your own stuff. If you want, you need to contact the dev. Which is also fine.



From my understanding I think there are some cases where you are not completely in your right, or at least borderline, EvilDragon.

If you follow the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

Berne Convention stipulates 3 core principles on copyrights. the 2nd principle of Bern convention is the "automatic protection"/of the Author by a copyright, called 'automatic copyright'. That means theoretically that when you only write your name in the game, you are copyrighted and the game is proprietary game. So all games created with that are the automatic property of the author who is also automatically protected by the International Bern convention. So Your games with only the name are theoretically protected and restrict some rights/liberties for the others: basically the 4 core liberties edited by the FSF For software. I have to send you an email to know what to do with the game. On that point you're right and you know that better than I know. Now all of that is basic international and international law, but Bern convention allows some flexibility from nation to nation, or even between states of one nation. that flexibility allow some very unfair but legal things. And In practice you can also licence the work of the others.

First point - Automatic copyright is Not Fool-Proof in all countries. Check the web for 'Automatic Copyright'. That's very explicit, especially in US. Even more if you add, "do what you want with the game" (as you told me the last time), theoretically you allow everybody to do "what [they] want with [your] game, including licencing your original work. Isn't it? i was really surprised about what you told me and I decided to provoke you a little bit by asking you if we have to be careful or not of what we write on a licence text. It was my question the last time. apparently in a reply you told me that's enough. can you please confirm or infirm that first point as you publish software and thus experience those things more than us.

Second point - a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright, and different countries impose different level of standard. Bern convention comes from the French law rights 100 years ago, where the level is restrictive. But the levels of originality imposed between the original work and another one to obtain a copyright protection are not the same in USA, japan, korea ... and especially china. not all US programers know that US only joined recently the Bern convention and modify their system. But they still have traditionally a really flexible copyright law with quite high levels of originality to justify a copyright. That's the reason why in this country all things are clearly TM, ®, CC everywhere with really long texts, approvals, restrictions in the text ....and that's the reason why they have lawyers in there companies. In China that's worst, no respect at all. in korea (country of Game Park Holding) the levels can be very low too. I don't know. Now for the games of that site, the main problem can simply come from that. A simple example is the game Animatch v1.2 that is a transpose of commercial games but especially seems to be just a small improvement of the gp2x game tilematch. If it is based on the same code, Is the difference enough to say that's a different game? probably not everywhere in the world if both are based on an Automatic Copyright. If not for some national rules, The automatic copyright of Animatch is probably not possible, valid, full proof or protective enough in several countries. With reference to Tilematch, somebody could thus use Animatch and pass the threshold of improvement of a less restrictive country and put a clear copyright stipulating that people must buy the game to play. The new owner of the game would be protected by Bern convention and Animatch and the poor first dev could be out of law in this archive or in particular countries. I don't know about Korean law, but maybe its possible for GP holding to do that. Or others. Anyway, i am pretty sure that at least in China that's possible. Animatch is maybe not the best example, but everybody can easily understand the spirit. Tell us EvilDragon your experience on that second point as you are more involved in international software projects (Canada, UK, Turkey, Korea, Germany).


But anyway that's always good to know that, because you always have some limits on laws that can be broken, and having an indicator of the licence when you select a game is not only a way to improve selection of a game by licence type. It is I think also a way to give the possibility to anybody to think a minimum about the licence issue, without forcing him. licences seem to be an epidermic Taboo for some people here. But most gamers are not aware of the difficulties, diversity and implications of that issue (me the first as I know only some points), and I think that's a problem here. That is for this cited problem I started my OP with "I think there is a big problem in the GP2X archive, and this problem can have consequences for the community"). Why companies and institutions have highly well payed lawyers specialised in copyrights. In the artistic domain, the cousin of my wife is very well payed not only to protect the artistic companies and authors with which he works for, but also to find new opportunities on the back or sweat of the others, playing with evolution of local, national laws and even from other countries... you can easily understand what I mean if I transpose that to games that are made of codes, music, pictures, videos. I don't want to scare people. Most dev knows perfectly that I think as they as they learned that in dev schools. But some were maybe lazy or not interested by the topic at school. Maybe. Personally I was interested at Uni. but we were not a lot and it was not my topic so only during few hours. So not scaring them, but just a matter of being some aware of the licencing issues in this gaming community, for young like me with only a small University experience, But also for youngest that don't know anything on the topic. Education of the mass is always a good solution. Adding a criteria of licence to select a game is the minimum. Education starts with that. But I repeat in any case I wanted to educate, convert or force somebody to use one licence in particular or promote any software church foundations. I used GPL as an example (apparently GPL is an epidermic example) because I can explain more easily something based on examples that I know (i.e. why I thought a new selection criteria would be good). But you would do exactly the same thing with your experience and your knowledge when you will give me a reply.

best regards EvilDragon
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PoisonedV

Yeah, I'm a GIRL gamer, what of it?
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
3,096
Age
31
Website
Visit site
Ah, I see, the conquests of the authoritarian FSF Church have begun.

The Church of FSF - Giving open source a bad name since 1985!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top