Difference between revisions of "Talk:License"

Latest revision as of 12:12, 4 August 2007

why do you prefer not to use CC noncommercial? it would annot me to think of someone else making money from work i have given for free.--Blondandy 15:18, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

because it is not compatible with many other things; the one unfamous example is that DFSG (Debian Free Software Guideliness) will never accept CC Attribute-NonCommercial-* because it explicity states that anyone can sell the stuff; that is the one reason why we will never get accepted .deb package of UFO:AI in Debian Distribution (because we already have the stuff with CC Attribute-NonCommercial; not that I think we should care about Debian... --Zenerka 15:30, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

One simple reason is that it's just one more restriction on the data. We use content that is licensed under it anyway, but I see no reason why we should use or encourage it if the author/artists is ok with e.g. CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. Or is there a reason I do not know of? --Hoehrer 15:33, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

and releasing the game under GPL which just allows to do anything (including selling) as long as the license is saved is another thing - in fact because we use GPL for the game (code, release) and CC Attribute-NonCommercial-* for some artwork, currently greately increases my headache... I don't know what will we do at the end; most probably we will have to prepare two instalators - one for the "Game released under GPL" and second for "additional artwork released under CC A-NC-*)...--Zenerka 15:36, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

Ha, I see you've become worried exactly one day before I did (I've voiced the concerns on the forum). :) Note also that CC licenses are usually not compatible among themselves, which is yet another reason to drop NC (but it still won't be enough). Also, wiki is under GFDL, which is not compatible with anything, so moving text and images to/from the wiki is again problematic. -Bandobras

Blondandy, let's say ID Software, which released Quake2 source we use, wants to take back some of our improvements and use them in a future game they will sell. What is wrong with that? Moreover, when they make some more improvements to the code taken from us, GNU GPL requires them to release the improvements as soon as they start selling the game. What's wrong with that? Now, say it's not ID Software. Still, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with people making money? Have you really given for free or do you want to control people? -Bandobras

Bandobras: No I am just annoyed at the goon [[1]] who appears to be making hundreds of dollars by selling UFO:AI on ebay. I agree, the scenario you describe does make CC noncommercial seem overly restrictive. If someone was to sell the game and use the money to upgrade ninex or create more dedicated servers, that would be fine. --Blondandy 11:34, 4 August 2007 (CEST)

The goon violates the license already. He is required to correctly state the license, make the license easily available for reading and make source code (and the rest) of the game available for the people, telling them explicitly they can download the code (the game) for free. He probably also does not mention that the game is beta (or alpha, do we?). OTOH, if the guy was honest and told the people they can download the game for free (and even modify the game) and that the game is still far from complete, but he charged money for burning the game on CDs, printing documentations and binding the bundle with fancy ribbons, there would still be nothing wrong with it in my opinion. -Bandobras 12:50, 4 August 2007 (CEST)

The selling on ebay unfortunately also happens even if the license is restictive (Blender was/is sold on ebay as well among other free software) ... as soon as a lot of people (yes all of you reading this and having an ebay account) point out that one can get the game for free at http://ufoai.sf.net the spook should be gone - but I don't know enough about how ebay works (can users block comments?). I'm just sorry for the people who actually buy it before searching for alternative sources of shipment. :( --Hoehrer 12:23, 4 August 2007 (CEST)

Just saw that this guy actually also sells openoffice, some opensource gantt software and what appears to be Inkscape among others. On the one hand he fucks over ebay buyers (only downloads only as far as i've seen, no shipped CDs), on the other hand he spreads the software. :-/ --Hoehrer 12:30, 4 August 2007 (CEST)