[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#248782: abuse-sfx: violation of license terms

Benjamin Cutler wrote:

> Does it make any difference that the company is question has been
> dissolved and they basically dropped everything into the public domain?

Yes, it *would*

>  From http://www.loonygames.com/content/1.10/guest/
> ---
> Around July, Crack first missed payroll. August came and we moved out
> of the office. September offered no new news, so we decided to call it
> quits. Rather than letting all that hard work sit around and rot, we
> released it to the public domain.

But we would need clear evidence that they actually *did* release it into
the public domain.  This is a little too vague given that many people are
confused about what the public domain is.  For instance, a statement saying
"Crack.com, the former copyright holders of these files, release all of
them into the public domain, with no restrictions."

> After doing the same with Abuse and 
> getting a tremendous response, we had to. Some people have said "Aren't
> you worried someone else could pick it up, finish the game and sell it".
> The answer is no. I don't mind if someone makes a profit off this work,
> which is a definite possibility. I think the engine can be used to make
> many different games, and I hope someone does just that. The soundtrack
> could be sold to a record, game, or movie company for 100k or more, and
> the textures have a fair value as well. But with debt that Crack dot Com
> accrued, even these sales would not have helped. We would much rather
> see other people learn from our work and our mistakes.
> ---
> It sounds like perhaps the maintainer of the package should email
> Jonathan Clark and get a clarification?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to: