Re: Help on package
David Moreno Garza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am now packaging a Tetris-like game, and I have some doubts about the
> description.
>
> I have written the description like this:
> Description: Free clone of Tetris, featuring a bastard level
>
> Bastet (stands for "bastard Tetris") is a free (GPL'd) clone of
> Tetris(r) (built on the top of petris by Peter Seidler) which is
> designed to be "as bastard as possible": it tries to compute how useful
> blocks are and gives you the worst, the most bastard it can find.
> Playing bastet can be a painful experience, especially if you usually
> make "canyons" and wait for the long I-shaped block.
>
> As Tetris is a trademark, are the uses of this word proper? I mean, is
> it legal to make use of this word as I have written it on the
> description?
IANAL, but I believe it is just fine. But perhaps 'clone of Tetris' is not
the best phrase to use. Putting it very roughly, you can't use a trademark
to confuse people. "A Tetris-like game" is certainly fine. "A clone of
Tetris" might possibly imply that it was behavior-identical to Tetris,
which apparently it isn't. :-) How about "a free game very similar to
Tetris"?
> Now, the upstream author mentions his software is based on petris, a
> Tetris-like game on MIT/X11 license. Is it all valid to bastet use GPL?
Yes.
> Bastet is licensed over GPL.
Under the MIT/X11 license, the author of a derivative work (Bastet) can
license his parts however he likes, such as the GPL. In some sense Bastet
as a "whole" is licensed under GPL. The parts which come from petris are
still copyright the petris authors, and are MIT/X11-licensed; the copyright
file *must* reflect that.
> I only need some orientation, in order to make bastet Debian
> policy-compliant.
>
> Regards and thanks in advance,
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: