Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
Michael K. Edwards said:
> On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about
>> the game engine.
>
> We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require
> literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer to "mise
> en scene" than to "public performance" / "unauthorized recording", so
> the process of establishing the fact of copying is a bit different.
> But with regard to freeciv (and the hypothesized
> OpenTTD-that-doesn't-need-bits-of-the-original), I think it
> vanishingly unlikely (IANAL) that the copyright holder on the original
> would fail to establish facts in support of infringement.
>
>> The game engine is to the game what a musical instrument
>> is to music. You use a musical instrument to play music
>> in much the same way you use a game engine to play the
>> game.
>
> Horsepucky. It's not a generic game engine, it's a clone of a
> specific game. If you make a "musical instrument" that can only be
> used to play "Happy Birthday (To You)", guess what? You need license
> from its copyright holder.
I'm slightly confused by this.
In the case of OpenTTD, you seem to be asserting that because OpenTTD has
no use other than to combine with the copyrighted data files -- to present
a scene similar to the original Transport Tycoon, the work is critically
dependant on the copyright license of the data files.
However, in the case of quagga, even though the quagga .deb (built with
I_WANT_SSL but dynamically linked) has no use other than to combine with
the copyrighted library files -- to present a scene of a unified,
functional program, the conflicting license terms of the individual
components do not cause a problem.
Where does this distinction come from?
--Joe
Reply to: