On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:05:44 +0100 Arand Nash wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm shallowly involved with a game project which I hope someday might
> make it into Debian.
You mean
http://www.redeclipse.net/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/redeclipse/
don't you?
Impressive screenshots, I wonder which is the license for the game
data...
Also, I seem to remember a number of licensing issues for the Cube
engine:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00093.html
and the thread that followed (also with some messages that broke the
thread).
Have those issues been solved in the meanwhile?
>
> Currently they use a rather non-free trademark/logo license.
This is unfortunate.
>
> I read an interesting suggestion in the archives here[1] which I figured
> might be worth proposing as an alternative to the main developers.
> My adapted version would read something like:[2]
>
> Is this still a suggestion for a trademark license which you would still
> consider reasonably "OK" and fit for DFSG?
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00122.html
I personally think that that trademark license *draft* is still a good
starting point for a possible trademark license which doesn't cause
DFSG troubles.
Two big warnings, though:
A. that trademark license was a *draft*, not a final
ready-to-be-adopted text; I was waiting for additional
input before going on, but that input has never arrived:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/04/msg00154.html
B. that trademark license was being drafted as a proposed
fix for the non-free Debian logos; the issue with Debian
logos was later (partially) fixed in a different way:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00048.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00063.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00066.html
The announcement was then done on a DPN issue:
http://www.debian.org/News/project/2008/15/
One additional warning is that I was personally involved in the
drafting of that proposed trademark license: as a consequence, I may of
course be a little biased in my opinion on it...
Let's wait for the answers of other debian-legal regulars!
>
> [2]
> The name "Red Eclipse" and the works know as the Red Eclipse logos
[...]
> Copyright (c) 2010 Red Eclipse Team
>
> This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
> Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
> Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105,
> USA.
As an aside, I personally think that the chosen copyright license fails
to meet the DFSG:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
However other people (including the FTP-masters!) seem to disagree with
me on CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/01/msg00084.html
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp4qKcbge2_e.pgp
Description: PGP signature