Re: [Sc2-devel] Content License

[Serge v. d. B. <sv...@st...>]

On 23 Oct 2002, Chris Nelson wrote:
> As you all know, TFB has released the source code to starcon2 under the
> GPL. We haven't yet decided on what license to release the media under,
> though. Basically, we want to fans to be able to use it in their
> not-for-profit projects, but we don't want other companies incorporating
> the art or music into for-profit games.
>
> So, if anybody knows of a content / media license which meets these
> criteria, please post a link to the list, or otherwise voice your
> opinion.

I've asked this question to the people who know about these things... GNU.
It appears that we can use the GPL after all.
Below follows the email correspondence we've had.

Serge



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:42:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
To: lic...@gn...
Subject: License for media files with GPL project.

Hi,

We're working on a GPL project (a port of the classic game Star Control II,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2), which, apart from code, contains sound
and image files. As I understand it, GPL is for code only, so we'll need
some license in the same spirit for the media files. Is there any such
license you could suggest?

Greetings,

Serge van den Boom






---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 23 Oct 2002 20:39:35 -0400
From: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
To: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
Cc: Licensing <lic...@gn...>
Subject: Re: License for media files with GPL project.

On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 18:42, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We're working on a GPL project (a port of the classic game Star Control II,
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2), which, apart from code, contains sound
> and image files. As I understand it, GPL is for code only, so we'll need
> some license in the same spirit for the media files. Is there any such
> license you could suggest?

You can use the GPL for images and sound too.  For sound files like .xm,
.it, .mod, etc, that's the source code ("preferred form for
modification"),  rather than (for example) oggs made from them.  For
images, the preferred form for modification is the .xcf originals (or
the models for images generated from 3d models).

Hope this helps.

-- 
-Dave Turner
Free Software Licensing Guru
This is not legal advice.  If you need legal advice, see a lawyer.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:43:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
To: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
Subject: Re: License for media files with GPL project.

On 23 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 18:42, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> > We're working on a GPL project (a port of the classic game Star Control
> > II, http://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2), which, apart from code,
> > contains sound and image files. As I understand it, GPL is for code
> > only, so we'll need some license in the same spirit for the media files.
> > Is there any such license you could suggest?
> You can use the GPL for images and sound too.  For sound files like .xm,
> .it, .mod, etc, that's the source code ("preferred form for
> modification"),  rather than (for example) oggs made from them.  For
> images, the preferred form for modification is the .xcf originals (or
> the models for images generated from 3d models).
>
> Hope this helps.
I think it will. Thank you.

It raises some new questions though.

How would one "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that [one] changed the files and the date of any change." (2a), if the
file format doesn't have comment sections?

Also, we have audio files which originate from some obscure 3DO format. I
guess the "preferred form for modification" would be them (losslessly)
converted to some more common format like .wav. But we would wish to supply
our sound data in .ogg format. As it is unlikely anyone would want to edit
those files (replace maybe) and it's quite a lot of data, would we need to
supply .wav format files too, those files not being derived from any GPL
work?

Also, I'd like your permission to post your replies in this discussion
on our (public) development mailing list.

Greetings,

Serge





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 25 Oct 2002 16:54:08 -0400
From: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
To: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
Cc: Licensing <lic...@gn...>
Subject: Re: License for media files with GPL project.

On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 15:43, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 18:42, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> > > We're working on a GPL project (a port of the classic game Star Control
> > > II, http://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2), which, apart from code,
> > > contains sound and image files. As I understand it, GPL is for code
> > > only, so we'll need some license in the same spirit for the media files.
> > > Is there any such license you could suggest?
> > You can use the GPL for images and sound too.  For sound files like .xm,
> > .it, .mod, etc, that's the source code ("preferred form for
> > modification"),  rather than (for example) oggs made from them.  For
> > images, the preferred form for modification is the .xcf originals (or
> > the models for images generated from 3d models).
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> I think it will. Thank you.
>
> It raises some new questions though.
>
> How would one "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> that [one] changed the files and the date of any change." (2a), if the
> file format doesn't have comment sections?

If you place these change notices in a separate text file, which is
distributed with the file, that's probably fine.

> Also, we have audio files which originate from some obscure 3DO format. I
> guess the "preferred form for modification" would be them (losslessly)
> converted to some more common format like .wav. But we would wish to supply
> our sound data in .ogg format. As it is unlikely anyone would want to edit
> those files (replace maybe) and it's quite a lot of data, would we need to
> supply .wav format files too, those files not being derived from any GPL
> work?

The obscure 3DO format would probably be the preferred form for
modification.  You could also simply grant permission to distribute the
.oggs verbatim without the .wavs or .3dowhatevers.

> Also, I'd like your permission to post your replies in this discussion
> on our (public) development mailing list.

You have my permission, but please keep the disclaimer which is in my
sig.

-- 
-Dave Turner
Free Software Licensing Guru
This is not legal advice.  If you need legal advice, see a lawyer.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 00:22:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
To: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
Subject: Re: License for media files with GPL project.

On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > How would one "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> > that [one] changed the files and the date of any change." (2a), if the
> > file format doesn't have comment sections?
> If you place these change notices in a separate text file, which is
> distributed with the file, that's probably fine.
Well, I guess that would be the problem for the people wanting to use our
"source".

> > Also, we have audio files which originate from some obscure 3DO format. I
> > guess the "preferred form for modification" would be them (losslessly)
> > converted to some more common format like .wav. But we would wish to supply
> > our sound data in .ogg format. As it is unlikely anyone would want to edit
> > those files (replace maybe) and it's quite a lot of data, would we need to
> > supply .wav format files too, those files not being derived from any GPL
> > work?
> The obscure 3DO format would probably be the preferred form for
> modification.
I know what I'd prefer... those formats were nowhere described on the web.

> You could also simply grant permission to distribute the oggs verbatim
> .without the .wavs or .3dowhatevers.
How would we go about doing that, while keeping the same restrictions on
distribution the GPL provides? Put an exception under the standard text that
those files can be distributed under the GPL?

> > Also, I'd like your permission to post your replies in this discussion
> > on our (public) development mailing list.
> You have my permission, but please keep the disclaimer which is in my
> sig.
Ok. Thanks.

Serge





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 25 Oct 2002 18:28:08 -0400
From: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
To: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
Cc: Licensing <lic...@gn...>
Subject: Re: License for media files with GPL project.

On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:22, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > > How would one "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> > > that [one] changed the files and the date of any change." (2a), if the
> > > file format doesn't have comment sections?
> > If you place these change notices in a separate text file, which is
> > distributed with the file, that's probably fine.
> Well, I guess that would be the problem for the people wanting to use our
> "source".

I'm not sure I understand -- that separate file would be carried along
with the source and binaries.  It could be as simple as a Changelog
file.

> > > Also, we have audio files which originate from some obscure 3DO format. I
> > > guess the "preferred form for modification" would be them (losslessly)
> > > converted to some more common format like .wav. But we would wish to supply
> > > our sound data in .ogg format. As it is unlikely anyone would want to edit
> > > those files (replace maybe) and it's quite a lot of data, would we need to
> > > supply .wav format files too, those files not being derived from any GPL
> > > work?
> > The obscure 3DO format would probably be the preferred form for
> > modification.
> I know what I'd prefer... those formats were nowhere described on the web.

OK, it's up to you.

> > You could also simply grant permission to distribute the oggs verbatim
> > .without the .wavs or .3dowhatevers.
> How would we go about doing that, while keeping the same restrictions on
> distribution the GPL provides? Put an exception under the standard text that
> those files can be distributed under the GPL?

Yes.

-- 
-Dave Turner
Free Software Licensing Guru
This is not legal advice.  If you need legal advice, see a lawyer.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 00:47:43 +0200 (CEST)
From: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
To: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
Subject: Re: License for media files with GPL project.

On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:22, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> > On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > > > How would one "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> > > > that [one] changed the files and the date of any change." (2a), if the
> > > > file format doesn't have comment sections?
> > > If you place these change notices in a separate text file, which is
> > > distributed with the file, that's probably fine.
> > Well, I guess that would be the problem for the people wanting to use our
> > "source".
> I'm not sure I understand -- that separate file would be carried along
> with the source and binaries.  It could be as simple as a Changelog
> file.
Never mind. You said "probably". Someone who's in the situation of having to
add such a comment may want to be more certain.

> > > > Also, we have audio files which originate from some obscure 3DO
> > > > format. I guess the "preferred form for modification" would be them
> > > > (losslessly) converted to some more common format like .wav. But we
> > > > would wish to supply our sound data in .ogg format. As it is
> > > > unlikely anyone would want to edit those files (replace maybe) and
> > > > it's quite a lot of data, would we need to supply .wav format files
> > > > too, those files not being derived from any GPL work?
> > > The obscure 3DO format would probably be the preferred form for
> > > modification.
> > I know what I'd prefer... those formats were nowhere described on the web.
> OK, it's up to you.
Is it? That would mean there can be more than one "preferred form for
modification". I guess I'm probably thinking too much like a computer
scientist about these legal matters.

> > > You could also simply grant permission to distribute the oggs verbatim
> > > .without the .wavs or .3dowhatevers.
> > How would we go about doing that, while keeping the same restrictions on
> > distribution the GPL provides? Put an exception under the standard text
> > that those files can be distributed under the GPL?
> Yes.
Ok, thanks.

Serge





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 25 Oct 2002 18:49:25 -0400
From: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
To: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
Cc: Licensing <lic...@gn...>
Subject: Re: License for media files with GPL project.

On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:47, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:22, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> > > On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > > > > How would one "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
> > > > > that [one] changed the files and the date of any change." (2a), if the
> > > > > file format doesn't have comment sections?
> > > > If you place these change notices in a separate text file, which is
> > > > distributed with the file, that's probably fine.
> > > Well, I guess that would be the problem for the people wanting to use our
> > > "source".
> > I'm not sure I understand -- that separate file would be carried along
> > with the source and binaries.  It could be as simple as a Changelog
> > file.
> Never mind. You said "probably". Someone who's in the situation of having to
> add such a comment may want to be more certain.

I can check with our lawyers and give you a definate answer, but this
could take time.  Shall I?  I'm 95% certain, but I never say I'm 100%
unless I really am.

> > > > > Also, we have audio files which originate from some obscure 3DO
> > > > > format. I guess the "preferred form for modification" would be them
> > > > > (losslessly) converted to some more common format like .wav. But we
> > > > > would wish to supply our sound data in .ogg format. As it is
> > > > > unlikely anyone would want to edit those files (replace maybe) and
> > > > > it's quite a lot of data, would we need to supply .wav format files
> > > > > too, those files not being derived from any GPL work?
> > > > The obscure 3DO format would probably be the preferred form for
> > > > modification.
> > > I know what I'd prefer... those formats were nowhere described on the web.
> > OK, it's up to you.
> Is it? That would mean there can be more than one "preferred form for
> modification". I guess I'm probably thinking too much like a computer
> scientist about these legal matters.

Yes to both :)

-- 
-Dave Turner
Free Software Licensing Guru
This is not legal advice.  If you need legal advice, see a lawyer.





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 01:00:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Serge van den Boom <sv...@st...>
To: Free Software Foundation <lic...@gn...>
Subject: Re: License for media files with GPL project.

On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:47, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> > On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 18:22, Serge van den Boom wrote:
> > > > On 25 Oct 2002, Free Software Foundation wrote:
> > > > > > How would one "cause the modified files to carry prominent
> > > > > > notices stating that [one] changed the files and the date of any
> > > > > > change." (2a), if the file format doesn't have comment sections?
> > > > > If you place these change notices in a separate text file, which is
> > > > > distributed with the file, that's probably fine.
> > > > Well, I guess that would be the problem for the people wanting to
> > > > use our "source".
> > > I'm not sure I understand -- that separate file would be carried along
> > > with the source and binaries.  It could be as simple as a Changelog
> > > file.
> > Never mind. You said "probably". Someone who's in the situation of
> > having to add such a comment may want to be more certain.
> I can check with our lawyers and give you a definate answer, but this
> could take time.  Shall I?  I'm 95% certain, but I never say I'm 100%
> unless I really am.
Though I would like to be able to know this as 'a fact', it's not important
for us here, so there's no need to waste any more of your or other peoples
time on it.

Thanks for your help.

Serge