[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Please don't start the copyright stuff again!!!

["SamBC" <sambc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I didn't want to get back into this, but here we go again...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reed Meyer [mailto:rdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
>
<SNIP>
>
> Please improve your reading comprehension skills.  I didn't say a single
> word about the "UI incl. look and feel" being a rip-off of Civ I/II.

I was just summarising the discussions from before, if you had bothered to
read the rest of my post. But let's not get into flame wars, huh?

> In
> fact, IMO it's one aspect of the game that the freeciv developers should
> be commended for diverging from strictly mimicking Civ II.  I only
> mentioned the source code insofar as the relatively small percentage of it
> which implements those parts which rip-off Civ I/II (for example,
> implementing the definitions of the buildings).

You say yourself later in your post that implementations are not
copyrightable. So the sourcecode (the implementation) must be safe by
definition.

>      The phrase "thorough reasoning and citations that show clearly" is a
> joke, right?

Well the citations from US & Australian copyright legislation were
definitely there... I will quote in my next post on this topic (if there is
one) when I have time to search my email records.

>      Anyway, I went back and read through THOROUGHLY the threads regarding
> the copyright issue to make sure I didn't miss anything the first time.
> And yep, I learned something, all right.  I learned that that exercise was
> a complete waste of time.  Unless you are referring to some other messages
> besides those from July 2000 in the [Freeciv] mailing list?

No, I believe that's what it was - unless it spilled on freeciv-dev as
well... I will check that out for my next post...

>      Perhaps you don't quite remember how the discussion panned out.
> For example, you say the "only thing we couldn't find citations &
> precedents to put us in the clear over was ... the Tech Tree."  That might
> be a memory of Jules Bean's post ("Re: software license violation", July
> 20) where he says "The 'tech tree' I could just about see a genuine case
> for" (the meaning being that everything else is safe).  Unless Jules is a
> copyright lawyer (and maybe even if he was), I wouldn't put a whole lot of
> stock in this statement.

The reasoning behind that was fairly simple. Copyright only extends to
'works of authorship' (I believe that is common to all jurisdictions with
different wording), and that is the only 'work of authorship' that is
copied. The manuals are ours, the expression of the rules is ours, the
graphics is ours. Only the techtree structure and pattern is copied. I will
agree with that, and you will note that I outlined methods of dealing with
that (in summary of previous posts) in my last post.

>      The fact is that no actual legal precedents were put forth at all in
> that thread in support of the freeciv case, and without that or a strong
> argument from an experienced copyright lawyer, there's nothing I would
> find convincing.  Note that this has nothing to do with
> patents/trademarks.  I know very little about patent/trademark law and in
> any case I don't see anything that would violate any patents/trademarks
> held by Hasbro et al. (with the exception perhaps that possibly any
> reference to the names of the commercial Civ games should be with a (tm)
> or something) unless Hasbro actually owned patents on some of the game
> concepts.  I'm concerned strictly with copyright matters, the same
> thing Brandon Van Every was concerned with.

He kept trolling on about trademark and patent as well, so I don't know
where you're getting that from. I apologise for referring to precedents, I
wasn't sure there were any, I was guessing there. But there were clear
citations of legislation supporting our case.

>      Perhaps the misunderstanding is that copyright law is substantially
> different from country to country?  I.e. people are only familiar with the
> laws of their own countries and they might be a whole lot different from
> the U.S.?  If this is actually the case (which I doubt), I apologize, as I
> am only familiar with the U.S. laws.

They very a little - many restrict copyright-owners control more than in the
US

>      Also, the allusion to Linux/UNIX in the thread was completely bad.
> If you look carefully at the matter, you'll see that Linux isn't ripping
> off UNIX.  (Well, there might be small examples to the contrary here and
> there, for example the fact that the names of all the basic system
> commands are the same in the two OSes, but certainly not in general.
> Furthermore, I think "Linux" refers strictly only to the kernel itself,
> and you'd be hard pressed to find substantial examples of direct-ripoffs
> of the UNIX "kernel" in there).  Needless to say, it all boils down to the
> usual and unifying rule in copyright law, "ideas aren't copyrightable but
> implementations are".

And we have a different implementation on every front to Civ/II. The
techtree might be the same, but the files containing it are implemented
differently - so on the basis of what you're saying a sympathetic judge/jury
may well throw any such case out

As for the *nix/Linux side, when people talk about Linux they are often
referring to the GNU tools also - which are reimplementations of a tried
idea, often using the same algorithms (expressed as different code) and file
formats/configuration options. In a way (ignoring the techtree for this
debate) freeciv is less of a copy than these, as we use our own
configuration options, many different algorithms (look at the AI, for
instance), and different file formats


>      IN ANY case, the reason why I brought this stuff all up in the first
> place was only to point out that I do *NOT* want to be part of a project
> **which does not take its legal obligations seriously**.  The more I read
> the copyright-related thread, and the more I read posts from people such
> as yourself dismissing the potential for trouble out of hand, and the more
> it becomes clear to me that the majority of freeciv developers really have
> NO desire to do anything original in regards to gameplay, the more I'm
> convinced it's a Good Thing that my own submissions aren't being accepted.
> Is there anyone here who could please tell me it isn't as bad as
> it sounds?

Not that you'll listen to anyone, but I can honestly say that I see many
reasons why it should not be as you see it. If you refuse to listen to the
reasoning, that's your play.

You want to pull your stuff out, then I'm sure the maintainers will respect
that, although if your files include a GPL declaration then they can use it
anyway. But I'm sure your wishes will be respected

>
> > In fact, the only thing we couldn't find citations & precedents
> to put us in
> > the clear over was (one of the things you mention) the Tech
> Tree. This is
> > not even now verbatim identical to Civ/II [...]
>
> Replace "not even now verbatim" with "99.9%".
>

Still not verbatim. Close enough to be a copy of this 'work of authorship' -
but I was saying that we are moving slowly away

> > to be a concern. This is a matter more for the future - the
> 'freeciv' mode
> > evolving, which is the default mode (I believe), is growing further and
> > further from CivII. If it becomes a problem (like a hint of a
> > cease-and-desist order) then the Civ/II rulesets can be removed and the
> > (then hopefully very different) Freeciv mode used exclusively.
>
> Keep in mind that it's not just strictly stuff in the data/ directory but
> also some source code which implements the stuff in data/, as well as some
> other things such as the "nuking" implementation already given as an
> example.  But a substantially less powerful case can be made against
> freeciv just by changing the stuff in data/ (and some elements in data/,
> for example the tilesets, are fine already).

I retorted that near the beginning of this post. Code is our implementation,
so they can't touch us for that.

>
> > Oh, and anyone is Europe is safe from any hint of patent
> infringement anyway
> > (some convention or other - Munich I think, not sure). And we
> are not sure
> > if the tech tree would be a work of authorship (and therefore covered by
> > copyright) or a process (and therefore covered by patent). I go
> for process
> > as we have not verbatim copied a chart/table, but IANAL
> (definitely IANACL).
>
> The tech tree argument has nothing to do with patents.  It's a copyright
> issue.  It's the fact that the NAMES and DEFINITIONS of each tech are
> cribbed from Civ II.  And the shape of the tree.  This has nothing to do
> with the IDEA that a "tech tree" can exist (I doubt very much Hasbro et
> al. could have patented such a concept).  You may not have "verbatim"
> copied something but you've come pretty damn close -- and simply not being
> a "verbatim" copy does NOT mean it's not plagiarism, as any good student
> in an English class in a U.S. high school will know.

I quite agree with the techtree issue, although I feel that it is not
cut-and-dried, I feel that a court would likely side for Hasbro. However, I
think it will take little work to sort it out to be separate.

And plagiarism can be legal where only arguments/ideas are used, it is
apparent identically which is the problem, even when partial. So the problem
may well be solved by renaming some of the techs and units (>50% perhaps)

Again, IANAL, but it is a simple matter to do research.


SamBC