[Freeciv] it's like a screenplay

["Brandon Van Every" <vanevery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> While (3) appears ridiculous when applied to a house, it's daily
praxis
> when software is concerned and it is a key fundament of Free Software
> development.

Stop talking about houses, start talking about screenplays.  What are
the rights of the author?  This is the realm of Intellectual Property
and games are not special in this regard.  You guys are making the
mistake of thinking my argument is about software algorithms, it isn't.
You're infringing upon the intellectual property of the game rules
themselves: tech trees, play mechanics, etc.  These are concrete
expressions of intellectual property.  It's not "a" tech tree you're
utilizing, it's the Civ II tech tree.  It's not "a" set of relationships
about minerals and money and unhappiness, it's the Civ II relationships
about minerals and money and unhappiness.  So long as you have cloning
Civ II as a stated goal of your project, you are infringing upon the
authors' intellectual property.

Let's put it this way.  Throw out the software aspect.  Let's say you
ripped off the original Civilization board game by Avalon Hill.  You
wanted to make your board game "compatible" with AH's board game.
*That's* intellectual property infringement.  There's nothing stopping
you from creating a computer readable file of all of AH's game rules and
printouts of the map board, and distributing them willy nilly for free
to everyone and anyone.  Just because you can infinitely reproduce
intellectual property does not mean you have the right to do so.  In
fact, one of the rights of Copyright is the right to reproduce the work.
You don't have that right, the author does.

> What Microprose or Hasbro get paid for, is not the idea (=ruleset) of
> Civilization but their implementation of it.

Incorrect.  If that were true, novelists and screenwriters would never
be paid a dime of royalties.

I am beginning to think that you guys are so wrapped up in technological
issues of Free Software that you really don't have a clue what good old
fashioned Intellectual Property law is all about.  Forget all this
algorithms and software stuff.  Think books.  Plays.  Works of art.

> Since there existed
> "Civilization" the board game before and Sid Meier commited the same
> "theft" as anyone else who cloned the idea thereafter (SMAC, Birth of
> the Federation, any round based strategies) - the idea of patenting
> round-based strategy is ridiculous.

WRONG about your purported theft.  "Civilization" the computer software
is in no way, shape, or form the same game as "Civilization" the Avalon
Hill boardgame.  There is no Copyright infringement whatsoever, it's a
completely different game with completely different rules.  It would
take a moron to try to say that they're in any way the same game, or
even vaguely similar games.  The only thing they have in common is
they're both games about civilizations.  Unlike what you guys have been
up to, Sid Meyer did a completely original work of authorship, as
original as any work of authorship can be or has to be.

There is no patent issue here either, as to my knowledge neither game
tried to patent anything about their rules - nor could they.

The only issue here is a Trademark issue, whether the word
"Civilization" is trademarkable.  I think the full title, "Sid Meyer's
Civilization" probably got completely around the issue as far as the
lawyers were concerned.  One is distinguished from the other and so the
consumer is protected against confusion - which is what trademark law is
set up to do.  It isn't about protecting companies, it's about
protecting consumers.

I think it is very likely that you're violating Sid Meyer's Civilization
II's copyright.  It's as simple as if you had lifted a screenplay and
called it your own.

I think it is possible you are violating Hasbro / Microprose's trademark
by using the "Freeciv" name, at least to the extent that they could
probably bully you about it, in the context of other evidence of willful
intellectual property infringement.  But that's a hair for lawyers to
split.  Whether you're in violation probably depends on how good your
lawyer is vs. how good their lawyer is.

You aren't violating any patents.  It's not even a debating point and
shouldn't be introduced into the discussion.  A tendency to conflate
these different categories of intellectual property tells me you aren't
rowing with your legal paddles in the water.


Cheers,             Infernal Troublemaker                    Troll
Mallor              "By simple mistake, mortals themselves amuse."