[Freeciv] Re: it's like a screenplay

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski <maniek@xxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 01:08:06AM -0700, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > 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.

NO, WE FSCKINGLY AREN'T.

Is Linux infringing upon the UNIX's authors' so-called "intellectual property" ?
Is Microsoft infringing upon the Xerox/Apple so-called "intellectual property" ?
Is Lesstif infringing upon the Motif's author's so-called "intellectual 
property" ?
Is Harmony infringing upon the Qt's author's so-called "intellectual property" ?
Is i386 emulator infringing upon the Intel's/AMD's so-called "intellectual 
property" ?

( They all have cloning <whatever> as a stated goal of your project )

NO NO NO NO NO

> 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.

And one right that is not given by Copyright is right to
cleanroom reimplementations.

> > 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.

They gets money for implementation, not underlying idea.

> 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.

Software IS about algorithms.
Technological issues will inevitably kill software copyright,
that's only matter of time.

> > 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.  

STOP FSCKNIG THAT WE ARE THIEVES.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT A THEFT UNDER ANY LAW.

Thank you.

> "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.

See below.

> 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.

No.

> 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.

No.

Trademark law in very short (EU, I don't know about US) :
1) You CAN'T use THE_SAME name nor sign.
2) You CAN'T use name nor sign that is TOO_SIMILAR that it can
   confuse consumers into believing they have to do with other
   product
3) You CAN use THE_SAME name in completely different area,
   where ``completely different'' is very vague, and depending
   on local laws.

How could ``Freeciv'' infringe `Civilisation'' trademark ?
Hint : ``Civ'' syllabe isn't a trademark.

> 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.

This is simple - ideas aren't at all copyrightable, so many of us
                 thought you was talking about patent ingringement,             
 
                 when you told us that we might violate Hasbro's "IP"
                 by having the same rules.