| Author |
Message |
Daniel Patterson (Reflux)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 7:00 pm: | |
Michael Stutz has a website on the Design Science License that I'm sure many here will find very usefull.
"The Design Science License [8k text] is a copyleft-style license that you can use to "copyleft" any work that is recognized by
copyright law. It is not a specialized license that only applies to certain kinds of works or subject matter, or only for the
products of certain organizations, but it is a comprehensive, generalized license that anyone can use for any work recognized by
copyright law. It also ensures that the attribution integrity of a work is kept."
http://dsl.org/copyleft/#dsl
http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt |
David GLAUDE (Glu)
| | Posted on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 12:05 pm: | |
What about the copyright on the game contain
inside Zillions-of-Games distribution?
[New game announcement below, keep reading]
If you do a Chess variant and reuse the chess code from Zillions development, then do you own your variant?
And if you use in a game a graphic file from the Zillions distribution, then do you own your variant?
If you want a copyleft or GPL or ??? for the game you build, you may want to build them from scratch without looking at Zillions implementation of chess.
Also you may want to use free chess bitmap.
Or maybe all the chess variant writer should join forces for a free implementation or ask Zillions in order for them to copyleft their *.ZRF and *.BMP files (or some of them).
The way I see Zillions-of-Games nowdays, is that they are very happy to receive your variants and games for free, but they do not give much for free to the community.
It was very interesting to see some chess variant comming from the GNU Chess team. It seems that they use their own picture and did a rewrite of the chess.zrf but with the same logic.
Now let's be positive and announce a new set of chess variants on my web site: http://glu.freeservers.com/barneyp.htm
David GLAUDE |
Robert A. Kraus (Bobkraus)
| | Posted on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 2:15 pm: | |
Daniel Patterson's message states:
"The Design Science License [8k text] is a copyleft-style license that you can use to "copyleft" any work that is recognized by
copyright law."
Well, it just so happens that games and their rules and programs are NOT recognized by copyright law! Anyone can legally re-write/re-program them and publish them at any time. |
Jeff Mallett (Jeffm)
| | Posted on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 7:13 pm: | |
Game programs made up 45% of all retail software sold in the U.S. in 2000. Of course they are protected like any other kind of software. |
Robert A. Kraus (Bobkraus)
| | Posted on Monday, February 05, 2001 - 10:32 pm: | |
Yes, of course the actual programs are protected. What I meant was you could re-make the same game by writing your own program, doing your own artwork, re-writing the text, etc. (just like they re-make movies), the point being that the game ideas are not protected, only the physical data. I believe I am correct? |
Daniel Patterson (Reflux)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 2:14 pm: | |
Games and rules are protected by copyright law. I am very intimate with copyright law, I've registered several documents with the copyright office, and if you'ld like, I could here provide the applicable citations for games and copyright based on my copy of Title 17 of the United States Code. (I know what I'm talking about.)
By all means, rewrite the text, do your own artwork, your own code. Your result is a change in form, not content. The content is what copyright law protects. What was described is commonly called "cosmetic mutilation." The question in courts is always the same; "Is the work an original creation? Or is it just a different version of the original?"
Copyright to a specific document lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years. After that, it's in the public domain.
While the Zillions engine and code, etc. is protected, you can put your own game into the Design Science License so that people can work on it without restriction, and still maintain the author's credit. Placing anything in the public domain can endanger that.
As for program, software, you could also use the GNU public license- which is specifically designed for such.
More information:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
Or write: Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 20559-6000.
The GNU Public License would benefit everyone with Zillions of Games. I'ld strongly advise it's producers to consider looking at it. |
Daniel Patterson (Reflux)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 2:20 pm: | |
Oh, and if you do "rewrite the text, do your own artwork, your own code," of an already copy-protected work, then you've commited an infringement of copyright. Remember- content, not form, is what matters.
When they remake movies, they get written permission first. Most will also include that permission notice in the end credits somewhere. Though they don't have to unless so directed in their agreement with the copyright owner. |
Robert A. Kraus (Bobkraus)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 7:38 pm: | |
Well, I disagree!
First, I never said a movie was not copyrightable. I said you can remake a game the way you remake a movie without violating any copyright laws, because the game is not copyrightable, even though the movie is.
Now I don't doubt any of the comments you made about cosmetic mutilation, content vs form, etc. I'm sure they apply to all copyrightable material such as artistic and literary works, but not to games, because games aren't covered by copyright law. Now yes, you can register the game, but the copyright laws only protect any literary or pictorial expression involved in the game (which is why you have to "remake" it). It does not cover any game ideas or systems.
Here is a quote taken from a file prepared by the Library of Congress Copyright Office:
"The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the game-board or container, may be registrable."
(I can E-mail a copy of the Acrobat .pdf file I got the quote from.) |
Daniel Patterson (Reflux)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 4:06 pm: | |
The excerpt is very much in accord with my interpretation of the law, indeed. Ideas are not protected by copyright, as well as systems, methods, etc. But the key term is "similar principles." This is intact to allow people to author their own variations. And the ruling was, if memory serves, that such variations are original works in their own right. Much like parodies of movies.
But the law can recognize a game's system and method through patent law. Games are protected thus by both. Don't take my word for it. Talk to an attorney. I did.
The games and hobby industry would be in jeopardy if their work could not be protected. Do you really think that the courts would say to Milton Bradley that they can't sue a company that copied their game? No one's going to put up with that. |
Robert A. Kraus (Bobkraus)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 8:30 pm: | |
Okay, I guess there is nothing in your last message that I can dispute. You did say people are allowed to author their own variations, and I did say "remake". The question is how much of a change is necessary for it to qualify as a different game.
Suppose, for example that standard Chess had just been newly created and copyrighted. Can all of the hundreds of variations made for Zillions be called legitimate different games in their own right? (I would hope so! Otherwise creativity would be greatly stifled.)
I know nothing about patents. |
Daniel Patterson (Reflux)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 9:40 pm: | |
How much of a change is a good question, and is ultimately left to the courts to decide. I can't speak much for chess variations as I've only played the common one. But from what I've seen of them, I'ld say they might all be protected. Since chess itself is in the public domain, it's the only one that isn't. But variations are considered original works.
When working on a new variation, I would ask myself, "Do I feel like I'm playing a new and different game? Does this game offer a new experience to people?" If I feel it's too similar, I would probably distort the game more, while still trying to follow the theme. Just to avoid possible legal inquiries.
I placed my game into the Design Science License as an expression of the importance of this licence.
http://www.refluxulfer.com/pret/index.htm
What I am trying to accomplish by posting here on the Design Science License is to create awareness about an ideal way to share our work with others. It protects the authors' credit to the work, and still allows anyone and everyone to develop it further, unrestricted. No need to obtain prior permission, no necessary fees, etc. It's an ideal that has been sought for years for an ideal world.
Well, at least it's a step in the right direction... |
Dan Troyka (Dtroyka)
| | Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 10:10 pm: | |
It is not at all clear that copyright law protects the rule set of a game. In the United States, no law or case that I am aware of directly addresses the issue. Patent law is designed to protect inventions that are novel, useful, and non-obvious. Copyright is intended to protect original works of expression. The question of whether a boardgame is copyrightable basically reduces to the question of whether it is an act of expression or an invention. This is an unanswerable question in the abstract. Until some court states that boardgames can be copyrighted or Congress specifically adds them to the copyright laws (an unlikely scenario), boardgames will remain in limbo.
A few basic points: Graphics and documentation can of course be copyrighted. As another poster noted, neither a copyright symbol nor registration is necessary for protection to attach. This is the law in all countries that have signed the Berne Convention, which probably covers all contributors to this site. If a game is in the public domain, however, copyright protection of your formulation of the rules is limited. There are only so many ways of describing how a Rook moves and you cannot prevent others from describing this motion by claiming a broad copyright.
If boardgames can be copyrighted, you would need permission to publish a variant. The "parody" doctrine mentioned earlier is a limited exception to copyright law grounded in free speech doctrine. Generally speaking you cannot publish a derivative work without obtaining a license from the owner of the copyright. There is, of course, some point at which a variant becomes a new game and not a derivative work, in which case you don't need permission. |
Daniel Patterson (Reflux)
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 8:10 am: | |
Very true. But at least it's safe to say that, having registered a boardgame with the Copyright office, were a party to infringe on my rights to the game I would not have much trouble taking that party to court and getting the court to tell the party to stop. I don't see anything in Copyright law that specifically recognizes boardgames, but protecting them is not much an issue. And that's all I'm trying to say. The law can protect boardgames. |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 3:32 am: | |
Design Science License
I have read it and did not understand it.
Can someone not say something like this
without special computer expressions
(PGN, ...) etc that have nothing to do with
a game as such?
And without the legalese.
I am not signing anything or even agreeing to
anything that is not proper, simple, plain language.
If a person like me with a PhD cannot understand it, how can the world of game authors grow together by using such a cryptic text?
(They once did a test on American TV last year
to see whether University Professors could understand the text of telephone bills. They could not... I strongly suppose that this sort of thing is going on just because most people are too ashamed to acknowledge that they do not understand...) |
David GLAUDE (Glu)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 1:29 am: | |
I am here talking about ZRF rule file.
Could I suggest GNU public licence.
If you want your work to stay FREE and
any variation or enhancement to stay FREE.
The GPL is made for Code of program.
From my point of view Zillions language is
a programing language! So it apply.
Now the Copyright you have is on the
textual expression of the program.
My current problem is what about all of the chess variant (let say variant of the chess.zrf file).
Zillions development own the copyright on
the original "chess.zrf" file and so any
derivative is concearn with this.
That's why I suggest Zillions development to FREE the game description they have made in ZRF language. They could free with the GPL or maybe with a free+not for commercial use.
David GLAUDE |
Dan Troyka (Dtroyka)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 1:23 pm: | |
I don't think Zillions is in a position to claim a copyright violation when a programmer uses code from a CD game to make a variant. Zillions has invited us to develop games using the ZRF language and to publish them on the web site. Assuming you've paid for your copy of Zillions, that strikes me as an implied license. Zillions, of course, would retain rights vis-a-vis competitors (if there were any). Selling games, using graphics/documentation for non-Zillions purposes, etc. may present different issues. |
Jeff Mallett (Jeffm)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 2:25 pm: | |
Zillions Development does not want to put up barriers to use. We want you to be able to freely take ZRFs on the Zillions CD, modify them in order to create new games, and then distribute them for free on the Internet, on our site or yours. We don't want you to feel like you need to rewrite the ZRF code we wrote, because duplication is just a stupid waste of time. What we would like to protect ourselves against is a company making a Zillions clone and then redistributing the ZRFs, which we spent a lot of time creating, with their competing product. |
capablanca
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2001 - 4:50 pm: | |
Jeff, What about if a company took existing ZRF files that users have created and copylefted, and then converted them into a new format (say compiled then directly into win32 binaries, non-dependant on the original ZRF files). Would this be OK, or does Zillions hold copyright on all ZRF files simply because they are written in a language that zillions have created? |
Jeff Mallett (Jeffm)
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2001 - 5:14 pm: | |
Oh, I'm not a copyright lawyer myself! :-) I would think what is copyrighted is the content independent of media. One can't take a Harry Potter book, recode the raw text into a win32 binary, and then distribute it as an eBook... |
Eric Witt (Meekotheraccoon)
| | Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 9:52 pm: | |
Hi, Im a new poster, and I wish to start making my own games soon enough, can someone just give me a yes or a no to this question.
"Can we use parts of ZRF files that come with the inital download of Zillions?"
I mean, With the exception of a couple of games, what game doesnt in some aspect "take" from another game? Not that its all together crucial to gameplay, but Look at Chess and checkers, they use the same board, or cards even...
I dont under stand what this "Copyleft" thing is, perhaps If It could be explained in one sentance. |
Roger J Cooper (Rogercooper)
| | Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2002 - 8:11 am: | |
Yes. Every chess variant I have ever posted was based on the original code. Remember that when you post a game to the ZoG website, it is ZoG that publishes it. Clearly, you can not violate your own copyright. |
Jeff Mallett (Jeffm)
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 1:13 am: | |
>Yes. Every chess variant I have ever
>posted was based on the original code.
Yes, feel free to modify the original ZRFs to make your own. It would be harder to make ZRFs otherwise.
>Remember that when you post a game to
>the ZoG website, it is ZoG that publishes it.
>Clearly, you can not violate your own
>copyright.
That's true, but actually it's also fine with me if you want to post your ZRFs on other sites. As long as they aren't distributed as part of a competing product -- i.e. our ZRFs used against us! -- I say, post away. |
Sam Trenholme (Sam)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 6:35 pm: | |
Hmm...I know this is an old topic, but since I finally broke down and bought Zillions, after confirming that it works fine in Linux (with Wine), I have some thoughts here.
Zillions, right now, is an incredibly successful game with abstract game designers. There are, on just the Zillions site and on the ChessVariants web page, over 1000 different games available for Zillions. This for a game which just came out over two years ago. In comparison, the original 8-bit Nintendo had, in its 10-year history, under 1000 games released for it; the SNES had maybe 500 games made for it.
Obviously, this variety of games is something which a free software devloper may be interested in having access to, possibly years after Zillions no longer exists. For example, some free software designers have recently rewritten, from scratch, the engine which can play Ultima VII, a game released 10 years ago.
Right now, the people who would make this free implementation of Zillions (possibly me in 2012) will be in a thorny legal situation. It is, of course, perfectly valid to rewrite the zrf-interpreting engine from scratch. The tricky part is finding zrf files to legally distribute with this free Zillions clone.
If nothing changes, what this free software version of Zillions will have to do is say "Here is our free Zillions .zrf player, which can only legally used with these three .zrf files.", and "Here are over 2000 .zrf files from the internet of ten years ago which you can use only with a purchased copy of Zillions. Yes, we know that you can't buy it anymore nor use it on any computer sold today; but maybe you can buy a used copy on auctions.BarnesNNoble.com (Amazon bought Ebay four years ago, BarnesNNoble bought Amazon two years ago)."
I do not mean to be pessimistic here, but a lot changes in the tech industry in 10 years; computer games have a half-life of six months and anything that is over three or four years old is essentially forgotten. If Zillions is still around then as proprietary software [1], it will be a remarkable exception to this trend in game computing.
- Sam
[1] I have nothing against proprietary software; just that it doesn't have the guaranteed long lifetime that /libre/ software has. |
Harry Harris (Harry)
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 1:06 pm: | |
The copyright period has been extended to 70 years after the author's death, rather than 50 years.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
This is the position in several countries, although the Berne Convention stipulates a minimum of 50 years.
Harry |
Matti Wirkkala (Mwirkk)
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
This is a partial repeat of a post I made over on the patents thread. My apologies for the noise to anyone also monitoring it over there.
Code can be covered under copyright. But copyright is really a very weak means of protection. Fair use and various other court-established precidents have made it so. It is necessary to have this balance to protect IP holders while at the same time encouraging others to build on it. (Obviously, I'm just saying what everyone already knows.) Real protection comes by way of patent law.
But(!), when patents are filed, they are descibed as if they were a mechanical device -- even if it is software. The legal description of algorithyms can get rather strange. Anyway, that's why board games can be patentable. Otherwise, if they were merely a collection of behaviours (rules) they would be more likely to fall under the jurisdiction of copyright law. Any supporting background story and printed material should be placed under copyright anyway.
Just my 2 cents... |
|