These are as much derivative works of trollface, as the original trollface is a derivative work of the Joker imo...
It's a difficult issue - on the one hand we want to be helpful to game developers (even if a copyright claim is downright dubious, that doesn't stop you being sued, and most individual developers aren't in a position to fight that). OTOH if there's too much of this, there becomes a chilling effect. In the case of Porcupop at least, it seems this was intended as a derivative work ( https://plus.google.com/app/basic/+KerriCoombs/posts?cbp=dsh5o7im1b4s&sv... ).
Good to see the Open Game Art reference in the article :) I'm glad they point out that trollface isn't in here. It's unclear from the article if he's going after copies of his image (such as the t-shirt displayed article) or derivative works (the money examples is an obvious traceover); or whether he's claiming to own copyright over any face with a big grin (e.g., the Deadpool comic which just shows a grin).
I love how sending hate mail to people, hoping them to be mutilated and blinded, is described as "what a person believes" (and then you act surprised when said people don't want your game).
This thread probably should be frozen (though I'm tempted to say not deleted, I'm all for seeing someone's true colours).
Whilst a debate on racial slurs in general is all very interesting, this is off-topic for this site, and as Demetrius says, not allowed on the OGA forums unless it relates to copyright, CC and/or FOSS.
Regarding the previous banned example - when you say "anti-social-justice/anti-feminist opinion", let's be clear here: the person in question had sent this hateful email direct to the Debian Women mailing list: https://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2005/06/msg00235.html (follow the links posted above).
Now yes, in theory a project should be able to accept software purely on the merits of the software, independent of how much an arsehole the author may or may not be. But sorry, he writes this bunch of hate towards Debian, and then whines that they don't accept his software? He advocates that women should have no rights (along with a suggesting that they seriously injure themselves), and then complains about his right to have software distributed through Debian? Yeah, I've got the World's Smallest Violin here for that.
Imagine if someone sent such an email to Open Game Art? They'd rightly be banned. True, I might suggest we needn't disallow any Free art they'd done if it seemed good, OTOH being banned would prevent such a person uploading it themselves anyway.
I have no idea what bearing that has to your project. I agree it's not a good thing to refuse a project without any reason given. Do you have no idea at all? Or is there some previous history? I mean, if you had no idea at all, I'm curious what you're writing all this extra stuff about "SJW" and feminists...
But my description of "a 2D platform game where you have to collect items" covers an entire genre which has included countless commercial games. Another example would be the commonly used term "Doom clone" - these days we call the genre FPS, but the term "Doom clone" never implied these were infringing any copyright, just that Doom was the most well known example, and people would know what you meant by saying a game was like Doom.
I don't see anyone suggesting to create a "cheap knock-off" that infringes copyright.
Whilst patents can cover things including rules and mechanics, I'm not aware of a patent that covers the platform game genre. Also note that software patents are only enforcable in some countries.
I'm not sure if they meant "I want to write some games such as Super Mario Bros" or "I want to write a game like Super Mario Bros" (many games might be described as "like" another game, if you want to reference a game someone knows rather than describing it in more general terms, e.g., "I want to a write a 2D platform game where you have to collect items").
That seems fine to me, though a minor change I'd suggest is "Please be aware of this when submitting work and/or choosing work to use in a project." (i.e., remove "restriction") - I fear it reads like the FAQ would be trying to persuade people not to use it when we should just be stating the info, but I think not calling it a "restriction" makes it seem much more neutral :)
My game Erebus RPG has nothing to do with any MMORPG. The only references I can find for an Erebus MMORPG are Erebus: Travia Reborn - this was apparently cancelled - and Erebus 2, released 2014 (my game was first publicly released in 2012). Anyhow, there's no connection other them both coincidentally using the name. There have been various different games and mods using the name Erebus over the years, none of them particularly notable, as well as various other works. Erebus was one of the Greek gods, as well as the name sometimes given to a region of the Greek underworld, so it's not surprising that there are multiple uses of it.
Gigalomania meanwhile does have a obvious relation to Mega Lo Mania, though rules are not copyrightable; I see it as similar to Free clones like FreeCiv (Civilization), Widelands (Settlers), Lincity (Sim City). Of course I realise that doesn't help in practice if I receive a C&D, though that is a risk individual developers face with anything they release (heaven forbid one releases a game with "Candy" or "Scrolls" in the title...).
Free Software is that defined by the Free Software Foundation; Open Source is that define by the Open Source Initiative. Whilst there may be some licences not covered by both (and the different organisations may have different views), a large number of licences are both Free and Open Source. So I'm not sure there's a practical difference between the two - rather it depends what the specific licence is?
Which licences are Open Source but don't allow derivative works? (Unless you mean things like "shared source" where the source is available but not necessarily under an Open Source or Free Software licence, but I wouldn't consider that Open Source.)
Looks good. I'd also add the "no additional legal terms" clause alongside mentioning no DRM. I'd say it's simplest to base it off of creative commons's own readable summary, how about "You may not apply legal terms or technological measures (DRM) that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits".
These are as much derivative works of trollface, as the original trollface is a derivative work of the Joker imo...
It's a difficult issue - on the one hand we want to be helpful to game developers (even if a copyright claim is downright dubious, that doesn't stop you being sued, and most individual developers aren't in a position to fight that). OTOH if there's too much of this, there becomes a chilling effect. In the case of Porcupop at least, it seems this was intended as a derivative work ( https://plus.google.com/app/basic/+KerriCoombs/posts?cbp=dsh5o7im1b4s&sv... ).
Good to see the Open Game Art reference in the article :) I'm glad they point out that trollface isn't in here. It's unclear from the article if he's going after copies of his image (such as the t-shirt displayed article) or derivative works (the money examples is an obvious traceover); or whether he's claiming to own copyright over any face with a big grin (e.g., the Deadpool comic which just shows a grin).
I love how sending hate mail to people, hoping them to be mutilated and blinded, is described as "what a person believes" (and then you act surprised when said people don't want your game).
This thread probably should be frozen (though I'm tempted to say not deleted, I'm all for seeing someone's true colours).
Oh, I see ChaosEsqueAnthology is by MikeeUSA. So my comments above apply to this too.
My only question now is - are you MikeeUSA?
Whilst a debate on racial slurs in general is all very interesting, this is off-topic for this site, and as Demetrius says, not allowed on the OGA forums unless it relates to copyright, CC and/or FOSS.
Regarding the previous banned example - when you say "anti-social-justice/anti-feminist opinion", let's be clear here: the person in question had sent this hateful email direct to the Debian Women mailing list: https://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2005/06/msg00235.html (follow the links posted above).
Now yes, in theory a project should be able to accept software purely on the merits of the software, independent of how much an arsehole the author may or may not be. But sorry, he writes this bunch of hate towards Debian, and then whines that they don't accept his software? He advocates that women should have no rights (along with a suggesting that they seriously injure themselves), and then complains about his right to have software distributed through Debian? Yeah, I've got the World's Smallest Violin here for that.
Imagine if someone sent such an email to Open Game Art? They'd rightly be banned. True, I might suggest we needn't disallow any Free art they'd done if it seemed good, OTOH being banned would prevent such a person uploading it themselves anyway.
I have no idea what bearing that has to your project. I agree it's not a good thing to refuse a project without any reason given. Do you have no idea at all? Or is there some previous history? I mean, if you had no idea at all, I'm curious what you're writing all this extra stuff about "SJW" and feminists...
Regarding the reason for "Debian Women", its purpose is given at https://lists.debian.org/debian-women/ .
> "It makes no difference"
But my description of "a 2D platform game where you have to collect items" covers an entire genre which has included countless commercial games. Another example would be the commonly used term "Doom clone" - these days we call the genre FPS, but the term "Doom clone" never implied these were infringing any copyright, just that Doom was the most well known example, and people would know what you meant by saying a game was like Doom.
I don't see anyone suggesting to create a "cheap knock-off" that infringes copyright.
Whilst patents can cover things including rules and mechanics, I'm not aware of a patent that covers the platform game genre. Also note that software patents are only enforcable in some countries.
I'm not sure if they meant "I want to write some games such as Super Mario Bros" or "I want to write a game like Super Mario Bros" (many games might be described as "like" another game, if you want to reference a game someone knows rather than describing it in more general terms, e.g., "I want to a write a 2D platform game where you have to collect items").
That seems fine to me, though a minor change I'd suggest is "Please be aware of this when submitting work and/or choosing work to use in a project." (i.e., remove "restriction") - I fear it reads like the FAQ would be trying to persuade people not to use it when we should just be stating the info, but I think not calling it a "restriction" makes it seem much more neutral :)
My game Erebus RPG has nothing to do with any MMORPG. The only references I can find for an Erebus MMORPG are Erebus: Travia Reborn - this was apparently cancelled - and Erebus 2, released 2014 (my game was first publicly released in 2012). Anyhow, there's no connection other them both coincidentally using the name. There have been various different games and mods using the name Erebus over the years, none of them particularly notable, as well as various other works. Erebus was one of the Greek gods, as well as the name sometimes given to a region of the Greek underworld, so it's not surprising that there are multiple uses of it.
Gigalomania meanwhile does have a obvious relation to Mega Lo Mania, though rules are not copyrightable; I see it as similar to Free clones like FreeCiv (Civilization), Widelands (Settlers), Lincity (Sim City). Of course I realise that doesn't help in practice if I receive a C&D, though that is a risk individual developers face with anything they release (heaven forbid one releases a game with "Candy" or "Scrolls" in the title...).
Free Software is that defined by the Free Software Foundation; Open Source is that define by the Open Source Initiative. Whilst there may be some licences not covered by both (and the different organisations may have different views), a large number of licences are both Free and Open Source. So I'm not sure there's a practical difference between the two - rather it depends what the specific licence is?
Which licences are Open Source but don't allow derivative works? (Unless you mean things like "shared source" where the source is available but not necessarily under an Open Source or Free Software licence, but I wouldn't consider that Open Source.)
Looks good. I'd also add the "no additional legal terms" clause alongside mentioning no DRM. I'd say it's simplest to base it off of creative commons's own readable summary, how about "You may not apply legal terms or technological measures (DRM) that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits".
Pages