1 2 3 4 5
Posted: 11/26/2009 3:38 AM
Quote
JXQ
Experienced player (750)
Joined: 5/6/2005
Posts: 3132
NES TAS of 2008 Speedy TAS of 2008 SNES TASer of 2007 TAS of 2007 SNES TAS of 2007 Funny TAS of 2007
BadPotato wrote:
an another recent movie without author aproval would be speedy Gonzales. ==> http://tasvideos.org/1369M.html
adelikat had approval to use any work I had done for this TAS.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Posted: 11/26/2009 5:23 AM
Quote
BadPotato
Joined: 1/26/2009
Posts: 558
Location: Canada - Québec
Then I am very sorry ; In fact, I almost thought that you were dead ...!
moozooh wrote:
All that aside, I'm not sure there is a copyright license that fits TASVideos best. So far the closest match seems to be GPL, while some users suggest Creative Commons Attribution + ShareAlike (by-sa) or an even stricter license be used.
Again, this isn't probably the right topic to talk about this, but seriously someone should look around for a real lawer, or we might have to wait years for getting an answer.
Posted: 11/26/2009 9:51 PM
Quote
OmnipotentEntity
He/Him
Player (36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2623
moozooh wrote:
All that aside, I'm not sure there is a copyright license that fits TASVideos best. So far the closest match seems to be GPL, while some users suggest Creative Commons Attribution + ShareAlike (by-sa) or an even stricter license be used.
Actually, I suggested CC A+SA because I thought it was the most sensitive CC license towards authorship, because, despite the guideline not to make movies for personal gain, a lot of people still put a lot of stock in who made the movie. So I figured it would generate the least drama. I, for one, would be as pleased as pie if movies released under GPL.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Posted: 11/26/2009 11:48 PM
Quote
Fabian
Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
JXQ, ! ps I'm going to respond to that email any day now, promise.
Zoey Ridin' High <Fabian_> I prett much never drunk
Posted: 11/28/2009 11:16 AM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I have always wondered why some people use "GPL" for documents and data, even though GPL is clearly a software license. The license clearly talks about things like source code, object code, system libraries, standard interfaces and other such terms which are clearly not applicable to pure data (which movie files really are). The entire point of the GPL is that the source code of the program must be free. If you distribute a program licensed under the GPL, you must also offer the source code for that program for free. With TAS movie data files you cannot eg. comply with sections 5 (if you distribute a modified GPL program, you must also distribute its sources with prominent notices about original authorship) and 6 (if you distribute a program in object code form, you have to also provide the original, machine-readable source code), because the domain of the license simply doesn't apply to pure data files. Creative Commons is a set of licenses which are specifically aimed at documents and data files.
Posted: 11/28/2009 3:43 PM
Quote
OmnipotentEntity
He/Him
Player (36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2623
Warp wrote:
I have always wondered why some people use "GPL" for documents and data, even though GPL is clearly a software license. The license clearly talks about things like source code, object code, system libraries, standard interfaces and other such terms which are clearly not applicable to pure data (which movie files really are). The entire point of the GPL is that the source code of the program must be free. If you distribute a program licensed under the GPL, you must also offer the source code for that program for free. With TAS movie data files you cannot eg. comply with sections 5 (if you distribute a modified GPL program, you must also distribute its sources with prominent notices about original authorship) and 6 (if you distribute a program in object code form, you have to also provide the original, machine-readable source code), because the domain of the license simply doesn't apply to pure data files. Creative Commons is a set of licenses which are specifically aimed at documents and data files.
I'd think that a keypress file has more in common with a program than with a document though.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Posted: 11/29/2009 11:04 PM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
I'd think that a keypress file has more in common with a program than with a document though.
A keypress file is a pure data file, nothing else. I wouldn't use the GPL license with it because its interpretation could cause controversy in problematic situations. I don't see any problem in using some CC license.
Posted: 11/30/2009 2:58 AM
Quote
Derakon
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
A keypress file is a sequence of commands. So is a source code file. They both have to be interpreted by a special program to generate some desired output. In other words, source code is pure data, nothing else. It's all in how you look at the thing.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Posted: 11/30/2009 1:27 PM
Quote
Flygon
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Yes, but the keypress files also have author info inside them, among other things (Such as rerecord count).
Posted: 11/30/2009 3:28 PM
Quote
Derakon
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
And code also has comments and source control metadata (which often includes authorship information).
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Posted: 11/30/2009 4:25 PM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Derakon wrote:
A keypress file is a sequence of commands. So is a source code file. They both have to be interpreted by a special program to generate some desired output. In other words, source code is pure data, nothing else. It's all in how you look at the thing.
Well, if you deliberately insist in using GPL for movie data files, then go right ahead. It's not like I'm going to stop you or anything. I was simply warning about possible problems.
Posted: 11/30/2009 6:04 PM
Quote
Derakon
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
As it happens, I agree that a CC license makes more sense here, mostly because people in general think of GPL as being for tools and CC for being for content, and we do generally use the movie input files in the context of content. I guess I was just picking nits...
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Posted: 11/30/2009 11:24 PM
Quote
DarkKobold
Skilled player (1637)
Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy
Arcade TASer of 2010 PCE TASer of 2010 Arcade TAS of 2010 Lucky TAS of 2009 Lucky TAS of 2007
Once again, I will ask "Why worry about a license if it is 100% legally unenforceable?" You (Warp and Dekaron) have talked about this ad nauseum. Lets agree to a set of standards as a community on how to deal with movies and ownership. Pretending this will go to an ACTUAL court of law is silly.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Posted: 11/30/2009 11:33 PM
Quote
Warp
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
DarkKobold wrote:
You (Warp and Dekaron) have talked about this ad nauseum.
3 posts and 3 replies are a rather interesting definition of "ad nauseum"... How would you call it if we had gone for 3 pages instead?-)
Posted: 12/1/2009 2:20 AM
Quote
DarkKobold
Skilled player (1637)
Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 2202
Location: Killjoy
Arcade TASer of 2010 PCE TASer of 2010 Arcade TAS of 2010 Lucky TAS of 2009 Lucky TAS of 2007
I was referring to this. I should have singled you out, as opposed to including Derakon. You really don't get that this is a COMMUNITY issue, not a LEGAL issue.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Posted: 12/1/2009 2:58 AM
Quote
mmbossman
Experienced player (822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
GBx TAS of 2008
Hence why my repeated use of the phrase "courteous to the author" was instead replaced with "ZOMG will we be sued?!?!?". Being the nerds that we are I suppose it's just easier to discuss things which have a black and white answer versus those that have moral implications.
Living Well Is The Best Revenge My Personal Page
1 2 3 4 5