GPL / Public Domain clarification

[michael blunck]

There's a difference between granting exclusive rights and being the copyright holder.

[...]
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html (USA):

The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

Could folks please do research before posting on this topic.

Main problem is that people refuse to read (the law) but instead like to reiterate their own misconceptions.

§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership

(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

Well, what can I say? We call this a license, as already stated for the umpteenth time.

I don't know which one takes precedence if the national and international law disagree (I wouldn't be too astonished, if they did). A quick look at the Berne Convention (§5) reveals that the protection is for all countries except the originating country. So, national laws may indeed differ.

That can be studied here:

Appendix I - Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988

There´s no such thing as an "international copyright", automatically protecting an author´s work throughout the world. Copyright protection in a particular country basically depends on the national laws of that country. However, almost all countries offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions established by international copyright treaties and conventions, e.g. the "Berne Convention" and/or the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC).

regards
Michael

[Moriarty]

That's just two countries. I'm too lazy to search for the other 200.

If you wouldn't be THAT lazy, you'd easily see that law is much more diverse than US or UK law. So what's your point? Neither law is e.g. applicable to me where I live.

I am aware that is not ALL laws. My point was that people were clearly (to me anyway) stating that it was impossible to transfer copyright anywhere. Thus I only needed to find a couple of examples to counter the point. Yes for Germany he's right, but I didn't read the original text as just referring to Germany.
Let's just put it down to a miscommunication.

[michael blunck]

If you wouldn't be THAT lazy, you'd easily see that law is much more diverse than US or UK law. So what's your point? Neither law is e.g. applicable to me where I live.

I am aware that is not ALL laws. My point was that people were clearly (to me anyway) stating that it was impossible to transfer copyright anywhere. Thus I only needed to find a couple of examples to counter the point. Yes for Germany he's right, but I didn't read the original text as just referring to Germany.
Let's just put it down to a miscommunication.

No, you won´t get away with the usual lame alibi. Firstly, you didn´t follow the arguments already given, and secondly, your example of US copyright law is moot.

In addition to my reservations as to §204 written above, I´m strongly tempted to interpret § 203. Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author [*] in such a way that (in the US) a copyright holder can´t "transfer" copyright into the "public domain", simply because in this clause, the author is conceded the right to "terminate" the transfer of copyright thirty-five years later. Obviously, that wouldn´t be possible because said termination may be conducted or enforced against a (known) contracting party but not against the "public domain". Secondly, it clearly shows that, despite the transfer, the author has never given up his original rights, or else there wouldn´t be any reason to concede him the right of termination of that transfer.

IMO, "transfer" in US Copyright Law is nothing more than an ordinary license, limited in time.

qed

regards
Michael

[*] § 203. Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author

(a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

(1) In the case of a grant executed by one author, termination of the grant may be effected by that author or, if the author is dead, [...]

(2) Where an author is dead, his or her termination interest is owned, and may be exercised, as follows: [...]

(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.

[...]

[Korenn]

yay, shouting wars!

[audigex]

If it says "I release this for xx purpose" you may use it for xx purpose, if it says "I release this under yy license" you may use it how yy license claims.

If it doesn't say anything, presume it to be under copyright and not to be used for any purpose other than viewing it was published. DO NOT assume (as some do) that copyright is relinquished as soon as the author publishes it somewhere publically viewable [note, I don't think you'd do this one - developers are usually more savvy, just mentioning it for some sort of completeness]

If it says "I release this into the public domain" you can generally assume they meant for it to be under a copyleft, free to do whatever you want with it license; since that's almost certainly what they meant and they aren't likely to pursue it anyway. You find a lot of people presume that just saying this means they've absolved themself of any link with it, but few countries' legal systems would agree with that.

[ChillCore]

This stuff confuses me ...

Quick question:
I know i need to do more reading, and I will...

If i put my newgrf in the binaries i post does it then fall under the copying text included in OpenTTD ?
That would solve my problem for now, untill i do some reading.

[FooBar]

If i put my newgrf in the binaries i post does it then fall under the copying text included in OpenTTD ?

Yes, as the license provided applies to the complete package you distribute unless stated otherwise. And since you don't state otherwise...

[DaleStan]

That said, you are welcome to state otherwise -- a GRF is considered to be a separate entity, not a derivative work. But understand that the rights granted to who received the GRF when it was (labeled as being) covered by the GPL cannot be revoked.

[ChillCore]

Without eluding on a specific patch/grf. (to keep the thread clean.)

The only thing i would like to exclude is modify and reposting under the same name, as that would mess up its use.

That being said i would like for other people to be able to modify, and reuse the code and pcx, modified or not, and simply repost under another name.

So i just need to add another txt file stating the above (but better explained) and thats it?

And if i ever make a grf that is not hardcoded in the source, I just include a copy of the copying.txt in the zip I post? (with or without exclusions as needed.)

ps:
The above is not making a statement.
I first want to get things clear.

[FooBar]

The only thing i would like to exclude is modify and reposting under the same name, as that would mess up its use.

I believe that's already covered in the GPL. I recall a part that says that derivative work should state that it's a derivative and not the original. I.e. it cannot use the original name, at least not without including something that it's not the original. I could be wrong on that though.

And if i ever make a grf that is not hardcoded in the source, I just include a copy of the copying.txt in the zip I post?

Yes. If you include a readme, copy the appropriate part from the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" section of the GPL license (usually included at the end to that readme. Adding license information to the GRF's description might be a good idea too.

[Eddi]

the GPL does not require you to change the name, but it requires you to clearly mark the changes.

Exanple:
let's assume you ported OpenTTD 0.7.0 to $your_toaster, in order to keep multiplayer compatibility, you cannot change the name and the version, and the GPL does not require you to do so, but you need to keep a log of the changes you did in order to get it to run o $your_toaster.

there are some explanations for the GPL around. one of those state: simply putting two projects on the same disk does not make them derived works, so you can distribute openttd and various grfs with different licenses, because they are completely separate projects. (neither depend on each other)

[ChillCore]

That being said i would like for other people to be able to modify, and reuse the code and pcx, modified or not, and simply repost under another name.

What if the future user needs to repost it under the same name but modified/extended (Provided it does not break its original intended use.)
Extra zoom, TTDP, tutorials, etc. ... just to name a few.

Would that forbid him/her to do so if the original author is not around the forums anymore for any reason so he/she could not ask permission?
I would not like to see that happen neither.

See, complicated.
Thank you all for your answers so far.
I will do some research first.(read: use the search function.)

[FooBar]

Appears that I was mistaken with the CC BY-SA. That, and not the GPL requires you to "take(s) reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work". So whether or not the original name is used, it must be undoubtedly clear that it's not the original.

So with GPL, a derivative work has to mark the changes in the source code, where with CC BY-SA that isn't required but it must be stated that it's not the original work.

[tsjook]

Sorry for gravedigging (although it's not that deep now that a special 32bpp section has been created) but I've got a question about graphics licences. I think I get it but I just want to make sure.

OpenTTD is GPL, that also counts for the 32bpp graphics. Because the mandatory attribution for CC-licenced graphics is not accounted for in the licence of OpenTTD, I can not use CC textures in normal 32bpp replacement graphics for OpenTTD? Or is there a way to credit texture-designers in-game?

However, I can distribute the building myself (as a replacement graphic for a newgrf made by me), as long as I credit the creator of the CC texture in the way (s)he wants it. Right?



edit:

Source= cgtextures.com FAQ
Can I use these textures in my Open Source (Creative Commons, GPL, etc) project?
No, unfortunately the textures cannot be used in Open Source projects because the licenses are not compatible. Allmost all Open Source licenses allow redistribution of the materials, which is not allowed for these textures.

I guess I need to retexture my building before I can release it. If so, why is there a link from the OpenTTD wiki anyway?

It would be very nice if the source code (read: Blend file) of 32bbp buildings wouldn't need to be available, but I see that's mandatory under GPL. If just the pictures are released and not the source code, the above mentioned quote from CG Textures wouldn't be a problem in using their textures (as using them is almost completely free otherwise).

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly hope I am.

[PikkaBird]

It would be very nice if the source code (read: Blend file) of 32bbp buildings wouldn't need to be available, but I see that's mandatory under GPL.

No, it isn't. The 32bpp graphics are 2d sprites, not 3d models; they have no technical "source files" beyond themselves.

[tsjook]

It would be very nice if the source code (read: Blend file) of 32bbp buildings wouldn't need to be available, but I see that's mandatory under GPL.

No, it isn't. The 32bpp graphics are 2d sprites, not 3d models; they have no technical "source files" beyond themselves.

Yes, but on second thought those sprites do (let's assume visibly) contain the textures, and if they are GPL, the image of the textures being used is also distributed under GPL. Does this pose any problems?

And this doesn't solve the problems with CC I guess, as the sprite still counts as a derivative work, and the author of the texture needs to be credited.

[PikkaBird]

Does this pose any problems?

That's for you to decide. Personally, I don't see any conflicts. (Based on what follows it, I'd say the statement "the textures cannot be used in Open Source projects" in the FAQ is an opinion rather than an injunction).

[tsjook]

Thanks for the answers. I will sleep on it.

Other opinions are also welcome. This is a very serious issue!

Does anyone have any views on the Creative Commons incompatibility?

[Zephyris]

You can always argue these things in several directions but the way which is often accepted, though not necessarily the correct way, is that the use of a texture to generate a rendered image is such a massive creative input that the final rendered image is "fresh" with regards to copyright. This is the way I have used textures in the past, and the way in which people have used my textures.