Downloadable Graphics from servers?

[DaleStan]

YOU are responsible for ensuring that YOU comply with the license. No one else has any responsibility to make it easy, or even possible, for you to comply. YOU are the only one who can be blamed if you fail to comply.

I don't really know this legal stuff but if say some author uploaded a grf with a license in a rar file somewhere and i download it only to later see that his license has flaws that make his download site unusable with the grf that i have ALREADY downloaded IMO the guy would be the one to blame as he is the one that made a fundamentaly flawed license with witch breaking laws is UNAVOIDABLE.

Watch yer quotes!

What I meant there is that distribution in violation of the license is solely the fault of the distributor. "I'm distributing exactly what I received" is neither an excuse nor a guarantee of compliance. If you distribute, you are responsible for determining that your method of distribution is in compliance, and you can't blame the person from whom you received the work if it is determined that you are not in compliance.

i wouldn't be surprised if DaleStan's tunels

If you're speaking of what I think you're speaking of, they're not mine.

[Moriarty]

Assuming that ... the GRF is designed to work under OTTD

Ah-ha. "The use of this GRF in OpenTTD is entirely unsupported. Use at your own risk."
Oh. Wait. Was that not the result you wanted? I'm ever so sorry.

Can't we skip the sarcasm?

As to your example: That's irrelevent (again!). Those comments refer to the warranty. I believe even windows comes with something similar ("We make no guarantees as to this software working" or something to that effect), yet they still SELL it.
Also, having the flag set would explicitly state that OTTD WAS supported, irrespective of the license.

Thus the problem IS their doing because they're knowingly releasing a package that will break their own license

No, they're not. YOU are responsible for ensuring that YOU comply with the license. No one else has any responsibility to make it easy, or even possible, for you to comply. YOU are the only one who can be blamed if you fail to comply.

Wouldn't it be entrapment or whatever the civil law equivilent is? If the distributor distributed with the flag set, yet without having the package follow his own license by being suitably packaged, and then proceeded to prosecute people for not oblidging with the rules, he's the one who initially set it up for people to get caught doing things wrong that they never intended to do.

If you distribute, you are responsible for determining that your method of distribution is in compliance

And the OTTD method proposed IS in compliance. It won't be distributed unless the flag is set, and if the flag is set, then the distributer will know about how to package it.


I continue to fail to see why devs are so averse to this. It's as legally impenitrable as we can make it, so far as I can see. We've made "due consideration" and all that bumpf, so as far as I can tell, we're in the clear.

[DaleStan]

As to your example: That's irrelevent (again!). Those comments refer to the warranty.

If I'd meant "no warranty", I'd have said "no warranty". But "no warranty" goes without saying. I said "unsupported". As in "This GRF is not designed to work in OpenTTD. If it does, yay. If it doesn't, or if it does something undesirable, I could not possibly care less, and am not going to make any effort to fix it."

And of course, it also goes without saying that the distribution flag would not be set.

[Moriarty]

And of course, it also goes without saying that the distribution flag would not be set.

In which case there's no point talking about it, as it won't be getting distributed by OTTD.