[cc-community] Strengthening the CC-BY-SA copyleft with respect to code
elbarto at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 17:52:09 EST 2011
> I assume you mean that scripts which are on the same level within a
> System (here it is a game engine) are linked/connected/... to scripts
> and so they (data and scripts) must be under compatible licences.
If I understand you correctly, then yes.
> I would say that some game engines are data-driven. I could create a
> quite usable RTS game engine which would simply load sets of *.unit
> files which would contain unit parameters and which would link to
> artwork for them. There could be sets of waypoints for patrols, ...
> and *.map files with terrain heightmap and objects list. I could
> create that engine to be very flexible (through number of parameters
> which could be tweaked).
This is true. In that case, I would consider that the "scripting layer",
since those files would still specifically reference the media files in
question. The license wouldn't apply to the underlying engine.
In this situation I am in position that it is simply yet another
> document viewer (I might not even create "example document"). E.g.
> Inkscape/.svg will contain sets of objects with parameters, same for
> text document file formats, ... So this is the point in which that
> "intent" thing and pretty much also "flexibility" would be something
> that could be the only way to determine if it is generic or not.
> And also what about engines which were for a specific game but then
> with enough number of total conversions it could be hard to tell (for
> someone not reading any docs) what game such engine was created for
> (if any).
Yes, this would be an edge case, although not one that would invalidate the
license. Allow me to submit this for discussion (not as a legal
definition, but something to think about): If you have to "hack" the
engine to make a total conversion, it probably shouldn't count.
> If an "intent" is not legally binding (I could not find much about it
> after quick googling) then some other mechanism would have to be used.
> What exactly could it be? (unless we still clearly disagree on
> something here).
I *think* it is, but IANAL so YMMV. If we could get a lawyer to chime in,
that would be really handy.
> I'm not saying that I agree with everything completely (some new
> borderline cases appear in my head over and over again and I needed to
> think about them for a while) but other than the last point it seams
> that I am in an agreement with you.
Thanks for hearing me out. I realize this is kind of a different idea than
what people are used to, but I think that if we're clear enough about it,
it may be workable. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-community