Bug#854679: Clarify license for Beneath a Steel Sky

[James 'Ender' Brown]

Hi Javier,

Original license author chiming in here again, since this seems to be a 
biennial thing :/

This is hopefully the last time I'll write on this matter, by this point 
pretty much every detail I can remember now documented
across half-a-dozen reports in BTS. Mostly across this one and 
https://bugs.debian.org/478898 tho. Also, as both Markus and Russ
noted - this has been debated over and over again in the BTS for this 
package.. but this is simply not the right forum for it.

  I'm not really sure what outcome you are looking for here...

Anyway - first I'll answer to your question.. then provide some more 
background on the conception of the license & Revolutions input!

*Yes. *It was pretty obvious to all parties that the license was "weak, 
and there are certainly ways to break the spirit legally. By design.
Without allowing that freedom, we couldn't honor the spirit of the DFSG.

Our guidelines from Tony Warriner @ Revolution were pretty darn simple 
(in relation to the Game Data at least).
I can paraphrase the basic points in a few short sentences:

  *       "We lost the original code, but we'll entrust you with this
    ports code"
  *       "Freeware? Hrm... I'll talk (to Charles / Dave?) but I think
    we can do that"
  *       "Wow you got the basic engine working already?"
  *       "We've decided to trust you and permit re-distribute it as
    freeware"
  *       ".. oh, but we don't want people to sell the game individually
    for $$$" (* see footnote 1)


We had a lot of freedom here - Charles, Tony and Revolution as a studio 
were amazing. So when I pitched them on the first draft of the
license the reply was not "We'll just run this by our legal team and 
lead council", but rather (very very paraphrased) "Looks good, ship it!"

To be perfectly honest - Debian-legal provided more input on the wording 
than Revolution.

This 'conflict' exists because of a the single restriction requested by 
Tony Warriner @ Revolution - that the game not be made
available for individual resale. This is the same sort of exception 
already implemented in other DFSG-approved licenses, and
we used similar logic to try and reconcile the authors wishes against 
the needs of the DFSG and legalities of redistribution
through various channels (/* see footnote 2/)

So we employed a complicated bit of Game Theory known as 'compromise'.

Let's recap the original goals:

  * Honor Revolutions request to limit individual resale
  * Satisfy the "fields of endeavor" clause of the DFSG to encourage 
Linux Distros able to ship
  * Permit redistribution as part of a Linux distribution
  * Permit redistribution on magazine cover discs (/* see footnote 3/)
  * "Plain Language" (/* see footnote 4/)

It was an exciting time, and this whole process laid the seed for 
ScummVM negotiating with right-holders - the silly levels of
cooperation from Revolution made us actively engage in outreach to 
original developers and right-holders. (/* see footnote 5/)

These early relationships were hard-earned and thanks to an amazing team 
and community. While ScummVM now has quite
an established and trusted reputation for treating both the games and 
their creators with respect, it was a long bumpy road.

With bad suspension and broken seatbelts. And I was driving without a 
license (no pun intended).


TL/DR: Revolution Software are Revolutionary Good People; /Compromise 
involves shades of grey/; In hindsight, your wording
            choices 15 years ago were terrible and will haunt you 
forever. /The phrase 'in hindsight' is also terrible and overused/,
            Throwing rocks at traffic from a bridge is stupid, dangerous 
and irresponsible. So is writing a custom software license.
*

*Kind regards
     Ender
     Former Co-Lead
     ScummVM Project

----
* _Footnote 1:_

    Many reasons, some commercial obligations but honestly mostly just
    to avoid legally permitting 'scammy' behaviour such as
    sellers charging RRP for a free download (such as producing fake
    originals, or hacking some title/copyright bitmaps and selling the game
    as their own work.

* _Footnote 2:_

    It was a learning experience, and of course in hindsight I should
    have just pitched something like the Artistic license instead
    of making the silly choice of writing YANL

* _Footnote 3:_

    Remember those?


* _Footnote 4:_

    Humanitarian theory - large international and ESL audience (as per
    most adventure games), so keep the license simple
      Observable outcome - the 'net has more lawyers than a law school /
    it seems a license clause really does need 3-4 subparagraphs...


* Footnote 5:

       Working with Revolution on implementing and re-releasing BASS was
    a major catalyst for ScummVM. I've always seen it as
       a win-win-win-win. A positive for ScummVM (as a project),
    developers/rightholders (as creators), the user/community (as
       consumers), and lastly distributions  (here, plz package some
    commercial-quality games).
       The project has had some wonderful successes in furthering game
    preservation this way - and Revolution helped us pave the way
       to negotiating with many parties - sometimes obtaining original
    source to assist us in re-implementing game engines,
       negotiating several game data releases as freeware, and assisting
    original right-holders with re-releasing long-orphaned
       titles across multiple platforms (eg. Linux) via avenues like GoG. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20180310/d58569fd/attachment-0001.html>