Tremulous appstore

[42]

Alright, would everyone agree on trem on the mac appstore as free download?

Yes, but it's perfectly OK to sell it, as long as you don't take exorbitant amounts of profit. 

Wait, you're giving someone permission to sell someone else's work?  I'm curious, where did you get this authority?

quadregen,

I'd be grateful to you if you if trem was available on the mac store for free.  However, if you attempt to be a scumbag and sell someone else's work without their permission, I, along with most of the trem community, will hate you forever.

It's the license.  Anyone can do pretty much anything they want with the software, including selling it.  If he wants to sell it, he can; and the authors have explicitly given him permission through the license. 

[ULTRA Random ViruS]

You must get timbo's permission first right?

[42]

You must get timbo's permission first right?

NO!  That's the POINT of the GPL.  Youdon't need permission, and so that puts control in your own hands, and thus makes the source free. 

[/dev/humancontroller]

Youdon't need permission

you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.

[Nux]

Youdon't need permission

you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.

I can see you're a fan of pedantry but he's already aware of the importance of the permissions given under the license, evidenced by the fact that if they weren't required then the license would be meaningless, as would this discussion. So when he says 'You don't need permission' he means other than those permissions under the license, possibly required by the license.

[+ OPTIMUS +]

remember...

[Asvarox]

LOL

why people wear clocks like that?

[quadregen]

Youdon't need permission

you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.

You dont. The license grants full rights to re-distribute, including for a price.  Guess most of you arent really acquainted with the gpl license.  And i guess the gpl hasnt really been tested until now. in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl, which makes pretty much everything redistributable even with a fee. The only requirement is that source code is provided. The GPL is about freedom to copy, not about ensuring nobody makes dough with it.  

You can all ready up more on the Free software foundation webpage.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

Alright, would everyone agree on trem on the mac appstore as free download?

Yes, but it's perfectly OK to sell it, as long as you don't take exorbitant amounts of profit. 

Wait, you're giving someone permission to sell someone else's work?  I'm curious, where did you get this authority?

quadregen,

I'd be grateful to you if you if trem was available on the mac store for free.  However, if you attempt to be a scumbag and sell someone else's work without their permission, I, along with most of the trem community, will hate you forever.

It's the license.  Anyone can do pretty much anything they want with the software, including selling it.  If he wants to sell it, he can; and the authors have explicitly given him permission through the license. 

this is true for most of tremulous, but the art assets are released under creative commons, and i am unsure if you have the right to make money with that license.

furthermore, at least some of the sounds are in violation of copyright.  including these in the game is "wrong" enough as it is, but making money from the use of such material is highly unethical as well.

[danmal]

You dont. The license grants full rights to re-distribute, including for a price.  Guess most of you arent really acquainted with the gpl license.  And i guess the gpl hasnt really been tested until now. in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl, which makes pretty much everything redistributable even with a fee. The only requirement is that source code is provided. The GPL is about freedom to copy, not about ensuring nobody makes dough with it.  

You can all ready up more on the Free software foundation webpage.

The name (trademark) isn't released under the GPL and I don't believe the assets are either.

[/dev/humancontroller]

Youdon't need permission

you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.

You dont. The license grants full rights to re-distribute, including for a price.  Guess most of you arent really acquainted with the gpl license.  And i guess the gpl hasnt really been tested until now. in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl, which makes pretty much everything redistributable even with a fee. The only requirement is that source code is provided. The GPL is about freedom to copy, not about ensuring nobody makes dough with it.  

you have a dull and WRONG understanding of

• what i said,
• the licenses that encumber the assets,
• the copyright status of the names, and
• life.

[Undeference]

in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl

Tremulous is licensed in two broadly separate sections: the code and the media.

The code is licensed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE…

The media is licensed under the CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE 2.5
LICENSE…

Names are not covered by copyright, nor are they licensed by copyright licenses

[42]

Youdon't need permission

you do need permission. and you have some permissions (the ones described in the GPL), which are given by everyone who distributed the game.

You dont. The license grants full rights to re-distribute, including for a price.  Guess most of you arent really acquainted with the gpl license.  And i guess the gpl hasnt really been tested until now. in the case of tremulous, not only the source code, but the data files, and the name itself are under the gpl, which makes pretty much everything redistributable even with a fee. The only requirement is that source code is provided. The GPL is about freedom to copy, not about ensuring nobody makes dough with it. 

you have a dull and WRONG understanding of

• what i said,
• the licenses that encumber the assets,
• the copyright status of the names, and
• life.

RTFL

[/dev/humancontroller]

RTFL

(L as in license? i hope that was a note for quadregen.)

[Nux]

Clearly he thinks you don't understand the license because you contradicted what he said about not needing permission. It seems to me you both understand the license and the only confusion is because you consider the license itself a 'permission' and 42 does not.

[42]

RTFL

(L as in license? i hope that was a note for quadregen.)

Yes, "L" as in license; and that was for you.  If it was for quadregen, I would have quoted him, without your comment. 

Clearly he thinks you don't understand the license because you contradicted what he said about not needing permission. It seems to me you both understand the license and the only confusion is because you consider the license itself a 'permission' and 42 does not.

Wrong way around; I think the license is permission, he doesn't. 

[/dev/humancontroller]

RTFL

(L as in license? i hope that was a note for quadregen.)

Yes, "L" as in license; and that was for you.  If it was for quadregen, I would have quoted him, without your comment. 

i've read the licence before any of you two and many more times than both of you.

Clearly he thinks you don't understand the license because you contradicted what he said about not needing permission. It seems to me you both understand the license and the only confusion is because you consider the license itself a 'permission' and 42 does not.

Wrong way around; I think the license is permission, he doesn't. 

WRONG. reread what i've said. (i've just basically repeated myself.)

[Nux]

I think the license is permission  

Youdon't need permission

So you're saying you don't need to follow the license? No. You clearly don't think that's true. You're simply being inconsistent with your use of terms: 'Permission' either includes the terms of the license or it doesn't.

Pick one.

[42]

I think the license is permission 

Youdon't need permission

So you're saying you don't need to follow the license? No. You clearly don't think that's true. You're simply being inconsistent with your use of terms: 'Permission' either includes the terms of the license or it doesn't.

Pick one.

The license is permission so you don't need permission (from the authors). 

[/dev/humancontroller]

The license is permission so you don't need permission

ROFL!

[janev]

The license is permission so you don't need permission

ROFL!

Would the wording
"The license is permission so you do not need any additional permission"
work?

Get your lawyering semantics groove on lads.

[/dev/humancontroller]

The license is permission so you don't need permission

ROFL!

Would the wording
"The license is permission so you do not need any additional permission"
work?

yes.

[Nux]

I'm glad to see we've reached the point we were at 18 posts ago.