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.
