Re: Gnome Stones [was Re: gnome-games 2.14.0]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Callum McKenzie wrote:

> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:10:09 +1200
> From: Callum McKenzie <callum spooky-possum org>
> To: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
> Cc: games-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Gnome Stones [was Re: gnome-games 2.14.0]
>
> On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 14:39 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > Lack of maintainance alone is probably reason enough to discontinue the
> > game but I would be interested to know more about the copyright issues
> > raised as I did not see it mentioned on the mailing list.  Maybe something
> > could be done to clarify the issue and maybe even correct it?

> I was supplied with information[1] that indicated that both some of the
> levels and some of the code was of dubious origin. It appears quite
> likely that some of the levels were direct copies of the originals and
> the copyright status of that is dubious to say the least. On top of this

Nobody wants to fight legal battles instead of getting on with their lives
and I have noticed developers want to be beyond reproach so even the
threat (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) of legal action is enough to stop
work.  Such high standards are admirable but they may also be counter
productive forcing developers to work harder instead of smarter (and there
are companies who are invested in Gnome development who do have the
resources to check these things if they care to do so).

I would feel a lot better if you could clarify what you mean by "direct
copies".  Games like Sokoban for example have a finite (but large) number
of possible levels and it doesn't seem unreasonable to look at existing
levels and create versions for your own sokoban game.  On the other hand
using an emulator to extract level data and generate copied levels in a
more direct and automated way would seem to go too far and not be
considered fair use but it is hard to know.

This leads to other questions:  How original does an Aisleriot game
variation need to be?

> code with a very dubious history (although this was probably done in
> good faith).
>
> Since we'd already removed some sounds when we realised that they had
> probably been recorded from an emulator playing the original game I
> didn't feel I could give the original authors the benefit of the doubt.
>
> The horrid code[2] structure and lack of maintenance just made the
> decision even easier.
>
> Hopefully that sheds some light on it. Basically nothing can be done to
> resuscitate the original package since the problems are so intertwined
> with it.
>
>  - Callum
>
> [1] I'm not going to say who since the original approach wasn't public
> and I got the impression it was deliberately not public.

Could you please ask.  This secrecy seems inappropriate in a community
based on open and accountable development.  Without a public record how
could anyone even attempt to correct the problem?  Or at least learn from
it and try to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

I wonder if the original developers were all uncontactable or perhaps it
was one of the original developers recommending the game be removed.

> [2] It was a classic example of clever, but unmaintainable, code.

In practise this is actually the bigger problem and legal questions are
the last straw but I would like more information before this matter gets
filed away and forgotten.  What leaves a really bad taste is the constant
threat of legal action and the Fear , Uncertainty and Doubt it causes.


Sincerely

Alan Horkan
http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/

P.S.  Fifty years should be quite enough copyright for anyone.