Publishing Matt634's Galactic Navy OXP

[Cholmondely]

I intend to do this in a week's time unless somebody can come up with a really convincing argument as to why not!

Why?

It is a really important OXP (as witnessed by the plethora of ancillary OXPs being written for it as recently as Rungholds 2017 Sec Com Finder - and it is still being incorporated into other OXP's such as Phkb's GalCop Galactic Registry and Library's PAD) which fell into oblivion with the introduction of the in-game Expansions Manager and the decision not to publish it because of lack of copyright.

The original versions came out over 6 months before May 2007. Copyright became an issue after the Sung Affair in Feb 2007 - and Matt634 ignored the arguments (despite studying for a law degree and eventually going to work as a lawyer for the USAF). He was then happy for Nemoricus to take it over and publish his newer versions.

Crucially, the point being made in those arguments was that Sung could withdraw his models because he had kept the copyright to them.

Matt634 on the other hand was publicising his OXP and his strapline at the bottom of each of his posts does so too (v.4.0). He never changed it.

So it should be perfectly all right to publish Nemoricus's "authorised update" of Matt's work (as his work) on the Expansions Manager (we can always take it down if he changes his mind!).

I intend to put up Spara's GN "unauthorised update" at the same time.

With GN up - and with the recent permissions from KW and Murgh, the only remaining copyright holdout with a number of "lost" OXPs seems to be RyanHoots whose new career as an "EntrePUNeur" might have led him to obscure his Oolite youth.

[hiran]

I intend to do this in a week's time unless somebody can come up with a really convincing argument as to why not!

Why?

It is a really important OXP (as witnessed by the plethora of ancillary OXPs being written for it as recently as Rungholds 2017 Sec Com Finder - and it is still being incorporated into other OXP's such as Phkb's GalCop Galactic Registry and Library's PAD) which fell into oblivion with the introduction of the in-game Expansions Manager and the decision not to publish it because of lack of copyright.

The original versions came out over 6 months before May 2007. Copyright became an issue after the Sung Affair in Feb 2007 - and Matt634 ignored the arguments (despite studying for a law degree and eventually going to work as a lawyer for the USAF). He was then happy for Nemoricus to take it over and publish his newer versions.

Crucially, the point being made in those arguments was that Sung could withdraw his models because he had kept the copyright to them.

Matt634 on the other hand was publicising his OXP and his strapline at the bottom of each of his posts does so too (v.4.0). He never changed it.

So it should be perfectly all right to publish Nemoricus's "authorised update" of Matt's work (as his work) on the Expansions Manager (we can always take it down if he changes his mind!).

I intend to put up Spara's GN "unauthorised update" at the same time.

With GN up - and with the recent permissions from KW and Murgh, the only remaining copyright holdout with a number of "lost" OXPs seems to be RyanHoots whose new career as an "EntrePUNeur" might have led him to obscure his Oolite youth.

I believe the hunt for the authors to let us know their licensing thoughts is futile.

In theory we could turn the behaviour over and ask: What is the risk of them coming back and claiming their copyright?
If that assessment is small enough, just cast a suitable license on their work and move on.

[Redspear]

In theory we could turn the behaviour over and ask: What is the risk of them coming back and claiming their copyright?
If that assessment is small enough, just cast a suitable license on their work and move on.

Do we have good data on the relevant variables in order to make that assessment reliable?

At the safer end we might be to do the whole thing as a tweak (however extensive) to whatever was previously released via the relevant thread. Or (horrors), completely rewrite the whole thing and credit Matt634 for inspiration.

Neither of my suggestions are particularly appealing, I understand that, I'm just throwing them into the pot.

[hiran]

Do we have good data on the relevant variables in order to make that assessment reliable?

At the safer end we might be to do the whole thing as a tweak (however extensive) to whatever was previously released via the relevant thread. Or (horrors), completely rewrite the whole thing and credit Matt634 for inspiration.

Neither of my suggestions are particularly appealing, I understand that, I'm just throwing them into the pot.

I am totally with you about the safe path and that it is non-appealing.

Yet I experienced this world is money oriented. So if we use the code without license, the authors could sue us and would have to prove the financial damage they are suffering. That would probably be difficult - especially since we are not making money with it.

[Redspear]

Not a legal expert but...

If Matt634 previously published without licence then there is doubt.
If reasonable attempts have been made to contact Matt634 then nothing has been assumed.
If there has been no contact after some time then short of a request to cease and desist (provided all due credit is given to Matt634) then it's not clear that publishing is in any way wrong.

As I say, legal logic could be different but the above path seems at least superficially reasonable to me.

[hiran]

If we waited long enough...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ht_lengths