Licensing & alternate download locations
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:17 am
As those who read the forum frequently have probably noticed, we've had a couple or three requests for alternate download locations for OXPs whose primary source is currently unavailable. There is no shortage of people willing and able to help with stopgap measures in these cases, but things start to get murky when the OXPs themselves ship with no license file. Being the friendliest board this side of Riedquat we pride ourselves in being helpful, but we also don't want to infringe on the rights of the OXP creators in any way.
Before moving on, I'd like to direct your attention to the Sticky on Licensing OXPs. Since we're talking about making temporary homes for unavailable OXPs, there's a quote from the Master and Commander that I find interesting:
On the one hand it's pretty clear-cut: No license = no copying.
But then there's the intentions part. What kind of leeway can be assumed from statements made by the author regarding use? Say someone makes an OXP, and posts a link on the board along with the words "Hey, I made this thing. Do what you want with it. Hope you like it", and then promptly disappears never to be heard from again?
My main question is this though: If there exists a license but not inside the OXP, what then?
Is it good enough if the license is mentioned on this board?
Is it good enough if the license is mentioned on the wiki?
If it's mentioned on the wiki, is it necessary that the author himself (herself) wrote the entry?
Basically, what I'm looking for here is some input from those with more experience than me in these things (which means more than none), so that we can reach some sort of consensus.
On a personal level - and this is probably absolute nonsense from a legalese perspective - I differentiate between authors that are reachable and unreachable. If someone is still around and answers on the hailing frequency, I'm not gonna start spreading copies of their work without their explicit permission.
Before moving on, I'd like to direct your attention to the Sticky on Licensing OXPs. Since we're talking about making temporary homes for unavailable OXPs, there's a quote from the Master and Commander that I find interesting:
[my underlining]aegidian wrote:If an OXP has been issued with no indication of a license or intentions of the author then the strictest degree of licensing should be assumed, ie. no copying, no reuse, ask the authors before doing anything with it.
On the one hand it's pretty clear-cut: No license = no copying.
But then there's the intentions part. What kind of leeway can be assumed from statements made by the author regarding use? Say someone makes an OXP, and posts a link on the board along with the words "Hey, I made this thing. Do what you want with it. Hope you like it", and then promptly disappears never to be heard from again?
My main question is this though: If there exists a license but not inside the OXP, what then?
Is it good enough if the license is mentioned on this board?
Is it good enough if the license is mentioned on the wiki?
If it's mentioned on the wiki, is it necessary that the author himself (herself) wrote the entry?
Basically, what I'm looking for here is some input from those with more experience than me in these things (which means more than none), so that we can reach some sort of consensus.
On a personal level - and this is probably absolute nonsense from a legalese perspective - I differentiate between authors that are reachable and unreachable. If someone is still around and answers on the hailing frequency, I'm not gonna start spreading copies of their work without their explicit permission.
