File format licensing of the TirNanoG RPG engine

[bzt]

Your questions make no sense as it is IANAL not possible to copyright a file format.

Any law reference to that claim? Because I see no such thing in neither US, nor in EU laws. Not in the international Berne Convention either.

To very simply put, and make this perfectly clear, please explain these sentences in the following file format specifications:
https://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/spec-gif89a.txt

{l Code}: {l Select All Code}

Copyright
CompuServe Incorporated

and
https://pkware.cachefly.net/webdocs/casestudies/APPNOTE.TXT

{l Code}: {l Select All Code}

Copyright (c) 1989 - 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022 PKWARE Inc., All Rights Reserved.

for example. (But I could have quoted Oracle's Java specification, Microsoft's MZ/COFF specification, Epic Games' .bik specification etc. etc. etc.)

Are you really saying that all these companies and entities are violating laws by claiming copyrights to their formats?

And again, this isn't about patents, GIF is a perfect example because it is copyrighted to CompuServe, although the patent for the LZW compression is owned by a different entity, Unisys and not CompuServe. Yet somehow the file format's copyright belongs to CompuServe. According to you, how is this possible if what you're saying were true?

Cheers,
bzt

ps: I don't want to argue with you. Please open your eyes and see there are multiple examples in the world that contradict your claim, and I know how hard that is, but accept that you were mistaken. There's no point in you denying the obvious and me trying to convince you about the reality.

Please, let's end this non sense conversation.

[Julius]

In both cases that is the copyright on the description text of the file-format specifications.

There is obviously no specific clause in copyright law that says "you can't copyright a format" because that would be as nonsensical as trying to seperate a wave from the water it is composed of.

[bzt]

In both cases that is the copyright on the description text of the file-format specifications.

And how are those any different to my TirNanoG File Format specification? That I allow non-commercial usage while they don't allow any kind of usage without the copyright holder's explicit permission?

Like it or not, according to the copyright law, freegamedev.net could be sued for using GIF icons. And that's only because GIF file format is copyrighted, and no other reason. Let's hope that the copyright holder doesn't care.

There is obviously no specific clause in copyright law that says "you can't copyright a format"

So you admit you were wrong when you said "not possible to copyright a file format". It is not just possible, but my examples show it is quite commonplace.

because that would be as nonsensical as trying to seperate a wave from the water it is composed of.

Thanks for proving me right, your example is obviously wrong because you could have stored exactly the same email icon, pixel by pixel, in PNG, WEBP, BMP etc. file formats as well. GIF format wasn't your only option, because the contents and the format are indeed separate things.

BTW, it doesn't matter what you say when the courts disagree with you. According to the judges, file format copyright is a real thing (denied Meta from acquiring Giphy because of that), and ultimately only their words matter. When courts recognize file format copyright, then it's pretty futile denying it.

So we can conclude that the file format's copyright is a real and separate thing, and considering that the TirNanoG Editor is GPL licensed, is there any reason not to move it back from Off-topic?

Cheers,
bzt

[Julius]

And how are those any different to my TirNanoG File Format specification? That I allow non-commercial usage while they don't allow any kind of usage without the copyright holder's explicit permission?

Because that is only the copyright on the description text (literally as in the words describing how to format something). What you try to do is claim rights over someone else's work that happens to be formatted according to your descriptions, which is not possible with copyright.

So you admit you were wrong when you said "not possible to copyright a file format". It is not just possible, but my examples show it is quite commonplace. [...] Thanks for proving me right, your example is obviously wrong because you could have stored exactly the same email icon, pixel by pixel, in PNG, WEBP, BMP etc. file formats as well. GIF format wasn't your only option, because the contents and the format are indeed separate things.

This shows you haven't even understood my argument at all. That content and format can't be separated is the core of my argument. Of course content can be formatted is different ways, but that doesn't make the format something that can exist independent from the content.

BTW, it doesn't matter what you say when the courts disagree with you. According to the judges, file format copyright is a real thing (denied Meta from acquiring Giphy because of that), and ultimately only their words matter. When courts recognize file format copyright, then it's pretty futile denying it.

There is literally nothing in that article you linked that is even related to the copyright argument we are having here? It talks about copyrighted content stored in the gif format and how due to the short length of it, the usage of the content might fall under the US "fair use" copyright clause.

Edit:

Ok maybe you will understand it this way: What you are trying to do is basically an EULA. Besides the fact that these are also of questionable legality in many countries, this is a regular private contract (not under copyright law) between the owner of a service (= software although that is legally disputed as well) and the end-user that stipulates certain conditions that the end-user has to agree to in order to be allowed to use the service. Such as for example agreeing to license their content under CC-by-NC-SA. However, in your case this doesn't work as the AGPL explicitly forbids such additional license restrictions and users of software licensed under the AGPL are free to remove any such additional EULA text from a license agreement.

[bzt]

And how are those any different to my TirNanoG File Format specification? That I allow non-commercial usage while they don't allow any kind of usage without the copyright holder's explicit permission?

Because that is only the copyright on the description text (literally as in the words describing how to format something).

I must repeat my question: how is this any different to how I claim copyright over the TirNanoG File Format specification?

What you try to do is claim rights over someone else's work

I DO NOT try to claim anything over some else's work. This is entirely your imagination. Actually the license states pretty clearly and explicitly:

The decision and the responsibility of which licensing version to use for the game files is up to the editor's users, and it does not influence the game's license stored in this format.

That content and format can't be separated is the core of my argument.

And that's exactly why you're wrong. Answer me:
can you or can you not store the same email icon content, pixel by pixel in a GIF as well as a PNG format?

And: the compiler's output format under Windows is the Microsoft copyrighted MZ/COFF format.
Does this mean all programs compiled under Windows is automatically copyrighted to Microsoft?
If "content and format can't be separated" were true, that would be the case, and you wouldn't be able to compile FOSS games under Windows.

It talks about copyrighted content stored in the gif format

What was that? You mentioning copyrighted content and format as separate things? And that article talks exactly about what we are: what if that copyrighted content is stored not in gif format, but in APNG for example? Wouldn't it be copyrighted any more? Of course it would be, hence your argument, content and format can't be separated doesn't stand. A copyrighted content is copyrighted, no matter the format. And it has nothing to do with the format's copyright, and vice-versa, the format's copyright does not influence the content's copyright. The judge ruled against Meta acquiring Giphy because they were afraid that Meta would use copyright law to forbid other sites to use GIF. Not the copyrighted content (neither Meta nor Giphy has the copyright of those obviously), but the use of copyrighted GIF format in particular.

After we have cleared this multiple times, my question stands: could you please move my GPL'd TirNanoG topic back from Off-topic? Please?

Cheers,
bzt

[bzt]

Dear Julius,

Why is the GPL licensed TirNanoG software still in the Off-topic category?

Your misunderstandings (your criticism wasn't based on any laws nor on the actual license's text for that matter) aside, you can't deny that GPL is a FOSS license. If you don't like my format for whatever reason, then GPL allows you to fork the project and rewrite it to use a different format. Nobody stops you from doing that, as long as your fork GPL licensed too, that's perfectly legal.

So why isn't TirNanoG moved back from Off-topic? I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be, so please, I ask you kindly.

Cheers,
bzt

[Julius]

Sorry but you clearly fail to understand the basic premise of my argument, as you continue to write stuff that makes absolutely no sense in this context.

Edit: ok one last try: a "format" is an immaterial concept that only comes into existence by being expressed through the content. Thus it cannot exist without the content. Of course the content can also be formatted in different ways, so yes the content itself can exist without the specific format in question, but in fact it can also not exist without some kind of format (but that's beside the point I am making). Copyright law deals with actually existing content. It has no concept of immaterial ideas. For that you would likely need to resort to patent law although I also doubt you could patent a file-format itself (but it might be possible if there are a lot of innovative ideas manifested in it).

I pointed several people with experience in open-source licensing to this thread with the question if my argument is understandable and if they agree with it and they all said that yes it makes sense and your argumentation does not.

This leaves us with two possible outcomes: either your file-format licensing is legally invalid and then anyone can disregard the CC-by-NC-SA against your explicit wish, or we do in fact respect your wish despite the legal questions around it and then your unmodified engine can not be used for open-source games and thus is off-topic for this forum.

[bzt]

Sorry but you clearly fail to understand the basic premise of my argument, as you continue to write stuff that makes absolutely no sense in this context.

The things you complain about are not in the actual license text. That's a fact. I honestly don't know where you got all that non sense stuff, not from the project's license file, that's for sure.

Edit: ok one last try: a "format" is an immaterial concept

Why are you still talking about that? I'm asking why is the GPL licensed TirNanoG software in the Off-topic category?
You surely aren't suggesting that GPL isn't FOSS, aren't you? You can fork TirNanoG and rewrite it to use a different format if that's your thing, because TirNanoG is a Free and Open Source software.

Cheers,
bzt

ps: I'm sorry, please don't get me wrong, but it feels like you're just making up stupid excuses to punish TirNanoG without telling the real reason. Are you jealous because you have similar project or what? I can't imagine any valid reason why you're moving a GPL licensed software off-topic, that's why I'm assuming you're acting on selfish interest without telling. I don't know if that's the case, but surely feels like it.

[Huitsi]

Let me butt in one last time. Bzt, you have, in the editor and player, licensed implementations of your file format under GPLv3. This (or a document describing the format) is the only place where you could actually copyright a format. Since you also claim that the format is CC-BY-NC-SA, we are left wondering if the player and editor can actually be GPLv3, since these two licenses are very incompatible.

Clearly you have a different idea on how copyright functions, but you have so far failed to convince anyone else. I suggest you stop trying and instead take out the encryption and decryption code out of your source trees (I'm afraid this will require ugly history rewriting in git) along with any mention of CC-BY-NC-SA. You can then put these somewhere else (Codeberg probably doesn't want to host them) under a proprietary license of your choosing. After that, I believe, the engine could be considered cleanly free and on-topic again.

[Julius]

You can fork TirNanoG and rewrite it to use a different format if that's your thing

Yes that is true and why I tolerated it being advertised on this forum for a long time (and still do, just in the off-topic section instead).

ps: I'm sorry, please don't get me wrong, but it feels like you're just making up stupid excuses to punish TirNanoG without telling the real reason. Are you jealous because you have similar project or what? I can't imagine any valid reason why you're moving a GPL licensed software off-topic, that's why I'm assuming you're acting on selfish interest without telling. I don't know if that's the case, but surely feels like it.

No there is no selfish interest at play. I am acting to protect potential users that would from your advertising it as open-source and GPL licensed falsely assume that they can use your engine as is for their open-source game projects. My personal motivation is in addition that I am very annoyed with people trying to circumvent open-source licensing with additional restrictive terms (as you are clearly trying to do) and thus open-washing their actually proprietary products.

Edit: I agree with Huitsi's last message and thanks for trying to put it in yet another way and also suggesting a clear way forward for solving this conundrum.

[bzt]

You claim that an open-source project can't be stored in a proprietary format, is that right?
Here's a real life evidence that proves you wrong: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/archive/refs/heads/master.zip

How is it possible, that Linux, which is a GPL licensed open-source project, is stored in a github-generated proprietary PKZIP format, and this is perfectly legally correct? You're trying to claim that this is not legally possible, yet this real life example - with the consent of Microsoft's lawyers -, contradicts you. How do you explain this?

I am acting to protect potential users that would from your advertising it as open-source and GPL licensed falsely assume that they can use your engine as is for their open-source game projects.

BUT THEY CAN. You just made that up that TirNanoG can't be used for open-source game projects.

Storing an open-source game in TirNanoG File Format is legally no different than storing the same open-source game in a proprietary PKZIP format. Claiming otherwise is just stupid and absurd and goes against reality and law.

My personal motivation is in addition that I am very annoyed with people trying to circumvent open-source licensing with additional restrictive terms (as you are clearly trying to do)

Seriously, where do you get these non sense ideas from? If you were really an expert on open source licenses as you claim to be, you'd know that what you're suggesting here isn't even possible by the GPL/CC terms.
(Just to be clear: there are no additional restrictive terms in the TirNanoG File Format's license, the CC-BY-NC-SA text is verbatim.)

And this is the root of the problem: you're NOT judging the actual TirNanoG license, rather something that you made up, exists only in your head, and has nothing to do with the actual licensing terms written in the license file.

Cheers,
bzt

ps: Please DO answer my first question about Linux source code and github generated ZIP files. You said that not supposed to be legal, yet, it is.

[Julius]

Please read again what I wrote multiple times now. You are still not making any sense. Of course you can zip the Linux kernel as there is no such thing as copyrighted file formats (it's a legal impossibility). How many times do I need to repeat that? I am sorry but unless you try to at least understand the logic behind that, it is pointless to discuss any further.

And I am not making up anything, I am trying to respect your made-up copyright logic by telling users that if they follow your logic (which doesn't make legal sense, but ignoring that for a second here) they will have no choice but to license their final game project stored in your file format as CC-by-NC-SA unless they get your explicit permission otherwise. But this makes your project unsuitable for someone wanting to make an open-source game, because CC-by-NC-SA is incompatible with open-source licensing.

If I was to respect the actual GPLv3 license text only I could just tell you that your made-up file-format licensing is incompatible with it (as it tries to put additional restrictions on it) and thus invalid.

[bzt]

You are still not making any sense.

Oh, am I? Read below.

Of course you can zip the Linux kernel as there is no such thing as copyrighted file formats (it's a legal impossibility).

Dear Julius, you have already admitted there's no such law that would forbid that, and you have already admitted that the PKZIP format is indeed copyrighted. Trying to deny the obvious, especially something that you have already admitted and accepted makes absolutely no sense.

And I am not making up anything, I am trying to respect your made-up copyright logic by telling users that if they follow your logic ... they will have no choice but to license their final game project stored in your file format as CC-by-NC-SA

And with that, you're LYING, and misleading the users, so please, DO NOT do that.

If the PKZIP copyright does not stop you from storing open source games in a ZIP archive, then the TirNanoG File Format copyright does not stop you from doing the same either. PERIOD. Claiming otherwise is a lie.

So please stop lying about open source games cannot be created with TirNanoG, stop saying that all games stored in it must be CC-BY-NC-SA, because that claim is simply not true, not backed up by any law, and straightforward contradicts multiple precedence with other format's copyrights, and directly contradicts the actual TirNanoG File Format license's text.

Cheers,
bzt

[Julius]

you have already admitted that the PKZIP format is indeed copyrighted.

Where? I have certainly not done so as I always explained file formats by themselves cannot be copyrighted.

And with that, you're LYING, and misleading the users, so please, DO NOT do that.

Ok, so if I totally misunderstood your intent then please answer a simple question: can anyone take your engine + editor and make a game, then export it using your file-format specifications and sell this game without your permission? Yes or no?

Because if the answer is anything but a wholeheartedly "yes" then I am not lying about your intent at all.

[bzt]

Where? I have certainly not done so as I always explained file formats by themselves cannot be copyrighted.

Here:

You refused to answer my question, how is the PKZIP copyright any different to the TirNanoG File Format's copyright? Because they aren't, legally both are copyrighted exactly the same way. If you question the legal status of my copyright, then you must also question the legal status of PKZIP, simple as that. Yet you accept PKZIP's, but question mine?

Ok, so if I totally misunderstood your intent then please answer a simple question: can anyone take your engine + editor and make a game, then export it using your file-format specifications and sell this game without your permission? Yes or no?

Only if they use the unencrypted format, from which their assets can legally be disassembled using publicly available, non-commercial tools. Under no circumstances can I be held responsible if someone disassembles their game file and their assets get into the wrong hands. (And to be clear: if they have used free assets and trying to sell that for money, then they are **rks, and I don't even care if their game gets stolen. Just saying. For a Free and Open Source game nobody cares if the game file is unencrypted and can be disassembled, because the assets in the file are free anyway.)

I've told you this countless times already, only the proprietary, encrypted, disassembly-not-allowed format requires my permission, and only one time, regardless how many copies they sell of their game. Choosing the proprietary version of the dual license gives the game creators the right to go to court and say, "disassembly was illegal, it's in the license terms". They cannot do that with the unencrypted version, because that has no restrictions.

Because if the answer is anything but a wholeheartedly "yes" then I am not lying about your intent at all.

Yes, unfortunately you do. Let's get this straight:

Nobody denies (not even you!!!) that PKZIP is a copyrighted format, and that its specification has that "Copyright notice". Nobody denies (not even you!!!) that open source content can be added to zip files. Yet, according to you, when it comes to MY format, the same law somehow changes, and becomes impossible for me to copyright my file format specification the same way like PKWARE did, and again, according to you, despite the copyright supposedly being impossible, yet somehow it still imposes licensing terms on the contents stored in the format???

You do realize how ridiculous your claim sounds, right? It's a complete non sense.

And that's not the real problem. If you're the only one believing in this absurd bullshit, nobody cares. But you moving TirNanoG off-topic suggests, even more, you admittedly spreading this lie that TirNanoG cannot be used for open source games, now that's a whole different story. In my country, and in your country too, this latter is considered to be defamation and libel, which IS a crime, punishable by prison. Do you understand now the real consequences of your actions? I hoped it won't come to this, and I won't have to spell this out for you, because you might misunderstood this too, but unfortunately it looks like I had to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to intimidate you, I'm just stating the facts.

If you do understand what you've done, then please, I kindly ask you, admit that this was just a terrible misunderstanding on your part, and please move TirNanoG back from Off-topic.

Cheers,
bzt

[zzo38]

The license in the document says:

I, bzt, the copyright holder of the file format release The TirNanoG File Format with dual licensing:

• by default, the unencrypted game file format is licensed under CC-by-nc-sa (attribution required, non-commercial, share-alike)
• with the written permission of the TirNanoG File Format's author, you can you can create proprietary encrypted game files.

The stuff about licensing in that document is confusing.

I think that it is legitimate (but does not seem a good idea, to me) to use CC-BY-NC-SA for the document which describes that file format, but that is not supposed to mean that any files that use that format are CC-BY-NC-SA, too.

At offset 60 is "must be zero for CC-by-nc-sa licensed files, and it is non-zero for encrypted files". However, even if that document is license by CC-BY-NC-SA that does not mean that the .tng file is supposed to be license by CC-BY-NC-SA, even if it is unencrypted. (It also does not mean that other documents cannot be written which describe it, independently; actually such a thing is possible for other documents written too)

But, it says that the file format (not the document) is license by CC-BY-NC-SA.

It does not make much sense to say that the file format itself has a license; it is the document which has a license (and the document does not mention the license of the document), and the games have different licenses.

So, that makes it confusing. Whether you are making sense or not, it is confusing and that is why nobody (including myself) understand it.

So, the part about offset 60 in the header needs to be changed, as well as the part about dual licensing (which I quoted above). If they are fixed, then it willl be less confusing. My suggestion is to change the part about dual licensing to: "This document describes the unencrypted TirNanoG File Format. The encrypted format is not documented; if you want to create encrypted files then you must get permission from the author of TirNanoG File Format." And then change the description for offset 60 to: "zero if unencrypted, or nonzero if encrypted." Then the document will not be as confusing as it is now, I think.

And it has nothing to do with the format's copyright, and vice-versa, the format's copyright does not influence the content's copyright.

Of course, that is right, but the tng_format.md contains some confusing parts.

The judge ruled against Meta acquiring Giphy because they were afraid that Meta would use copyright law to forbid other sites to use GIF. Not the copyrighted content (neither Meta nor Giphy has the copyright of those obviously), but the use of copyrighted GIF format in particular.

I don't know why they said that. GIF format is owned by CompuServe and not Giphy, but that can't prevent others from using it anyways. The reason others were preventing from using it was patents (which is now expired), not due to copyright.

[Julius]

Here:

admit.png

You refused to answer my question, how is the PKZIP copyright any different to the TirNanoG File Format's copyright? Because they aren't, legally both are copyrighted exactly the same way. If you question the legal status of my copyright, then you must also question the legal status of PKZIP, simple as that. Yet you accept PKZIP's, but question mine?

Because you completely failed to understand my argument there. I did not accept any PKZIP file-format copyright at all. Let me try to explain again: Lets say I write a nice story about how sunsets look. I can copyright this description text but I can't copyright sunsets.

Ok, so if I totally misunderstood your intent then please answer a simple question: can anyone take your engine + editor and make a game, then export it using your file-format specifications and sell this game without your permission? Yes or no?

Only if they use the unencrypted format, from which their assets can legally be disassembled using publicly available, non-commercial tools. Under no circumstances can I be held responsible if someone disassembles their game file and their assets get into the wrong hands. (And to be clear: if they have used free assets and trying to sell that for money, then they are **rks, and I don't even care if their game gets stolen. Just saying. For a Free and Open Source game nobody cares if the game file is unencrypted and can be disassembled, because the assets in the file are free anyway.)

I've told you this countless times already, only the proprietary, encrypted, disassembly-not-allowed format requires my permission, and only one time, regardless how many copies they sell of their game. Choosing the proprietary version of the dual license gives the game creators the right to go to court and say, "disassembly was illegal, it's in the license terms". They cannot do that with the unencrypted version, because that has no restrictions.

Sorry but that doesn't answer my question at all. Please answer "yes" or "no". And your license-file clearly states "by default, the unencrypted game file format is licensed under CC-by-NC-SA" so why do you talk about the encryption now?

The rest of your message makes again no sense as you failed to understand my argument. Please take a step back and re-think what you are saying. You sound like someone trying to copyright sunsets by writing about them. We are trying to be considerate of your wishes and also try to explain how copyright works to you. No-one here wants anything bad or is lying about anything, you just completely fail to understand our argument.

[bzt]

Because you completely failed to understand my argument there.

Oh, I do understand perfectly. But the thing is, you failed to prove it and you failed to back it up by any law reference, and directly contradicts what's actually in the TirNanoG File Format's license terms... My argument on the other hand is backed up by law and countless real life examples, you see... And all the real life examples so far prove me right and you wrong.

I did not accept any PKZIP file-format copyright at all.

Dude, are you nuts? You have just admitted deliberately violating the law. I wouldn't do that if I were you, and I specially would advertise my wrongdoing publicly like you do if I were you...

{l Code}: {l Select All Code}

File:    APPNOTE.TXT - .ZIP File Format Specification
Version: 6.3.3
Status: Final - replaces version 6.3.2
Revised: September 1, 2012
Copyright (c) 1989 - 2012 PKWARE Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Like it or not, "Copyright" is there, even if you're blind to see it. From the Library of Congress: "The format specification is proprietary, but the most recent version has always been openly disclosed as the .ZIP Application Note with a file name of APPNOTE.TXT."

Are you seriously suggesting that the USA Congress is wrong, and you are right on copyright law matters? If so, I must ask, are you megalomaniac or something? I'm truly sorry, but that's a huge ROTFL. No, the Congress is right and you are wrong, I assure you.

Let me try to explain again: Lets say I write a nice story about how sunsets look. I can copyright this description text but I can't copyright sunsets.

You're totally wrong (again), because sunsets existed independently to you, before and without your nice story, so your example obviously a pretty bad example and doesn't stand at all.

Let me help you, try Frodo instead: this character didn't existed before the nice story of Lord of the Rings, and he wouldn't exist without LoTR. And as expected, he is indeed copyrighted and you can't use this character without the written permission of the Tolkien Estate. Yet another example that proves me right, but you're blind to see.

Sorry but that doesn't answer my question at all. Please answer "yes" or "no".

Yes it perfectly does answer it. Let me repeat it for you, "Yes", they can use the unencrypted format without my permission, BUT that also means without protection of their assets. They won't have the right to complain on court if their game assets get stolen, because the unencrypted option comes without no-disassembly restrictions.

And your license-file clearly states "by default, the unencrypted game file format is licensed under CC-by-NC-SA" so why do you talk about the encryption now?

Exactly. WHERE DOES IT SAY "CONTENTS ARE LICENSED"??? It only says, "format is licensed", not the contents, so all of your arguments are invalid. Period.

Please take a step back and re-think what you are saying.

Back to you. It wasn't me who admitted deliberate copyright law violation with PKZIP... And it definitely isn't me who is failing to see ALL those examples.

No-one here wants anything bad or is lying about anything

Then why are you admittedly violating laws, denying facts, blind to real life examples and claim that TirNanoG can't be used for FOSS games, when that latter is an obvious lie???

Again, since your arguments are complete non sense, go against law, precedence and directly contradicts the TirNanoG File Format's license text, I ask you, move TirNanoG back from Off-topic.

Cheers,
bzt

[bzt]

Let's make this extremely simple.

Where does the TirNanoG File Format licensing terms explicitly forbid FOSS contents?

If you can quote that part that explicitly forbids anything about the contents', then I'll rewrite that part.
But if you fail to quote, then you must admit you were wrong, TirNanoG can be used for FOSS games, and you must move TirNanoG back from Off-topic.

How does that sound? Simple solution, isn't it?

Cheers,
bzt

[dulsi]

bzt perhaps you can stop the personal attacks on Julius.

Like it or not, "Copyright" is there, even if you're blind to see it. From the Library of Congress: "The format specification is proprietary, but the most recent version has always been openly disclosed as the .ZIP Application Note with a file name of APPNOTE.TXT."

Julius and I (and presumedly others in this discussion) accept the copyright on the file format specification. If I took quote of specification and included them in a novel that would be a copyright violation. But that has no bearing on me writing a program to read and write zip files.

Sorry but that doesn't answer my question at all. Please answer "yes" or "no".

Yes it perfectly does answer it. Let me repeat it for you, "Yes", they can use the unencrypted format without my permission, BUT that also means without protection of their assets. They won't have the right to complain on court if their game assets get stolen, because the unencrypted option comes without no-disassembly restrictions.

Thank you for clarifying that. We have asked several times and you didn't give a definitive yes. (Well I think you did the message before but that's besides the point.) Since we don't believe a license applies to a file format the quote zzo38 included suggests that unencrypted files would be CC-BY-NC-SA. We were simply trying to abide by what you appeared to intend. I'm sorry it angered/upset you.

You do realize that someone can then release a commercial game unencrypted. The encryption may be a hindrance to ripping assets but it wouldn't stop people. What prevents people from just reusing your assets is copyright. If you use an asset without permission the copyright owner can sue you.

[bzt]

bzt perhaps you can stop the personal attacks on Julius.

I'm not. He is the one attacking my project, and spreading lies that it cannot be used with FOSS games.

Julius and I (and presumedly others in this discussion) accept the copyright on the file format specification.

Julius has just said that he doesn't.

If I took quote of specification and included them in a novel that would be a copyright violation. But that has no bearing on me writing a program to read and write zip files.

Not exactly, you don't have to actually quote the specification's text in your program, that would still considered to be "built upon the material", simply because it is impossible to implement a file format without using the format specification's text. Should PKWARE not made APPNOTE.TXT openly available, and no-one could legally (nor technically) implement a program to read and write zip files.

We have asked several times and you didn't give a definitive yes.

Yes I did, multiple times, but let's not go into that. It's just the answer isn't black and white as you falsely assume, but I've already explained that too, multiple times.

Since we don't believe a license applies to a file format the quote zzo38 included suggests that unencrypted files would be CC-BY-NC-SA.

It doesn't matter what you believe or not, what matters is what the law actually says and what's the court precedence. And yes, the format is dual licensed, the unencrypted format is CC-BY-NC-SA licensed, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the content's license as the zip example proves.

The file format specification's (and with that all implementation that built on that specification) being CC-BY-NC-SA means that if you want to create a tool that uses this format, then you can do that, but your tool must be non-commercial.

We were simply trying to abide by what you appeared to intend. I'm sorry it angered/upset you.

I'm not upset, I'm sad. The problem is, Julius moved the TirNanoG topic to Off-topic, and he is admittedly telling people that TirNanoG can't be used for FOSS games. That action isn't "abiding intend", it's a bit more serious. I'm still waiting Julius to quote that part of the license that supposedly forbids FOSS games.

You do realize that someone can then release a commercial game unencrypted.

I've never said otherwise, but you must understand that the unencrypted format comes without restrictions, so you have no say if your game gets stolen.

The encryption may be a hindrance to ripping assets but it wouldn't stop people.

WRONG. Encrypted format's license explicitly states that disassembly, and with that ripping assets is ILLEGAL, therefore gives the right to game makers to go to court if this happens (regardless and independently to the copyright and license of the contents stored in the file). And technically problematic too, as the encryption uses a mask generated with 4096 bit RSA keys (not impossible, just f*cking hard to crack).

I'm not Valve, I can't afford an armada of lawyers to protect unencrypted games' copyright like they do with Steam. All I can do is, I offer an option in the format license that game makers can surely and unquestionably use on court (regardless to the content's copyright) and I make ripping hard as possible by using strong encryption. But if you choose the unencrypted format, you're totally on your own, you must understand no copyright protection of any kind provided by me. Under no circumstances can I be held responsible for the game files created by others.

Cheers,
bzt

[Huitsi]

Not exactly, you don't have to actually quote the specification's text in your program, that would still considered to be "built upon the material", simply because it is impossible to implement a file format without using the format specification's text.

Thankfully you have already licensed an implementation under the GPLv3, so we can just reverse-engineer that into a clean GPLv3 spec.

[bzt]

Thankfully you have already licensed an implementation under the GPLv3, so we can just reverse-engineer that into a clean GPLv3 spec.

And what would you gain with that? I've chosen GPL simply because it is one way compatible with CC-BY-SA, and it strictly forbids selling the source, or to use it in proprietary applications, so non-commercial only (about the binary's price GPL says nothing, so it is not a restriction on GPL if I say you can't sell not just the source, but neither the binary).

Go ahead, use the GPL'd TirNanoG Editor source, you would still have to obey the same licensing terms as the TirNanoG File Format's license that way ;-) ;-) ;-)

Cheers,
bzt

[bzt]

I don't want to get this lost in the noise:




Dear Julius,

Let's make this extremely simple.

Where does the TirNanoG File Format licensing terms explicitly forbid FOSS contents?

If you can quote that part that explicitly forbids anything about the contents', then I'll rewrite that part.
But if you fail to quote, then you must admit you were wrong, TirNanoG can be used for FOSS games, and you must move TirNanoG back from Off-topic.

How does that sound? Simple solution, isn't it?

Cheers,
bzt

[Huitsi]

And what would you gain with that?

A freely licensed file format spec.

I've chosen GPL simply because it is one way compatible with CC-BY-SA,

With CC-BY-SA, yes, but not CC-BY-NC-SA, because...

and it strictly forbids selling the source, or to use it in proprietary applications, so non-commercial only

...this is false.

4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

Go ahead, use the GPL'd TirNanoG Editor source, you would still have to obey the same licensing terms as the TirNanoG File Format's license that way ;-) ;-) ;-)

No, I'd have to obey to a very different set terms, less permissive in some ways, more permissive in others.