Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!server3.netnews.ja.net!bath.ac.uk!unknown
From: "Ben A L Jemmett" <bal.jemmett@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: Re: the ultimate IF archive
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Sender: unknown@bj1084.resnet.bris.ac.uk (Address not verified)
Organization: Jemmett Glover Software Development
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <GqrLuo.52t@bath.ac.uk>
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
References: <3c5140ae.1475140@news.hotkey.net.au> <4Yp58.2940$By6.409005@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <u5cbhbr3c7e7c0@corp.supernews.com> <Koq58.3028$By6.409005@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <u5cf9m8n2772b9@corp.supernews.com> <Gqp7CG.4r9@bath.ac.uk> <9a35093e.0201290638.3c7d33c4@posting.google.com> <GqprCz.1up@bath.ac.uk> <9a35093e.0201300652.5ba6f0bf@posting.google.com>
X-Priority: 3
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:54:24 GMT
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:98258

"Ice9" <IceNine@oddball.com> wrote in message
news:9a35093e.0201300652.5ba6f0bf@posting.google.com...
>   This is not the case with these files, where no mention of any (yes,
> no mention at all) is made of a license in any way.

Well, that's a shame; there really should be some sort of licence on the
site, even if it's rather permissive by default.  It's always a good idea to
*know* what the terms are :)

> I still think that the files within the
> archive should at least point to the general license, and prefferably
> contain a copy of it.

Hmm...  Might pose a problem, as a fair proportion are distributed as lone
gamefiles.  I think the fairest option would be a licence for the archive
saying 'files here are presumed to be freeware/redistributable/whatever
unless the author includes a superseding licence within the
ZIP/tarball/game'.

>   Exactly my point.  There are some clauses that are unreasonable.
> Now in the case of freely downloadable files, is a clause that
> prevents re-distribution reasonable?

Yes, because the author has the lawful right to control the copying of the
file unless he chooses not to (by waiving that right, or making the work
public domain -- neither of which is done by making a file available for
download).  That's the copyright itself.

--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)


