Life, the Universe and Elite
David Braben
As many here know already, I've asked for versions of leaked Elite sources,
and versions of the game itself to be removed from various web sites.
Whether you think it right or wrong, I am attempting to protect the
copyright status of the game.
Elite is not in the public domain, nor is it freeware or shareware. I would
like to make it shareware (this preserves the copyright status), as with
Frontier and First Encounters but it is not yet. I have been turning a blind
eye to the various tribute versions (and I do appreciate that these versions
have been lovingly crafted in most cases), but the recent appearance of
Elite for Pocket PC, advertised as 'Freeware' through commercial
distribution was the last straw.
For those conspiracy theorists here, this has nothing to do with Elite 4 -
that is sadly still a way off. It came to our attention as a result of
looking to see people's response to our recently released "Darxide EMP".
I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as shareware, if
all parties agree.
David Braben
Frantic
Thanks for stating your position on this, and for taking the time to
keep us informed.
I know we may all seem a bit harsh on you guys, but we've been starved
of information for ages. I would like to see tings like the Elite Club
take off as many of the people around here feel they have a lot to
offer.
In the end, we all just want to play Elite, in one form or another.
--
Frantic - GalNET Deputy Chief Administrator
The Galactic Network of Explorers and Traders.
http://www.galnet.org
Barry Barcrest
"David Braben" <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FRNT392...@frontier.co.uk...
> Elite is not in the public domain, nor is it freeware or shareware. I
would
> like to make it shareware (this preserves the copyright status), as with
> Frontier and First Encounters but it is not yet. I have been turning a
blind
> eye to the various tribute versions (and I do appreciate that these
versions
> have been lovingly crafted in most cases), but the recent appearance of
> Elite for Pocket PC, advertised as 'Freeware' through commercial
> distribution was the last straw.
So because of that you'll pull everything? That makes sense, I don't
think...Dummy well and truly spat out.
> For those conspiracy theorists here, this has nothing to do with Elite 4 -
> that is sadly still a way off. It came to our attention as a result of
> looking to see people's response to our recently released "Darxide EMP".
Darxide?? Sounds like DarkSide.. Mmm Oi Geroge Come and look at this...
> I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as shareware, if
> all parties agree.
To be honest i'd rather stick it all up on kaZaA than sign a pact with the
devil.
> David Braben
Yeah Whatever... B.T.W. you never did get back to me about refunding my
money for that substandard excuse for a game called Frontier you sold me.
JAMES GROSS
>I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as shareware, if
>all parties agree.
I wonder if it is possible for DB to release a shareware mod for Dark Kind
of the elite universe and ships.
Stuart Wilson
"Frantic" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:a7fi4v4suuo2bq6ju...@4ax.com...
> In the end, we all just want to play Elite, in one form or another.
There's more to Elite than life you know ;-)
Matt Dibb
"Barry Barcrest" <barc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zlb2a.8469$297....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Barry, this really isn't appreciated. David Braben takes time out to
explain the situation and his side of the argument and you reply like this?
Next time before you reply, take 30 seconds to think about what you are
going to type rather than rattling something off and hitting send before
you've even thought about it.
Thanks,
Matt
Christian Pinder
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>As many here know already, I've asked for versions of leaked Elite sources,
>and versions of the game itself to be removed from various web sites.
Just for the record, the E-TNK source code was not leaked. I created
it by disassembling BBC Disk Elite and writing equivalent C code, a
process which took me two years.
I suspect by 'leaked Elite sources' you mean the original ((c)
Acornsoft) 6502 assembler code that Ian made available. Removing that
code from circulation is fairly pointless. If someone wants to see
the 6502 assembler code for Elite they just need to run one of the
original versions of Elite through a disassembler (which is what I
did). The output is actually much more readable than the original
source. AFAIK no clones of Elite have been made using that source
code, the E-TNK code is what is being used.
Could you please clarify what 'various web sites' actually means. To
my knowledge I'm the only person you have directly asked.
>Elite is not in the public domain, nor is it freeware or shareware. I would
>like to make it shareware (this preserves the copyright status), as with
>Frontier and First Encounters but it is not yet. I have been turning a blind
>eye to the various tribute versions (and I do appreciate that these versions
>have been lovingly crafted in most cases), but the recent appearance of
>Elite for Pocket PC, advertised as 'Freeware' through commercial
>distribution was the last straw.
I know that Jon Welch was working on a port of E-TNK to the
PocketPC...
http://www.g7jjf.demon.co.uk/elite.htm
I cannot see anywhere on his site or in the usenet postings that
advertise the game as 'Freeware' through commercial distribution.
>For those conspiracy theorists here, this has nothing to do with Elite 4 -
>that is sadly still a way off.
Actually the conspiracy theorists here thought it was me who was
trying to get E-TNK pulled. :-)
>It came to our attention as a result of looking to see people's response
>to our recently released "Darxide EMP".
Don't tell me they thought E-TNK on the PocketPC was better? :-)
>I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as shareware, if
>all parties agree.
The only thing you have asked me to agree to is removing E-TNK etc
from my website which I've done. If you wish to make an official
shareware release of E-TNK through the Elite Club then I'm willing to
discuss that but so far all you've asked me to do is remove it.
--
Regards,
Christian.
http://www.newkind.co.uk
Rob Berry
David, first of all thank you for your post. You didn't need to make it,
and many of us appreciate that you choose to make the effort to do so for
which we would thank you.
Most if not all would agree that as a co-author to Elite, you have every
right to deserve the incomes either past, present or future from your hard
work. After all what is copyright about, if one can't protect one's work?
Any writer of software, prose etc would agree with you on that.
However, with the greatest of respect to you and your hard work, by your
direct actions, you have chosen to deny those people who would duly love to
play Elite on a modern platform, the ability to do so. If you had chosen to
regularly update your software for Elite, FE2, or FFE over the intervening
years, then you would have every right to deny anyone the right to use such
code, but with respect you and your firm made an active choice not to do so.
I and many others hoped that the Elite Club would allow others to do the
work either time or circumstances would not allow you to do, but again you
have not allowed that to happen either, by the inability to release even a
limited version of the source code to Elite Club members. I would suggest
that you have no intention to do so at this point.
I and many others want to buy your products. I promise you if you did an
updated version of FFE, it would fly off the shelves! A great deal of
modern software is linear and to be candid simply badly designed and
unplayable, the very strengths of the Elite series. An ideal way to promote
Elite4 might be an upgraded FE2 or FFE. At least allow us to get an
upgraded Elite Plus on shareware perhaps?, or maybe a budget release for an
upgraded FE2 and/or FFE?
David, I suspect you're a business man. You have a product, people want to
buy it. With respect why not let them get hold of the upgraded products you
have chosen to force out of existence by paying you for them?
Rob
Frantic
<chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:47:51 -0000, "David Braben"
[snip]
>>It came to our attention as a result of looking to see people's response
>>to our recently released "Darxide EMP".
>
>Don't tell me they thought E-TNK on the PocketPC was better? :-)
The money shot :-)
NthDegree
not replace the ads within the game with ads for E4, replete with web addies
and such? One could even hand-code a mission wherein one must fly to
Polaris and get the E4 source code (1t) from the Thargoids...
<snip>
> I and many others want to buy your products. I promise you if you did an
> updated version of FFE, it would fly off the shelves! A great deal of
> modern software is linear and to be candid simply badly designed and
> unplayable, the very strengths of the Elite series. An ideal way to
promote
> Elite4 might be an upgraded FE2 or FFE. At least allow us to get an
> upgraded Elite Plus on shareware perhaps?, or maybe a budget release for
an
> upgraded FE2 and/or FFE?
>Rob
Corncrake
>> In the end, we all just want to play Elite, in one form or another.
"We" still can, unless DB & CJP want to send us all emails ?:)?
Pity about the next generation though ( pun intended!)
>There's more to Elite than life you know ;-)
Oh ? tell me more ! ;-)))
Martin Christensen
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "David" == David Braben <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> writes:
David> I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as
David> shareware, if all parties agree.
You understand, of course, that after many disappointments [1] it's
difficult for us as a community to keep taking such promises
seriously, let alone expect that anything will be done in a timely
manner. What Elite and its sequels are concerned, you folks do not
exactly have a history of putting your money where your mouth is.
Martin
Footnotes:
[1] Here I'm thinking especially of the Elite Club and the release of
the FFE source.
- --
Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/
GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>
iEYEARECAAYFAj5Jlv4ACgkQYu1fMmOQldXmfgCgv6R7hRMNirR3IIvhp1xEUeSp
azIAnROgs2uQaUlKC7tENbzzUtM/K7gH
=EN5H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Jordan
<knightsofspam...@gvdnet.dk> writes
>
>> "David" == David Braben <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> writes:
>
>David> I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as
>David> shareware, if all parties agree.
>
>You understand, of course, that after many disappointments [1] it's
>difficult for us as a community to keep taking such promises
>seriously,
I think you're reading this section wrong. I shall paraphrase:
"Unless Bell tells me who he sold his rights to, TNK shall never see the
light of day again! Haha!"
Seriously, note that Braben has a large financial interest in obtaining
the other half of the Elite copyright, and indeed there's little point
in clamping down on TNK ports unless he aims to do so. This is probably
what Braben refers to as "conspiracy theories" elsewhere in the post :-)
--
John Jordan
Martin Christensen
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "John" == John Jordan <jo...@jaj22.demon.co.uk> writes:
John> I think you're reading this section wrong.
By taking it at face value (which is only polite, no?) I could make
the point that I wanted to, and so I believe I read it exactly right,
at least for a definition of 'right' that works for me. :-)
Martin
- --
Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/
GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>
iEYEARECAAYFAj5Jn68ACgkQYu1fMmOQldXjyACgkT8EuJqONSCyKoIugp1rLeHO
Z9AAoM16UPfJrPbv0EoMpYqundyPgTby
=4FWw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Corncrake
>Seriously, note that Braben has a large financial interest in obtaining
>the other half of the Elite copyright, and indeed there's little point
>in clamping down on TNK ports unless he aims to do so.
Seriously though (!)
DB has been very quiet for a long time and E-TNK prospered, in
its various guises, ( although the long promised bug-fix by CJP
never materialised )
but then an association came about between IB and CJP, but still
various versions of E-TNK prospered.
Then IB made some provocative comments and offers ( including
3 free prizes in a stupid artificial competition) of some contentious
products.
Then DB talks of "last straws", ,,,,can we blame him ?
but it is a shame CJP got caught in that crossfire,
and it is a shame that he (CJP)now persues others who use his
translation freely give in open view,,
If he didnt want peeps to use his translation why post it in the first
place ? He knows what the internet is like - once "out there",,
but I am surprised that he now seems to be ( until he contradicts me)
persuing people who are having a bit of fun practicing their code-ing
with it.. ( as destinct from wanting to make profits out of it)
Mind you,, there are some who use CJP's code but keep their own
modification code close to their chests, which aint quite in the
spirit of CJP's orig. release,
hey-ho, not many saints about are there ? !
>This is probably
>what Braben refers to as "conspiracy theories" elsewhere in the post :-)
Did my newsswerver miss a post ? I thought that was someone else ?
Matt Dibb
"Martin Christensen" <knightsofspam...@gvdnet.dk> wrote in message
news:87el6ew...@gvdnet.dk...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >>>>> "John" == John Jordan <jo...@jaj22.demon.co.uk> writes:
> John> I think you're reading this section wrong.
>
> By taking it at face value (which is only polite, no?) I could make
> the point that I wanted to, and so I believe I read it exactly right,
> at least for a definition of 'right' that works for me. :-)
English is pretty amnigous - it could mean anything :-)
e.g. "I saw the man on the hill with the telescope." - did you see him with
the telescope? was the man on the hill? did you see the man with the
telescope whilst you were on the hill? etc etc
Christian Pinder
(Corncrake) wrote:
>but it is a shame CJP got caught in that crossfire,
>and it is a shame that he (CJP)now persues others who use his
>translation freely give in open view,,
I'm not pursuing anybody. I've always made it clear that if any of
the copyright holders objecting to E-TNK I would withdraw it. One of
the copyright holders has now asked that it be withdrawn. I am merely
trying to make good my promise and am politely asking people (both
privately and in open discussion) to not distribute E-TNK or its code.
Corncrake
>I'm not pursuing anybody.
OK,
and the rest of my (previous) post ???
<insert emoticon for wicked grin ! >
Christian Pinder
(Corncrake) wrote:
>OK,
>and the rest of my (previous) post ???
><insert emoticon for wicked grin ! >
Which bit in particular would you like me to comment on?
Corncrake
<chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:47:07 GMT, nos...@notathome.ntlworld.com
>(Corncrake) wrote:
>>OK,
>>and the rest of my (previous) post ???
>><insert emoticon for wicked grin ! >
>
>Which bit in particular would you like me to comment on?
The bit following "Seriously though(!)"
perhps ?
But I suppose you read that already?
and if we are going to get all uptight about it and miss (!) and
other emoticons there is only two solutions :
either
a solution of beer at an eyeball
or pack it all back in its box and go back to a real life,
it does not bother me,, honest, really,,
I really did think you woz having fun, once upon a time with etnk ?
Corncrake
>Which bit in particular would you like me to comment on?
Ok, I yield,,,
this bit :
"If he didnt want peeps to use his translation why post it in the
first place ? "
it seems to me either,
you wanted peeps to pick it up, have fun, and play with it.
or
you wanted peeps to marvel at your geniousness and file it with
the ten commandments ?
perhps with a tug of forelock ?
u see what happens when you try to be obtuse? It all falls
into the usual usenet diatribes and squables.
Frantic
(Corncrake) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:51:50 +0000, Christian Pinder
><chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:47:07 GMT, nos...@notathome.ntlworld.com
>>(Corncrake) wrote:
>>>OK,
>>>and the rest of my (previous) post ???
>>><insert emoticon for wicked grin ! >
>>
>>Which bit in particular would you like me to comment on?
>
>The bit following "Seriously though(!)"
>perhps ?
>But I suppose you read that already?
>
>and if we are going to get all uptight about it and miss (!) and
>other emoticons there is only two solutions :
Why use emoticons when a) they are a lame excuse for being unable to
express yourself in text, and b) no one switches them on for viewing
anyway?
Unless it works as ascii art, don't bother ;)
David Braben
news:ptki4v8fj7tpgp9sd...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:47:51 -0000, "David Braben"
> <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >As many here know already, I've asked for versions of leaked Elite
sources,
> >and versions of the game itself to be removed from various web sites.
>
> Just for the record, the E-TNK source code was not leaked. I created
> it by disassembling BBC Disk Elite and writing equivalent C code, a
> process which took me two years.
Apologies. Quite some dedication.
> I suspect by 'leaked Elite sources' you mean the original ((c)
> Acornsoft) 6502 assembler code that Ian made available. Removing that
> code from circulation is fairly pointless. If someone wants to see
> the 6502 assembler code for Elite they just need to run one of the
> original versions of Elite through a disassembler (which is what I
> did). The output is actually much more readable than the original
> source. AFAIK no clones of Elite have been made using that source
> code, the E-TNK code is what is being used.
Indeed. The conversion from 6502 assembler is a major hurdle, sufficient to
prevent most from copying the game. However once it's in C that is not the
case; it becomes a relatively trivial job, hence the recent proliferation of
'versions' of the game of variable quality, based on your code.
Oh, and just a detail - although the original BBC version was (C) Acornsoft,
they sold this (C) back at a later date, so this is not an issue.
> I know that Jon Welch was working on a port of E-TNK to the
> PocketPC...
> http://www.g7jjf.demon.co.uk/elite.htm
> I cannot see anywhere on his site or in the usenet postings that
> advertise the game as 'Freeware' through commercial distribution.
The version was available on various commercial sites and tagged as
'freeware', eg "Handango".
Also did you see the amazing long 'EULA' (Microsoft-speak for End User
License Agreement) attached to the game? I thought this was rich - it even
stipulated that 'reverse engineering' was a breach of the license. It struck
me as amazing hypocrisy, and I admit did not make me feel charitable towards
it.
> >For those conspiracy theorists here, this has nothing to do with Elite
4 -
> >that is sadly still a way off.
>
> Actually the conspiracy theorists here thought it was me who was
> trying to get E-TNK pulled. :-)
You can't win when it comes to the net!
> >It came to our attention as a result of looking to see people's response
> >to our recently released "Darxide EMP".
>
> Don't tell me they thought E-TNK on the PocketPC was better? :-)
No comparison was made. Darxide has been very well received, but in looking
through the commercial sites that specialise in Pocket PC, Elite was present
or linked to on many of them, advertised as 'Freeware'.
> >I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as shareware,
if
> >all parties agree.
>
> The only thing you have asked me to agree to is removing E-TNK etc
> from my website which I've done. If you wish to make an official
> shareware release of E-TNK through the Elite Club then I'm willing to
> discuss that but so far all you've asked me to do is remove it.
Yes. I'm sure everyone's concern is that we wait seemingly forever as
before, where no permission is forthcoming. I too find this frustrating. It
should be possible to resolve this within a week, and I will do my best to
do so.
I realise you feel you have been caught as a 'piggy in the middle' here
(despite that under the letter of the law what you were doing is wrong), and
I am sorry about this. Nevertheless I have to act when I see Elite as
freeware - if I did not then it would rapidly become public domain.
David Braben
Daniel Durrant
>Yes. I'm sure everyone's concern is that we wait seemingly forever as
>before, where no permission is forthcoming. I too find this frustrating. It
>should be possible to resolve this within a week, and I will do my best to
>do so.
David, THANK YOU for communicating with us. I (we all) hope that these are not empty
words, and please, even if there are problems along the way, keep us informed as to what
is happening - just so we know something IS happening! It will be very much appreciated.
Can I also apologise for my rather strong and passionate email of yesterday - you have to
understand that I was very annoyed at the time, one of the symptoms of so much potential
promise and waiting and the frustrations of total silence, only to be interrupted out of
the blue by the removal of a great tribute game!
Lets all make this the beginning of a turning point in the relations between Frontier
Developments and their long-standing Elite-o-holics! :)
Mat Dunning
>
> Also did you see the amazing long 'EULA' (Microsoft-speak for End User
> License Agreement) attached to the game? I thought this was rich - it
> even stipulated that 'reverse engineering' was a breach of the
> license. It struck me as amazing hypocrisy, and I admit did not make
> me feel charitable towards it.
Like many "End Users", I have very little time to read "EULA"s (perhaps
ingorantly), and as a programmer, you normally just add a default
"EULA" to your install, so I think this is a bit over senstive.
All Jon wanted to do, for no commerical benefit, was release an 18 year
old game (which is of no commerical interest) on a machine, that new and
old users could enjoy in the 21st century. I just don't see the point of
defending an 18 year old game, which bears no relation to Elite 4 or
your Darxide game, other than as a matter of priciple. As long as these
coders give full credit to yourselves and Ian, surely this is enough.
I truly hope that you and the "authors" of the Pocket PC/GBA elites can
come to a mature agreement, and that this unpleasantness can be
forgotten, and Elite gamers (I include myself as buying the first Elite
on the BBC B - tape), can get back to enjoying the wonderful game that
yourself and Ian Bell created.
--
regards
Mat
matthew...@ntlworld.com
www.nextgenconsoles.co.uk
Uk reviews/news by UK gamers
Hugh Allan
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
> I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as shareware, if
> all parties agree.
Then that's the way forward, make it shareware, with DB getting the
lions share, CP getting the next largest amount, and the porter getting
the smallest amount. If CP puts together a deal on our behalf I'll make
the Mac OS X port part of it.
Although of course, the amount of money such a project would make would
be tiny... Pay for FDs office stationary perhaps.
Matt Dibb
"Mat Dunning" <matthew...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93208D2236E64ma...@212.135.5.75...
> All Jon wanted to do, for no commerical benefit, was release an 18 year
> old game (which is of no commerical interest) on a machine, that new and
I think if you read Braben's posts you'll notice that he is intending to
release Elite as shareware. You will also note the number of people saying
things like "I'd pay for elite!" etc in the past few months. Thats
'commercial interest' if ever I saw it.
Jan Knutar
> Like many "End Users", I have very little time to read "EULA"s (perhaps
> ingorantly), and as a programmer, you normally just add a default
> "EULA" to your install, so I think this is a bit over senstive.
Whether is is read or not, by anyone or noone, it still has the same legal
implications.
Matt Dibb
"Hugh Allan" <hal...@nospambtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:120220031422105777%hal...@nospambtinternet.com...
> In article <FRNT392...@frontier.co.uk>, David Braben
> <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as shareware,
if
> > all parties agree.
>
>
> Then that's the way forward, make it shareware, with DB getting the
> lions share, CP getting the next largest amount, and the porter getting
> the smallest amount. If CP puts together a deal on our behalf I'll make
> the Mac OS X port part of it.
Er, I dont want to shatter your plans here too much, but I dont think Braben
is thinking about distributing TNK as shareware. There were native Elite
versions that run on PCs anyway - chances are it will be those that are
released as shareware.
Yes I know that there was elite on other platforms. There was frontier on
other platforms thatn PC aswell, but those aren't available as shareware
either.
Andrew Gillett
Braben
> is thinking about distributing TNK as shareware. There were native Elite
> versions that run on PCs anyway - chances are it will be those that are
> released as shareware.
I don't want to say too much at this stage, since nothing has been decided
upon yet, but allowing the distribution of TNK and other Elite-based games
as shareware is an option we are considering.
Crayfish
wrote:
>I think if you read Braben's posts you'll notice that he is intending to
>release Elite as shareware.
Although its obviously going to be a lot more complicated than that as
nobody can release it officially without the permission of both the
copyright holders. Braben is obviously one of these, but the other
could be either Ian Bell or another unnamed party. In the past David
Braben has made it clear that he will refuse permission for third
parties to release it (Palm Elite). It seems from that that the only
way Elite will ever be re-released legally would be by Frontier
Developments with the permission of the other copyright holder.
Judging by past history, that seems unlikely.
> You will also note the number of people saying
>things like "I'd pay for elite!" etc in the past few months. Thats
>'commercial interest' if ever I saw it.
What I don't understand though, is why does David say that it needs to
be released as shareware purely to preserve copyright? Surely it
could also be released with a freeware license that preserves original
copyright?
--
Crayfish
UEA, Norwich
Ian McCall
"Andrew Gillett" <agil...@frontier.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FRNT395...@frontier.co.uk...
> I don't want to say too much at this stage, since nothing has been decided
> upon yet, but allowing the distribution of TNK and other Elite-based games
> as shareware is an option we are considering.
(A lurker de-lurks...)
An entirely rational choice, in my opinion. I simply don't buy into the
FD-bating that goes on here. Elite has never been freeware, and I can
entirely understand theneed to protect its copyright. There's also clearly
commercial interest in it - the existence of this group proves that interest
is still very strong, and I'd certainly pay for a version.
The above sounds like the best compromise - pay Frontier Developments a
percentage for the copyright, pay Christian Pinder et. al. a percentage for
the actual work, and maintain Elite as a playable modern-day game.
Cheers,
Ian
Michael Banck
> I expect Elite versions can be restored shortly, probably as shareware, if
> all parties agree.
Why not make it Open Source/Free Software?
Michael
Indicium
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes. I'm sure everyone's concern is that we wait seemingly forever as
> before, where no permission is forthcoming. I too find this frustrating.
> It
> should be possible to resolve this within a week, and I will do my best
> to
> do so.
Does this mean that we can expect a PocketPC version of elite as Shareware.
That would be great, as I would probably be willing to pay an obcene amount
of money for it (compared to what I would pay for any other PocketPC game)
I do belive that I have 6 Original versions of Elite and its sequels in
boxed versions and all compleate. Oldest being C64 disk version which still
has a place on my shelf.
Can't use it though, as my C64 is long gone.
> I realise you feel you have been caught as a 'piggy in the middle' here
> (despite that under the letter of the law what you were doing is wrong),
> and
> I am sorry about this. Nevertheless I have to act when I see Elite as
> freeware - if I did not then it would rapidly become public domain.
> David Braben
Compleatly understandable..
I belive there is room for a new version of eliet on all type of handhelds,
maybe with better graphics and more missons etc. I do not expect that to
appear for free.
A GBA version was mentioned earlier, any status.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Lucian Wischik
>Like many "End Users", I have very little time to read "EULA"s (perhaps
>ingorantly), and as a programmer, you normally just add a default
>"EULA" to your install, so I think this is a bit over senstive.
I don't. If someone has the gall to stick their own licence on
something they don't own -- that's appalling! And if they additionally
forbid the reverse-engineering that led to the software in the first
place -- outrageous!
--
Lucian
Lucian Wischik
>Why not make it Open Source/Free Software?
My guess: because he put a lot of work into it, and as per article 27
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights he's entitled to material
interests resulting from it, and open source/free wouldn't give him
that.
--
Lucian
Mat Dunning
news:b2dmkf$1bh5h7$1...@ID-120197.news.dfncis.de:
Commercial - we are talking utter peanuts. Basically retro fans like myself
(and then only those who liked Elite), and the people in this newsgroup.
When I mean commerical I mean meaningful money
Mat Dunning
news:593qh-...@breadbin.mine.nu:
Fair enough. If this had been pointed out to Jon (who i believe made a
completely honest mistake), then I'm sure he would have removed it (EULA
wording) without question. Instead we have a heavy handed approach on that
and other Elite remakes, which leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
When it comes down to it, Elite is an 18 year old game, which in its remade
state had no commercial benefit and will be played by limited numbers of
people.This seems a storm in a teacup.
Lucian Wischik
>Fair enough. If this had been pointed out to Jon (who i believe made a
>completely honest mistake)
Mat, have you ever released software and written a licence for it? I
have. I can assure you that writing a licence doesn't happy by
accident, writing such a grossly wrong one doesn't happen by
"mistake".
--
Lucian
Mat Dunning
news:shrk4vgjjs4sblsjl...@4ax.com:
> I don't. If someone has the gall to stick their own licence on
> something they don't own -- that's appalling! And if they additionally
> forbid the reverse-engineering that led to the software in the first
> place -- outrageous!
As I said, I think this was done in error, simply copying a standard EULA,
for standard install. It even starts mentioning USA laws etc. This is
obviously a cut and paste job. A basic mistake thats all. It seems that
some of you are looking to blame someone, so why not blame Jon !!, for
trying to revive a 18 year old game (which most gamers couldn't give a t**S
about/or heard of/played) on Pocket PC.
Come on guys, lets get a life !!
If Jon had wanted to capitalise on it, he wouldn't have creditted Braben or
Bell, stuck huge popups on his website, and charged a registration fee !!
Trev Lucas
> I don't want to say too much at this stage, since nothing has been
> decided upon yet, but allowing the distribution of TNK and other
> Elite-based games as shareware is an option we are considering.
IMHO I don't think FDL can hang around for too long before making a
decision. At the end of the day E-TNK is out there. It has been
ported to other platforms and will probably continue to be worked on,
all be it behind the scenes. It now resides on a variety of machines
in a number of countries, each located in an area with varying values
and standards of enforcement when it comes to the subject of
copyright and Intellectual Property. I have no doubt the code will
re-surface over time if an amicable, workable solution is not
reached. All the email in the world is not going to stop that.
-
trev dot lucas at btopenworld dot com
Nagy Daniel
AFAIK, the enforcability of EULA's is still in the gray area of law. To be
honest, while I am in Eastern Europe, I don't give a rat's ass about them.
In the USA, I would probably care (hence, I'm not there :-). In Canada, I
try not to offend anyone and keep a low profile when breaking an EULA, but
no EULA will stop me from starting a disassembler and playing around with
a HEX editor.
I'm not talking about any ELITE-related EULAs here, just general
comments...
--
Daniel
David Braben
news:3e4a623d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> What I don't understand though, is why does David say that it needs to
> be released as shareware purely to preserve copyright? Surely it
> could also be released with a freeware license that preserves original
> copyright?
In practice, none of these terms are well defined, but most lawyers will
tell you that a freeware license is not valid as no contract is in place,
because of the lack of 'consideration'.
David Braben
Frantic
<matthew...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Lucian Wischik <lu...@wischik.com> wrote in
>news:shrk4vgjjs4sblsjl...@4ax.com:
>
>> I don't. If someone has the gall to stick their own licence on
>> something they don't own -- that's appalling! And if they additionally
>> forbid the reverse-engineering that led to the software in the first
>> place -- outrageous!
>
>As I said, I think this was done in error, simply copying a standard EULA,
>for standard install. It even starts mentioning USA laws etc. This is
>obviously a cut and paste job. A basic mistake thats all. It seems that
I understand that the licenses are being thrown in with games being
distributed, what baffles me is that it is done without any
seriousness. While they are things few people bother to read, they
serve a real purpose and each piece of software should be dealt with
appropriately.
Regardless of what he was thinking when he dumped the .txt file in, or
whether he read it or not, he's still responsible for everything in
it.
Dylan Smith
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>Elite is not in the public domain, nor is it freeware or shareware. I would
>like to make it shareware (this preserves the copyright status)
It doesn't preserve the copyright status any more or any less than having
a (c) David Braben on the source files.
I think you are confused with trademark law. Trademarks are lost unless
you agresively assert them continuously (in which case, you're already
many years too late to save Elite as a trademark). You don't lose copyright
by allowing something to be freely redistributed.
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Dylan Smith
Copyright law applies whether there's a consideration or not.
This message is copyright, for instance.
If the GNU General Public License is not valid, do you think huge
corporations like IBM would be releasing software under the GPL? IBM
has _armies_ of lawyers - I've worked for them (IBM, not the lawyers) -
and if the GPL didn't pass muster with IBM Legal, you can bet they
wouldn't be using and distributing GPLed code.
In the case of the GPL, it's giving the software user additional rights
(the right to redistribute) that they wouldn't have got if it was
simply released with a (c) notice at the top.
Matt Dibb
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb4l4eq...@vexed2.alioth.net...
<SNIP>
Maybe they dont want to give users the right to redistribute or have access
to the source etc etc
Jan Knutar
> In practice, none of these terms are well defined, but most lawyers will
> tell you that a freeware license is not valid as no contract is in place,
> because of the lack of 'consideration'.
I was under the impression that releasing files you created under no
'license' at all still gave you the copyright unless you gave it away,
through for example declaring it to be public domain.
Perhaps my impressions of the copyright system is 20 - 30 years out of date
and you today need lots of cash to actually be able to copyright
something... I hope I'm wrong on this though.
Matt Dibb
"Jan Knutar" <shado...@yahoo.se> wrote in message
news:2biqh-...@breadbin.mine.nu...
> Perhaps my impressions of the copyright system is 20 - 30 years out of
date
> and you today need lots of cash to actually be able to copyright
> something... I hope I'm wrong on this though.
In the UK at least, you automatically get the copyright on your creations -
there is no offical process. There is no need to place the (C) etc on their
either - its just accepted that if it is your original creation, you
automatically have 'protection'
Some info here that probably explains it clearer:
http://www.cla.co.uk/copyrightvillage/yrownwork1.html
Dr Gonzo
news:b2bght$1a58c3$1...@ID-120197.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Barry Barcrest" <barc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Zlb2a.8469$297....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
> Barry, this really isn't appreciated. David Braben takes time out to
> explain the situation and his side of the argument and you reply like
this?
>
> Next time before you reply, take 30 seconds to think about what you are
> going to type rather than rattling something off and hitting send before
> you've even thought about it.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
what do you mean, "think"?
we pay good money for software and get SHITE!!
maybe a fucking apology would be nice but oh no! as long as he gets his
money!
just rename the other "illegal" elites cause you cant copyright an idea and
its more
than "they" are doing!
btw, stop kissing his arse, you've all been bitching about e4 for ages!
Nullo
Smith) wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:24:37 -0000, David Braben
><dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Crayfish" <cr...@supanet.com> wrote in message
>>news:3e4a623d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>>
>>> What I don't understand though, is why does David say that it needs to
>>> be released as shareware purely to preserve copyright? Surely it
>>> could also be released with a freeware license that preserves original
>>> copyright?
>>
>>In practice, none of these terms are well defined, but most lawyers will
>>tell you that a freeware license is not valid as no contract is in place,
>>because of the lack of 'consideration'.
>
>Copyright law applies whether there's a consideration or not.
>This message is copyright, for instance.
>
>If the GNU General Public License is not valid, do you think huge
>corporations like IBM would be releasing software under the GPL? IBM
>has _armies_ of lawyers - I've worked for them (IBM, not the lawyers) -
>and if the GPL didn't pass muster with IBM Legal, you can bet they
>wouldn't be using and distributing GPLed code.
>
>In the case of the GPL, it's giving the software user additional rights
>(the right to redistribute) that they wouldn't have got if it was
>simply released with a (c) notice at the top.
It sounds like he is making the common mistake of confusing
"trademark" with "copyright". Trademarks have to be defended or you
could lose them, copyrights do not. Unless UK copyright law is
vastly different than US copyright law.
Nullo
wrote:
You're wrong. Copyright doesn't cost you anything. The post you just
made is copyrighted.
Martin Christensen
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Dibb <ju...@mdibb.net> writes:
[Dylan on GPL not being abandonment of copyright]
Matt> Maybe they dont want to give users the right to redistribute or
Matt> have access to the source etc etc
Why wouldn't they want that? At any rate, if there is just one or two
things that they don't like in some of the free software licences,
then they can make a licence that's more to their own liking. There
should be no reason why we couldn't have the source now after we've
had it for so long. It doesn't have to be all or nothing such as you
seem to suggest.
Martin
- --
Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/
GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>
iEYEARECAAYFAj5KrUUACgkQYu1fMmOQldVoUACfaChPixodC8Gkuhz6eMLjy9h4
DUYAn2Zr26zeNQhrkpsnCREA+JBPp4Qa
=LY6O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Barry Barcrest
> > explain the situation and his side of the argument and you reply like
> this?
> >
> > Next time before you reply, take 30 seconds to think about what you are
> > going to type rather than rattling something off and hitting send before
> > you've even thought about it.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
>
> what do you mean, "think"?
> we pay good money for software and get SHITE!!
> maybe a fucking apology would be nice but oh no! as long as he gets his
> money!
> just rename the other "illegal" elites cause you cant copyright an idea
and
> its more
> than "they" are doing!
>
> btw, stop kissing his arse, you've all been bitching about e4 for ages!
>
Mmm I had noticed this.
Regards BB
John Jordan
<dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> writes
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:24:37 -0000, David Braben
><dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>In practice, none of these terms are well defined, but most lawyers will
>>tell you that a freeware license is not valid as no contract is in place,
>>because of the lack of 'consideration'.
>
>Copyright law applies whether there's a consideration or not.
>This message is copyright, for instance.
>
>If the GNU General Public License is not valid, do you think huge
>corporations like IBM would be releasing software under the GPL? IBM
>has _armies_ of lawyers - I've worked for them (IBM, not the lawyers) -
>and if the GPL didn't pass muster with IBM Legal, you can bet they
>wouldn't be using and distributing GPLed code.
Freeware isn't GPL, of course. GPL does put critical restrictions on
rights, specifically that you can't distribute a binary containing GPL
material unless you release the complete source, for free. This prevents
anyone from *unfairly* profiting from your work - they can charge, but
no-one has to pay.[1]
Even so, I'm not sure how enforceable GPL is. While a GPL release might
technically retain the copyright of the original owner, it may
significantly reduce the value of any monetary settlement in the event
of a violation.
IBM's advocacy doesn't count for much unless they release everything
under GPL. They may simply consider GPL the best method of open-source
release, despite its weaknesses - open-source can have commercial
advantages.
There's also the question of whether GPL would protect the non-code
copyright elements such as ship designs and names. Note that source
releases of older game engines don't normally include anything except
the code.
[1] You know this, of course. This paragraph is intended to explain the
subject to other unfortunate readers of the thread.
--
John Jordan
Dylan Smith
You missed my point entirely.
They don't have to if they don't want to - it still doesn't change
the fact that allowing people to use a copyrighted work for free does
not dilute the copyright.
John Jordan
Dunning <matthew...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>Commercial - we are talking utter peanuts. Basically retro fans like myself
>(and then only those who liked Elite), and the people in this newsgroup.
>When I mean commerical I mean meaningful money
You've repeated this point a few times and I think it's incorrect. While
versions of original Elite for the PC aren't commercially valuable, when
"Which game would you most like to see on GBA/PocketPC/PalmOS" surveys
are run, Elite often comes near the top. This equates to a large sales
potential.
Consider that Frontier Developments are currently releasing a version of
an ancient and relatively unknown game (Darxide) for the PocketPC. The
only thing stopping them from producing versions of Elite for handhelds
is the copyright situation.
--
John Jordan
Dylan Smith
>Freeware isn't GPL, of course. GPL does put critical restrictions on
>rights, specifically that you can't distribute a binary containing GPL
>material unless you release the complete source, for free.
Actually, the GPL doesn't so much restrict rights as to GIVE you rights.
For example, this message I'm writing is (c) me. I don't even have
to put the little (c) on it - the Berne convention makes it so.
You have no right to at all to copy, duplicate etc. this message.
However, say I were to GPL this message, I would be giving you explicit
*extra* rights that copyright doesn't give by default. If I were to
BSD licence it, I'd be giving you even *more* rights.
To me, Freeware more or less equals BSD license (which still protects
copyright).
>IBM's advocacy doesn't count for much unless they release everything
>under GPL.
My IBM case was just to bring up the fact that IBM's vast armies of
lawyers think that the GPL does have merit and protects their
copyright.
>There's also the question of whether GPL would protect the non-code
>copyright elements such as ship designs and names.
It's dubious whether Braben can claim copyright on them anyway - they
are just names of snakes. Ship designs are of course copyrightable,
and will be copyright by default. GPLing them works in that case too -
giving the acceptor of the GPL additional rights that the default
copyright doesn't give (the right to redistribute and modify, so long
as the copyright is kept intact and source code is included)
Matt Dibb
"Dr Gonzo" <IGNO...@IS.BLISS> wrote in message
news:b2e7bi$9vk$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> what do you mean, "think"?
> we pay good money for software and get SHITE!!
Er, you aren't paying anything.
> maybe a fucking apology would be nice but oh no! as long as he gets his
> money!
See above.
> just rename the other "illegal" elites cause you cant copyright an idea
and
> its more
> than "they" are doing!
Its not the name. Its the fact that its based on 6502 (iirc) Elite, which
is copyrighted. It was also because people were using this code to release
'freeware' versions on sites like Handango.
> btw, stop kissing his arse, you've all been bitching about e4 for ages!
...
This is not 'kissing his arse', its trying to just make some moron to be a
bit more polite next time. The old classic applies in this example: Would
do talk like this in real life? I can guess that the answer already would
be 'Yes' (if that is true or not). In which case, you're a twat.
Simon Challands
dy...@vexed2.alioth.net (Dylan Smith) wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:55:37 +0000, John Jordan <jo...@jaj22.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Freeware isn't GPL, of course. GPL does put critical restrictions on
> >rights, specifically that you can't distribute a binary containing GPL
> >material unless you release the complete source, for free.
>
> Actually, the GPL doesn't so much restrict rights as to GIVE you rights.
> For example, this message I'm writing is (c) me. I don't even have
> to put the little (c) on it - the Berne convention makes it so.
> You have no right to at all to copy, duplicate etc. this message.
It's a pity that some people don't seem to realise this. Some recent
rubbish I've seen seems to suggest that some people think the GPL over-
writes anything else in existance.
Incidentally, it seems to say to me that if I write a program (entirely
from scratch) I can't release a little bit of it under the GPL without
releasing the whole lot, which is rather stupid, because I would then
just keep the whole lot to myself instead.
> >There's also the question of whether GPL would protect the non-code
> >copyright elements such as ship designs and names.
>
> It's dubious whether Braben can claim copyright on them anyway - they
> are just names of snakes. Ship designs are of course copyrightable,
> and will be copyright by default.
George Lucas seems to be able to trademark such generic-sounding ship
names as "Imperial Shuttle". In fact the "TM" seemed to get put after
the "Imperial", which really is pushing his luck.
--
Simon Challands, creator of
The Acorn Elite Pages: http://elite.acornarcade.com/
Three Dimensional Encounters: http://www.3dfrontier.fsnet.co.uk/
mrduval
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:28:53 GMT, nos...@notathome.ntlworld.com
> (Corncrake) wrote:
>
> >but it is a shame CJP got caught in that crossfire,
> >and it is a shame that he (CJP)now persues others who use his
> >translation freely give in open view,,
>
> I'm not pursuing anybody. I've always made it clear that if any of
> the copyright holders objecting to E-TNK I would withdraw it. One of
> the copyright holders has now asked that it be withdrawn. I am merely
> trying to make good my promise and am politely asking people (both
> privately and in open discussion) to not distribute E-TNK or its code.
But you did panic a bit.you left four messages alone on the x-elite
forum,in one day,I think if it was me I would just of removed
elite related stuff from my site alone,Dont do davids work for him,
if he wants it taken down let him do the work.
Barry Barcrest
> are just names of snakes. Ship designs are of course copyrightable,
> and will be copyright by default. GPLing them works in that case too -
> giving the acceptor of the GPL additional rights that the default
> copyright doesn't give (the right to redistribute and modify, so long
> as the copyright is kept intact and source code is included)
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Well the ship names cannot be copyrighted like you can't copyright a bar of
saop called soap and prevent everyone else using the word soap. It's
descriptive, otherwise braben couldn't have uesed Eagle in Frontier as there
are planes that bear that name.. Anyway Shelby used Cobra before Bell and
Braben. As for ship models they are so basic in the original it's a hard
call how much work you would need to do to change them. The dodec and
Corlios can't be copyrighted as they are geometric shapes.. If Dave Braben
does claim copyright on the ships then he needs to go after the Linewars 1 +
2 distributors as thoose games were commercial and used elite models...
Regards
BB
Dylan Smith
<please...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Incidentally, it seems to say to me that if I write a program (entirely
>from scratch) I can't release a little bit of it under the GPL without
>releasing the whole lot, which is rather stupid, because I would then
>just keep the whole lot to myself instead.
No - that's not so - the GPL is how you're granting rights to OTHER
people's use of your copyrighted materials. You are the copyright
owner - you can do with it what you like, including releasing
non-GPLed code based on GPLed work which you own the copyright to.
There is also the LGPL which is often used for libraries. For example,
if I write a library and put it out with the LGPL, other people can
link to that library without having to GPL their code which is just
linked to the library.
Barry Barcrest
> > I'm not pursuing anybody. I've always made it clear that if any of
> > the copyright holders objecting to E-TNK I would withdraw it. One of
> > the copyright holders has now asked that it be withdrawn. I am merely
> > trying to make good my promise and am politely asking people (both
> > privately and in open discussion) to not distribute E-TNK or its code.
>
> But you did panic a bit.you left four messages alone on the x-elite
> forum,in one day,I think if it was me I would just of removed
> elite related stuff from my site alone,Dont do davids work for him,
> if he wants it taken down let him do the work.
Well i know i pissed Christian off but he replied to one of my postings
saying, it's HIS code and he could have pulled our project without Braben
asking.. I don't think so Christian, you converted it to C but you never had
any (c) over it Braben did... It's like somebody else said, why release the
source then get upset when people use it?
Michael Banck
> To me, Freeware more or less equals BSD license (which still protects
> copyright).
That depends on ones individual definition of 'Freeware'.
Mine is rather 'Binary-only Software at no cost'.
cheers,
Michael
Michael Banck
> Why wouldn't they want that? At any rate, if there is just one or two
> things that they don't like in some of the free software licences,
> then they can make a licence that's more to their own liking. There
> should be no reason why we couldn't have the source now after we've
> had it for so long. It doesn't have to be all or nothing such as you
> seem to suggest.
Note that just 'having the source' does not automatically mean 'Free
Software'. E-TNK had no license whatsoever except the original copyright
notice, and I've heard that DF will rather be 'shared source' than
truely Free Software.
Michael
Simon Challands
dy...@vexed2.alioth.net (Dylan Smith) wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:33:50 GMT, Simon Challands
> <please...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Incidentally, it seems to say to me that if I write a program (entirely
> >from scratch) I can't release a little bit of it under the GPL without
> >releasing the whole lot, which is rather stupid, because I would then
> >just keep the whole lot to myself instead.
>
> No - that's not so - the GPL is how you're granting rights to OTHER
> people's use of your copyrighted materials. You are the copyright
> owner - you can do with it what you like, including releasing
> non-GPLed code based on GPLed work which you own the copyright to.
Indeed, that's what obviously WOULD happen, but according to the letter of
the GPL it isn't - it's a product containing GPLed code, after all. It
needs re-wording (maybe just the generic "this does not affect you
statutary (or whatever the word is) rights" would do it), otherwise some
loonies might argue that your code isn't actually being released under the
GPL, any more than it would be if you claimed it was but said no-one else
could use it.
John Mackay
I would have thought that the copyright for the C source belongs to
Christian, since he wrote it, despite the fact it is derived from other
copyrighted material.
John M
John Jordan
<dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> writes
>
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:55:37 +0000, John Jordan <jo...@jaj22.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Freeware isn't GPL, of course. GPL does put critical restrictions on
>>rights, specifically that you can't distribute a binary containing GPL
>>material unless you release the complete source, for free.
>
>Actually, the GPL doesn't so much restrict rights as to GIVE you rights.
Compared to the default situation, yes. If it wasn't an improvement over
the default rights we wouldn't be discussing it :-)
>For example, this message I'm writing is (c) me. I don't even have
>to put the little (c) on it - the Berne convention makes it so.
>You have no right to at all to copy, duplicate etc. this message.
However, the Berne convention does not specify monetary compensation.
While publishing your message elsewhere is technically illegal, any
sanctions may be limited compared to if you'd published it in a book or
other commercial medium.
>To me, Freeware more or less equals BSD license (which still protects
>copyright).
I haven't read BSD. Interpretations of "freeware" do vary from anything
between "free to download but no source, no distribution" and "public
domain".
--
John Jordan
Christian Pinder
<barc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well i know i pissed Christian off but he replied to one of my postings
>saying, it's HIS code and he could have pulled our project without Braben
>asking.. I don't think so Christian, you converted it to C but you never had
>any (c) over it Braben did... It's like somebody else said, why release the
>source then get upset when people use it?
What I actually said was "my C code" meaning I wrote the C code, it
did not spontaneously change itself from assembler language to C.
There is code within E-TNK to which I do have the copyright. Parts of
it were created by me without reference to the Elite code. Some parts
are probably joint copyright, the "Goat Soup" generation code for
example (I pulled the text strings out of the Elite binary but wrote
most of the code by guess work, which is why the E-TNK strings aren't
always identical to the Elite ones). The actual copyright of E-TNK is
something that I am discussing with the Elite copyright holders at the
moment.
E-TNK has been around for over 3 years and I have never become upset
about people using it, mainly I am indifferent. I once got mildly
annoyed at someone for trying to put a derivative worked under the GPL
but that's another story.
If you think that I am doing David Braben's dirty work then look at it
from the other side, I was the one that got his code illegally spread
around the Internet, why should he clear up my mess? I created the
situation so I'm doing my best to rectify it. That's what adults do,
they take responsibility for their actions even if it means having to
do something they'd really rather not.
As I'm sure the AFE regulars will tell you, I have been supporting the
Elite community continuously for many years. I am not trying to spoil
your fun, there are bigger issues involved here and I'm trying to do
my best to make sure everything works out.
--
Regards,
Christian.
http://www.darkkind.com
Dr Gonzo
>
> "Dr Gonzo" <IGNO...@IS.BLISS> wrote in message
> news:b2e7bi$9vk$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> > what do you mean, "think"?
> > we pay good money for software and get SHITE!!
>
> Er, you aren't paying anything.
hmmm, i payed for ffe and got a poor excuse for a game and I couldnt take it
back cause what
am i going to say? "This software is full of bugs and utter shite"?? nah, we
cant get a refund for
that which is bloody ridiculous. sub standard software which I payed for
expecting quality and why not?
>
> > maybe a fucking apology would be nice but oh no! as long as he gets his
> > money!
>
> See above.
not good enough.
>
> > just rename the other "illegal" elites cause you cant copyright an idea
> and
> > its more
> > than "they" are doing!
>
> Its not the name. Its the fact that its based on 6502 (iirc) Elite, which
> is copyrighted. It was also because people were using this code to
release
> 'freeware' versions on sites like Handango.
>
> > btw, stop kissing his arse, you've all been bitching about e4 for ages!
>
> ...
>
> This is not 'kissing his arse', its trying to just make some moron to be a
> bit more polite next time. The old classic applies in this example: Would
> do talk like this in real life? I can guess that the answer already would
> be 'Yes' (if that is true or not). In which case, you're a twat.
>
>
actually I do talk like this in real life cause i'm not afraid to speak the
truth and express my opinions.
Twat? hmmmmm, crawl back under that rock you came from u pale, pathetic,
drooling imbecile.
Make some friends, get out the house, just tell your mum your going for a
walk but go to a pub.
Meet a girl, dribble, have a wank, whatever, just dont bother trying to
insult me because of my
opinions.
*spank*
John Jordan
Simon Challands <please...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Indeed, that's what obviously WOULD happen, but according to the letter of
>the GPL it isn't - it's a product containing GPLed code, after all. It
>needs re-wording (maybe just the generic "this does not affect you
>statutary (or whatever the word is) rights" would do it)
I agree that this is confusing, but the GPL does only apply to the
licensees. The original copyright holder can do absolutely anything with
the code, including releasing it as part of a closed commercial binary
or under a different license.
--
John Jordan
Kegs
> actually I do talk like this in real life cause i'm not afraid to speak the
> truth and express my opinions.
> Twat? hmmmmm, crawl back under that rock you came from u pale, pathetic,
> drooling imbecile.
> Make some friends, get out the house, just tell your mum your going for a
> walk but go to a pub.
> Meet a girl, dribble, have a wank, whatever, just dont bother trying to
> insult me because of my
> opinions.
>
> *spank*
You call that a spank?
Do you even know what a spank is?
It isn't even a particularly witty flame.
--
James
jamesk[at]beeb[dot]net
Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.
Barry Barcrest
hasn't offered to refund money over the bugged software he released, but
instead is now offering them as shareware. I would have laughed if it wasn't
such a kick in the gut. Especially as he has a better version of Frontier
and FFE sitting somewhere on his hard drive.
To echo your post it does seem some people do to much sucking up. I thought
of it like this, if your gran made you a cake. Then Mr Kipling came along
and said that's mine I have the copyright on "Cherry Bakewells" and snatched
it off you, you wouldn't stand for it would you?
Regards
BB
Lucian Wischik
>hmmm, i payed for ffe and got a poor excuse for a game and I couldnt take it
>back cause what
>am i going to say? "This software is full of bugs and utter shite"?
Yes, that's what I do, and it's worked every time (three times) that
I've done it. Although often I express my opinion more forcefully :)
--
Lucian
Lucian Wischik
>I would have thought that the copyright for the C source belongs to
>Christian, since he wrote it, despite the fact it is derived from other
>copyrighted material.
I doubt it. The original copyright extends to translations as well.
I'd say that Christian's C code was still governed by the same
copyright as the original.
--
Lucian
Jan Knutar
> You basically echo'd what I replied directly to one of Brabens Postings.
> He hasn't offered to refund money over the bugged software he released,
Blame Gametek, not Mr. Braben.
Jan Knutar
> I would have thought that the copyright for the C source belongs to
> Christian, since he wrote it, despite the fact it is derived from other
> copyrighted material.
I believe it's a "translation" under copyright law. Just because you
translate an english book to Swedish and release it in Swedien, doesn't
mean you own the copyright of the book, and you'll have to pay royalties to
the original author, if you get permission to release the book in the first
place.
Same thing with 6502 -> C.
Dr Gonzo
news:e5ul4v4hcfv3njm5r...@4ax.com...
think
i'm gonna try harder!
i would like to buy one of your "Cherry Bakewells" , how much?
>You call that a spank?
>
>Do you even know what a spank is?
>
>It isn't even a particularly witty flame.
you obviously know I meant what i said, read above ^^^^.
wasnt trying to be witty just defending myself. did i offend you? awwwww,
tell mommy!
Kegs
> >You call that a spank?
> >
> >Do you even know what a spank is?
> >
> >It isn't even a particularly witty flame.
>
> you obviously know I meant what i said, read above ^^^^.
> wasnt trying to be witty just defending myself. did i offend you? awwwww,
> tell mommy!
Nope didn't offend me, I'm still seeing your posts, but if you
swearing at someone is hardly giving them a spanking, its just abuse.
And you could have put a bit more effort into it, really, try being
original, it is more fun for everyone else to read. I mean calling
anyone who disagrees with you a crybaby mommy's boy who has no social
life is just *so* 1993, you really have to try to be more original,
funny or scathing if you want to get anyone to pay attention now.
If you do manage to offend me or, more likely, piss me off I'll just
plonk you, its not hard you know.
--
James
jamesk[at]beeb[dot]net
"It is impossible to experience one's death objectively and still carry a
tune." Woody Allen
Christian Pinder
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>Oh, and just a detail - although the original BBC version was (C) Acornsoft,
>they sold this (C) back at a later date, so this is not an issue.
Could you clarify what you mean by that. Are you saying that you and
Ian bought back all the copyright on the BBC version of Elite,
including the code, or just some of the materials (e.g. artwork and
manuals).
John Jordan
<IGNO...@IS.BLISS> writes
>
[Returning bugged software]
>damn, i tryed that once and they said "its not policy" or sumin. in
>future i think i'm gonna try harder!
Yeah, you're legally in the right to return a game that's unplayably
buggy, whatever their "policy". Just threaten to take them to court
until they give you your money back.
--
John Jordan
Dylan Smith
<please...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Indeed, that's what obviously WOULD happen, but according to the letter of
>the GPL it isn't - it's a product containing GPLed code, after all. It
>needs re-wording (maybe just the generic "this does not affect you
>statutary (or whatever the word is) rights" would do it), otherwise some
>loonies might argue that your code isn't actually being released under the
>GPL, any more than it would be if you claimed it was but said no-one else
>could use it.
Well, in that case, the loonies deserve the flames they get because
they are wrong and they suck :-)
Dylan Smith
>Meet a girl, dribble, have a wank, whatever, just dont bother trying to
>insult me because of my
>opinions.
We might respect your opinions a little bit more if you had the guts
to post with your real name.
Mat Dunning
news:q72l4v45nkuh3dlnt...@4ax.com:
> On 12 Feb 2003 17:13:18 GMT, Mat Dunning
> <matthew...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Lucian Wischik <lu...@wischik.com> wrote in
>>news:shrk4vgjjs4sblsjl...@4ax.com:
>
> Regardless of what he was thinking when he dumped the .txt file in, or
> whether he read it or not, he's still responsible for everything in
> it.
>
Yes he's responsbile, but yes its a mistake. As I said, if this had been
quietly pointed out to him either by someone on this newsgroup ( it appears
that all the hind sight know it alls knew about the problem (!), but didn't
bother to tell him !!), or Frontier, Jon would of held his hand up and
quickly removed the "offending" material.
Its a great shame that someone who pushed Elite forward, onto a brand new
system, is now the subject of such petty mindless arguing.
--
regards
Mat
matthew...@ntlworld.com
www.nextgenconsoles.co.uk
Uk reviews/news by UK gamers
Mat Dunning
news:a5f2wFDZ...@jaj22.demon.co.uk:
> You've repeated this point a few times and I think it's incorrect.
> While versions of original Elite for the PC aren't commercially
> valuable, when "Which game would you most like to see on
> GBA/PocketPC/PalmOS" surveys are run, Elite often comes near the top.
> This equates to a large sales potential.
>
> Consider that Frontier Developments are currently releasing a version
> of an ancient and relatively unknown game (Darxide) for the PocketPC.
> The only thing stopping them from producing versions of Elite for
> handhelds is the copyright situation.
>
>
I would like to see the numbers of people who wanted to replay Elite on
a PocketPC. I work in a company of 60 people with about 15 IPAQs shared
out. Guess how many of them firstly knew of Elite, and secondly wanted
to play it on the PPC. Answer - One - me !!! Ok, thats just a snapshot,
but Elite holds very little interest outside a extremely niche market.
As for GBA, you've got to be joking.Most GBA owners are only interested
in cheap platformers, the occasional good Sega title and Japanese RPGs
(and sales in GBA titles are apalling and the royalties are pretty
rubbish as well).
Tarrasque
i for one was overjoyed when i saw TNK and appreciate all your effort
now that the copright position is being sorted, will you finish the
2.0 release ?
Chris
Christian Pinder
<ch...@tarasque.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>i for one was overjoyed when i saw TNK and appreciate all your effort
Thank you.
>now that the copright position is being sorted, will you finish the
>2.0 release ?
If I am able to do an official release then it would be logical to use
the latest version I have, i.e. v2. Note though that v2 is just a bug
fixed v1, there is nothing new in it.
I stopped working and supporting E-TNK because I didn't want to put
effort into something that I knew would eventually get pulled. If I
am allowed to legitimately use Elite code and materials then I might
consider working on it again (i.e. adding in the missions from the
other Elites).
We'll have to wait and see what the outcome of the discussions is.
The difficulty being that we are dealing with personal issues as well
as legal ones.
Tarrasque
>
>We'll have to wait and see what the outcome of the discussions is.
>The difficulty being that we are dealing with personal issues as well
>as legal ones.
thanks for your candor christian.....i hope that
this is soon resolved, and obviously that your work, as well as that
of the original authors be rewarded to allow you to support us rabid
gamers in our quest for electronic excitement in space!
chris
Michael Banck
> Michael Banck <mba...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>Why not make it Open Source/Free Software?
>
> My guess: because he put a lot of work into it, and as per article 27
> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights he's entitled to material
> interests resulting from it, and open source/free wouldn't give him
> that.
Well, it works for IBM and, more specifically, ID-Software.
Michael
Lucian Wischik
That's such a mistaken comparison that it...
well, ...
is Just Plain Wrong!
Please tell me: which commercial IBM products are currently going
head-to-head with GPL'd IBM products? And tell me the same for ID
products?
--
Lucian
David Braben
> You basically echo'd what I replied directly to one of Brabens Postings.
He
> hasn't offered to refund money over the bugged software he released, but
I didn't release FFE. I tried to stop it being released for the reasons that
became all too apparent.
You should have been able to get your money back from the shop, and they in
turn would have returned it to Gametek under the 'sale or return' agreement.
For your information I did not get a penny in royalties from Gametek for
FFE.
> To echo your post it does seem some people do to much sucking up. I
thought
> of it like this, if your gran made you a cake. Then Mr Kipling came along
> and said that's mine I have the copyright on "Cherry Bakewells" and
snatched
> it off you, you wouldn't stand for it would you?
...but that is not what we're talking about.
The parallel is closer to breaking in to the Kipling factory, doing a
careful analysis and study of the cake making machinery and ingredients,
then making your own machinery to the same spec, and offering the result as
'Kipling TNK' or such, with as similar packaging as you can manage.
The equivalent Elite game analogy for your Gran's cakes would be Privateer,
or Federation of Free Traders, or perhaps Freelancer - ie her interpretation
of a similar style of game/cake.
David
Matt Dibb
"David Braben" <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FRNT397...@frontier.co.uk...
> The parallel is closer to breaking in to the Kipling factory, doing a
> careful analysis and study of the cake making machinery and ingredients,
> then making your own machinery to the same spec, and offering the result
as
> 'Kipling TNK' or such, with as similar packaging as you can manage.
lol :-) Kipling TNK - kind of reminds me of all of that Sainsbury's Cola
stuff a while ago - similar thing.
Frantic
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>"Barry Barcrest" <barc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dBC2a.2092$pZ6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> You basically echo'd what I replied directly to one of Brabens Postings.
>He
>> hasn't offered to refund money over the bugged software he released, but
>
>I didn't release FFE. I tried to stop it being released for the reasons that
>became all too apparent.
>
>You should have been able to get your money back from the shop, and they in
>turn would have returned it to Gametek under the 'sale or return' agreement.
>For your information I did not get a penny in royalties from Gametek for
>FFE.
Could you please put a mission in Elite 4 "Bomb the Gametek marketting
department on Sol, [0,0]"?
I know it would not be wise to reply to this, but please have a
chortle on our behalf :)
--
Frantic - GalNET Deputy Chief Administrator
The Galactic Network of Explorers and Traders.
http://www.galnet.org
Barry Barcrest
> careful analysis and study of the cake making machinery and ingredients,
> then making your own machinery to the same spec, and offering the result
as
> 'Kipling TNK' or such, with as similar packaging as you can manage.
>
> The equivalent Elite game analogy for your Gran's cakes would be
Privateer,
> or Federation of Free Traders, or perhaps Freelancer - ie her
interpretation
> of a similar style of game/cake.
>
> David
Well Federation Of Freetraders could have been great but your right was very
simular to FFE in that it too was bug ridden. Damn you Kipling, damn
you.....
Barry Barcrest
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb4mkru...@vexed2.alioth.net...
> We might respect your opinions a little bit more if you had the guts
> to post with your real name.
I post with my real name and nobody repects me.... Respect my authortahhhhh!
Regards
BB
Q: If you robbed the last line of a story written by Bell, would somebody
say "Hey you've robbed a Bell..." oh forget it.
Martin Christensen
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Barcrest <barc...@hotmail.com> writes:
Barry> I post with my real name and nobody repects me.... Respect my
Barry> authortahhhhh!
Reason and accountability should coincide.
Martin
- --
Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/
GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>
iEYEARECAAYFAj5L/9MACgkQYu1fMmOQldXggwCg0hl+qkZBkK1oWmbGnz3gR6By
9BwAoLxab/vKWzk2V5Wpdxi8+qB32yxw
=JSjp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dylan Smith
>Please tell me: which commercial IBM products are currently going
>head-to-head with GPL'd IBM products?
IBM AIX -vs- IBM's Linux installations, for one.
IBM DDS -vs- IBM AFS for another.
John Mackay
"Lucian Wischik" <lu...@wischik.com> wrote in message
news:9bul4v0eb1oppptfh...@4ax.com...
This seems most unfair. I appreciate that the original was copyright B + B,
and I'm not suggesting that Christian's copyright should override it, but
surely the act of translation, and all it's complexities, deserves some
(legal) recognition? Doesn't spoken language translation receive any
recognition in terms of legal ownership? Does this mean that FD could claim
TNK source as their own, and release their own Palm/GBA version, with
absolutely no legal need to even credit Christian?
Incidentally, I think, despite my initial disappointment, that FD have come
out of this with more dignity than I expected. At least they've (David
Braben no less) made some effort to communicate to attempt a resolution, and
haven't sued anyone. I couldn't see Microsoft even coming close to this
level of down-to-earthness - and I certainly don't think Bill would be
posting to a newsgroup to explain himself. If they stick to their plan to
allow TNK as shareware, they will have restored my faith in them (not worth
much, but it makes me feel better) as a decent company.
Cheers,
John
Dylan Smith
David...you do realise that Kipling cakes are often found in breadbins?
I think you've just gained a new nickname for something, at least :-)
Maybe IF (and hopefully when!) TNK can become an officially-sanctioned
FD/IB shareware thing, not only can there be a breadbin hidden somewhere,
but a Kipling TNK too :-)