Content licensing
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:46 pm
Can we have some comment on this? Is this an answer we can be happy with, or does it bode ill for the future of things? Should one have objections to this register business?
Mac wrote:(06/02 14:53:05) Mac: As some of you will know, at the end of March, OpenUru submitted a request on behalf of the community as a whole to Cyan regarding licensing of "content"
(06/02 14:53:32) Mac: Well, we did eventually get a response.
(06/02 14:53:44) Mac: And it a generally positive one.
(06/02 14:54:38) Mac: At this time, I have to say it was a very brief reply, so there's not too much detail that I can pass on. That's why I said this might be a bit of nothing
(06/02 14:55:36) Mac: What I can tell you is that Cyan likes the idea. They want to allow the community to be able to use the assets to help develop MOUL/CWE
(06/02 14:56:23) Mac: But there are a few considerations that they need to apply. So thing will take some time to work out.
(06/02 14:57:06) Mac: Firstly, they want to ensure that these game assets are used for MOUL and not, for example, ported to other game engines.
(06/02 14:58:08) Mac: Secondly, they want to make it clear that in releasing these assets to the community, that they're not "abandoning" them or placing them in the public domain.
(06/02 14:59:21) Mac: The assets remain "Cyan's property" in effect, although people will be able to adapt and modify, and have ownership of their own resultant work
(06/02 15:01:45) Mac: So, what they seem to be talking about is a "controlled license": RWe don't know if they are goiung to put all assets under this license
(06/02 15:02:32) Mac: The note only refers to "certain assets". I don't know what that means at this time.
(06/02 15:03:16) Mac: The inference is that they may be choosing certain items to begin with and see how it goes.
(06/02 15:03:56) J'Kla: Previously the assets Cyan were most protective of were Textures
(06/02 15:03:57) Mac: There is maybe one other thing that was mentioned, and possibly quite important:
(06/02 15:05:47) Mac: What has been mentioned is that Cyan would like all licensees to be on a register.
(06/02 15:06:07) Alabanda was expecting something like that.
(06/02 15:06:07) Mac: Why? is the obvious question.
(06/02 15:06:50) Alabanda: Presumably to make tracking license violations easier.
(06/02 15:06:55) Mac: It goes back to the earlier point about not having abandoned ownership. It'sa a way of showing that Cyan still controls the assets.
(06/02 15:07:25) GoMeLeonardo: this seems very similar to the FCA Licence then
(06/02 15:07:54) Mac: That's really as much as there is to say. There is obviously still a lot of work for Cyan to work out the detail of what they really need from the license
(06/02 15:08:20) Mac: Yes, Leo, I thought it sounded not far from the FCAL too.
(06/02 15:08:54) Mac: So, in summary, a small step in the right direction.