<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" /> <title></title> </head> <body> Thanks for the advice Joel,   Seems like our naive attempts to try and publish some helpful content for children ran into the big bad real world of licences and legal bits.    I think we will postpone launching this content until something can be resolved.   Thanks WCP    <div style="margin: 5px 0px 5px 0px; font-family: monospace;"> On 25 June 2010 at 23:53 Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote: > IANAL, etc., but I'll offer a thought from way out in left field -- > > It sounds like the problem is similar to the branding problem. > > Logos and branding devices can be put under very restrictive licenses  > without creating issues with the GPL. The GPL specifically allows  > that, as long as the program is not functionally impaired when the  > official logos and branding devices are replaced. > > Without that kind of ability to protect one's own reputation, no one  > would dare use free software and admit it. (Ergo, use it legally.) > > It looks like you have a name for an organization behind the project  > ("World Class Project" -- nice pun there!). If you can trademark that  > name and the name that you distribute your game under, the GPL allows  > you to forbid anyone else using your trademarks but allow them to do  > anything else they want to do. And you can put in the README  > something about wanting the official version (yours) to be  > scientifically accurate, etc. > > Yeah, you need a lawyer. (Not words I like to say, but, you do.) Does  > your school have a legal department? > > But I think the direction to look is at the trademark provisions. > > You want to tie the use of approved graphics and play rules to the  > use of the trademarked names, but allow the code to be re-used,  > without your trademarks, under a different name, with unapproved  > graphics and play rules. Or something like that. > > Joel Rees > > On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:55 PM, World Class Project- Dev Team wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > > > Thank you all for the input in this instance. James no problem,  > > sometimes the conversation gets a bit lost in message threads,  > > sorry :) > > > > So I really have two options which I will consider. > > 1) Ask for advice from the oversight committee on this type of  > > restricted license in this instance, and possible for future health  > > related activities. > > 2) Create a locked/password protected section of the activity that  > > allows controlled modification of the health message images and  > > text and publish under normal free access CC. > > > > I genuinely have no objection to user modification in theory,  > > however the activity was primarily developed to portray  > > scientifically accepted peer-reviewed guidance, and I hope the  > > message remains intact. > > > > I appreciate everyone's thought on this, > > WCP > > > > On 25 June 2010 at 05:40 James Cameron <quozl@laptop.org> wrote: > > > > > G'day World Class Project Dev Team, > > > > > > Sorry, my comment "important that the health message be  > > controlled" was > > > directed at Gonzalo, not you.  I wanted to mention it as a reason  > > why > > > the license was unusual compared to other Sugar activities. > > > > > > I have no criticism of the content, as I'm entirely unqualified. > > > > > > I think you (World Class Project Dev Team) should continue to  > > restrict > > > the content, for the reasons you outlined. > > > > > > I don't know the policy for hosting an activity this license on  > > Sugar > > > Labs, and I hope someone who does know will speak up or make a  > > decision. > > > ;-) > > > > > > -- > > > James Cameron > > > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > </div> </body> </html>