What are the *rules*??

[frogpipe]

Consider the following situations:

Asset has no license entry
Asset has a license entry of "-"
Asset has a license entry of "none"

What does this mean? Obviously if there is a license you abide by it, but when there is none...???

In the case of no entry, I tend to assume it predates the tag and/or the author forgot to enter it.

In the case of a deliberate "-" or "none" I tend to think that the only license that applies is whatever one there is for using the DLS - the author has made no other specification leaving it "up for grabs" so to speak, or at least subject to whatever license someone else applies to it.

This however is based on a "legal" point of view, I'm wondering what the community point of view is.

I always (or try to) put a link to the creative commons license on my assets.

 

[mezzoprezzo]

Playing totally safe I’d suggest that totally free use, modification and/or re-distribution of the asset is only appropriate if the permission of the creator has been given.

A blank entry, or undefined character/s, against the licence description isn’t explicit. Therefore it would follow that no permission, other than for personal use, has been granted.

For DLS items I’m guessing that it might be OK for routes uploaded to the DLS could contain these “undefined licence” assets, but I wouldn’t be quite so certain about third party, non-DLS, creations.

None of the above has any basis on legal know-how; it’s just my opinion.

Cheers
Casper

 

[steamboateng]

Oh! That's a bunch of BS!.......
NOT!

 

[mezzoprezzo]

Oh! That's a bunch of BS!.......
NOT!

Explain please?

 

[captainkman]

Explain please?

It appears to be a joke, sir.

 

[steamboateng]

It's a very American way of saying "THERE ARE RULES"!
My apolgies if I confused you folks. We have our own set colloqialisms unique to our attitudes!

 

[ianwoodmore]

Where no license is stated as in the situations described by the OP then copyright prevails as per International Agreements.

Here is a FAQ sheet on Australian 'Rules' for copyright:

http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/

Some countries do not abide by international agreement on copyright.
There are some variations in some countries such as USA on how long copyright exists before art including software become Public Domain.

Where an asset has been uploaded to DLS or is Auran builtin then Auran agreement overrides authors license, but intellectual property remains with author.

http://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php5/Download_Station_License_Agreement

It is good manners to credit the original author.

 

[steamboateng]

Consider the following situations:

Asset has no license entry
Asset has a license entry of "-"
Asset has a license entry of "none"

What does this mean? Obviously if there is a license you abide by it, but when there is none...???

In the case of no entry, I tend to assume it predates the tag and/or the author forgot to enter it.

In the case of a deliberate "-" or "none" I tend to think that the only license that applies is whatever one there is for using the DLS - the author has made no other specification leaving it "up for grabs" so to speak, or at least subject to whatever license someone else applies to it.

This however is based on a "legal" point of view, I'm wondering what the community point of view is.

I always (or try to) put a link to the creative commons license on my assets.

And just why would you think, on a public forum, that you would be presented with anything but the legal view. The community posts as individuals and responds as such, suffering the slings and arrows his or her response ilicits, and which the community presents it with.
I ask, my young friend, just what are you getting at?

 

[frogpipe]

The question came to mind over an asset I had downloaded which had non-DLS dependencies. My personal position is that given the potentially volitile availability of 3rd party assets, one should not use them in a route made for public distribution. I've had several items that I wanted to alter for this purpose, ones that said I could, I did, and gave the proper credit. Those that said I can't I didn't (and didn't use).

So my first step was to check the license. It said, "none". Which left me thinking "just what the Hell does that mean?"

Obviously the next step would be to try and contact the author. But I decided insted to find another asset, which I did. In the mean time, I thought I'd ask and see what the accepted "etiquette" was.

 

[steamboateng]

Trainz is an international forum, a kiss on Charlies cheek may be an insult to Jose, Most of us know that. I think that within the Trainz community there is an unspoken respect for one another and their accomplishments as we know one another. So much of what has gone before us we might think as 'Public Domain'! It isn't for me to say. I am a history buff; a lover of truth and trivia. (I never donned the black robes of Justice ....lucky for a good many of you.) I suspect that a healthy consideration for your fellow Trainzers will answer most of your questions.

 

[frogpipe]

I do. I believe in respecting the wishes of the original author. I'm actually very concerned with that, and couldn't care less about the law. Life has shown me that "legal" and "right" are only occasionally convergent and rarely have anything to do with one another.

All that said, I'd have a better idea if there was a "-" which is an obvious ploy to make the CM happy, even tho it doesn't take much to make a meaningful entry, but "none" leaves me bewildered.

Is the author saying I have no license (which would technically mean I can't even use it), that he/she doesn't care what happens to it, or that they don't want to state the license for fear that some sort of loophole in their language would be used against them?

This is just an academic exercise at any rate. The most I would ever do is re-upload an edited DLS item back to the DLS, with FULL accreditation to the original author and only IF there was no express license forbidding it and IF I could not contact the original author. Just in case anyone is wondering.

 

[mjolnir]

One thing that I think would work well, especially given that Trainz is an international community, is to slightly modify the agreement governing uploads to the DLS, so as to declare that in the absence of a meaningful license in an asset on the DLS, it will be assumed that assets added after a certain date, are governed by something like the GNU public license, or some version of the Creative Commons License. I do not mean to suggest that this should override another license that a content creator should choose to define, but it would make it clear what the situation is when a content creator doesn't choose to provide a license.

ns

 

[Dermmy]

~So my first step was to check the license. It said, "none". Which left me thinking "just what the Hell does that mean?"~

I just want to be absolutely sure that there is in that asset a license statement which says "none". This is different to an asset with NO license statement.

Now in the big legal picture there is no such thing as an asset without a license. Everything is covered by something. Even assets with no statement or a "none" statement are still coverd by the Auran / N3V EULA, so there IS a license in effect.

In the smaller world of common sense though I would take an asset where a content creator had deliberately and intentionally put "none" in the license statement to pretty much mean do as you like with it. This shouldn;'t be confused with an asset with NO license statement (or a "." statement) - this has to be treated as explicit permission required....

Andy

 

[Muliebuck]

My belief is, even if it doesn't have anything, don't do it (as in reskin it, modify it, whatever) and upload it - unless, it specifically states (as much of mine does in the description) you're free to do as you wish with it - just give the original Author (as in me for example) credit for the original work - it seems to save a lot of problems