I know Armagetron is on the will not package list, and I know it's due to trademark issues. Is there more to that that just the name? If not, then either we need to package it or drop/modify kdegames, as it has ktron, which, AFAICT, meets the same standard.
If this has been discussed previously and I missed it, I apologize, but I'm just curious as to what the litmus test is.
Jon
Hi all,
Jon Ciesla wrote:
I know Armagetron is on the will not package list, and I know it's due to trademark issues. Is there more to that that just the name? If not, then either we need to package it or drop/modify kdegames, as it has ktron, which, AFAICT, meets the same standard.
Indeed it does, I think the name for that should be changed or it should be dropped.
If this has been discussed previously and I missed it, I apologize, but I'm just curious as to what the litmus test is.
It hasn't been discussed before, I've added Spot to the CC as he usually makes the decisions surrounding legal stuff. Tom, my assessment of the situation is that ktron indeed is a problem too.
While at the subject, I think that renaming Armagetron and removing any references to Tron from the docs / text printed in the game, should make Armagetron acceptabl, do you agree? And is anyone willing todo this?
Regards,
Hans
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 09:51 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
Jon Ciesla wrote:
I know Armagetron is on the will not package list, and I know it's due to trademark issues. Is there more to that that just the name? If not, then either we need to package it or drop/modify kdegames, as it has ktron, which, AFAICT, meets the same standard.
Indeed it does, I think the name for that should be changed or it should be dropped.
If this has been discussed previously and I missed it, I apologize, but I'm just curious as to what the litmus test is.
It hasn't been discussed before, I've added Spot to the CC as he usually makes the decisions surrounding legal stuff. Tom, my assessment of the situation is that ktron indeed is a problem too.
While at the subject, I think that renaming Armagetron and removing any references to Tron from the docs / text printed in the game, should make Armagetron acceptabl, do you agree? And is anyone willing todo this?
Yes. This is the conclusion that Red Hat came to several years ago as well.
As long as it isn't using the exact same graphics and sounds, and doesn't use the trademark (or any derivation of the trademark), it's fine.
Ktron and Armagetron need to be renamed. Klightcars, for example. I have no suggestion for Armagetron.
~spot
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 09:51 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
Jon Ciesla wrote:
I know Armagetron is on the will not package list, and I know it's due
to
trademark issues. Is there more to that that just the name? If not,
then
either we need to package it or drop/modify kdegames, as it has ktron, which, AFAICT, meets the same standard.
Indeed it does, I think the name for that should be changed or it should be dropped.
If this has been discussed previously and I missed it, I apologize,
but
I'm just curious as to what the litmus test is.
It hasn't been discussed before, I've added Spot to the CC as he usually makes the decisions surrounding legal stuff. Tom, my assessment of the situation is that ktron indeed is a problem too.
While at the subject, I think that renaming Armagetron and removing any references to Tron from the docs / text printed in the game, should make Armagetron acceptabl, do you agree? And is anyone willing todo this?
Yes. This is the conclusion that Red Hat came to several years ago as well.
As long as it isn't using the exact same graphics and sounds, and doesn't use the trademark (or any derivation of the trademark), it's fine.
Ktron and Armagetron need to be renamed. Klightcars, for example. I have no suggestion for Armagetron.
I would be willing, and could likely come up with names. :)
~spot
Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 09:51 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
Jon Ciesla wrote:
I know Armagetron is on the will not package list, and I know it's due
to
trademark issues. Is there more to that that just the name? If not,
then
either we need to package it or drop/modify kdegames, as it has ktron, which, AFAICT, meets the same standard.
Indeed it does, I think the name for that should be changed or it should be dropped.
If this has been discussed previously and I missed it, I apologize,
but
I'm just curious as to what the litmus test is.
It hasn't been discussed before, I've added Spot to the CC as he usually makes the decisions surrounding legal stuff. Tom, my assessment of the situation is that ktron indeed is a problem too.
While at the subject, I think that renaming Armagetron and removing any references to Tron from the docs / text printed in the game, should make Armagetron acceptabl, do you agree? And is anyone willing todo this?
Yes. This is the conclusion that Red Hat came to several years ago as well.
As long as it isn't using the exact same graphics and sounds, and doesn't use the trademark (or any derivation of the trademark), it's fine.
Ktron and Armagetron need to be renamed. Klightcars, for example. I have no suggestion for Armagetron.
I would be willing, and could likely come up with names. :)
Cool, let me know when you've got something to review. Be sure to kindly inform upstream that we will be including a version under a different name. It would be good to let them choose if you can come up with several names.
I've filed a bug to get ktron renamed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248343
Regards,
Hans
Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 09:51 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
Jon Ciesla wrote:
I know Armagetron is on the will not package list, and I know it's due
to
trademark issues. Is there more to that that just the name? If not,
then
either we need to package it or drop/modify kdegames, as it has ktron, which, AFAICT, meets the same standard.
Indeed it does, I think the name for that should be changed or it should be dropped.
If this has been discussed previously and I missed it, I apologize,
but
I'm just curious as to what the litmus test is.
It hasn't been discussed before, I've added Spot to the CC as he usually makes the decisions surrounding legal stuff. Tom, my assessment of the situation is that ktron indeed is a problem too.
While at the subject, I think that renaming Armagetron and removing any references to Tron from the docs / text printed in the game, should make Armagetron acceptabl, do you agree? And is anyone willing todo this?
Yes. This is the conclusion that Red Hat came to several years ago as well.
As long as it isn't using the exact same graphics and sounds, and doesn't use the trademark (or any derivation of the trademark), it's fine.
Ktron and Armagetron need to be renamed. Klightcars, for example. I have no suggestion for Armagetron.
I would be willing, and could likely come up with names. :)
Cool, let me know when you've got something to review. Be sure to kindly inform upstream that we will be including a version under a different name. It would be good to let them choose if you can come up with several names.
I've filed a bug to get ktron renamed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248343
To clarify further, would it be adequate to sed -i s/old/new/ the infringing text where it occurs, changing filenames/paths as appropriate, at build time, or should the source tarball be modified beforehand, to prevent presence of infringing material in distributed SRPMS?
Jon
Regards,
Hans
Jon Ciesla wrote:
Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 09:51 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
Jon Ciesla wrote:
I know Armagetron is on the will not package list, and I know it's due
to
trademark issues. Is there more to that that just the name? If not,
then
either we need to package it or drop/modify kdegames, as it has ktron, which, AFAICT, meets the same standard.
Indeed it does, I think the name for that should be changed or it should be dropped.
If this has been discussed previously and I missed it, I apologize,
but
I'm just curious as to what the litmus test is.
It hasn't been discussed before, I've added Spot to the CC as he usually makes the decisions surrounding legal stuff. Tom, my assessment of the situation is that ktron indeed is a problem too.
While at the subject, I think that renaming Armagetron and removing any references to Tron from the docs / text printed in the game, should make Armagetron acceptabl, do you agree? And is anyone willing todo this?
Yes. This is the conclusion that Red Hat came to several years ago as well.
As long as it isn't using the exact same graphics and sounds, and doesn't use the trademark (or any derivation of the trademark), it's fine.
Ktron and Armagetron need to be renamed. Klightcars, for example. I have no suggestion for Armagetron.
I would be willing, and could likely come up with names. :)
Cool, let me know when you've got something to review. Be sure to kindly inform upstream that we will be including a version under a different name. It would be good to let them choose if you can come up with several names.
I've filed a bug to get ktron renamed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248343
To clarify further, would it be adequate to sed -i s/old/new/ the infringing text where it occurs, changing filenames/paths as appropriate, at build time, or should the source tarball be modified beforehand, to prevent presence of infringing material in distributed SRPMS?
In order to infringe a trademark one must "advertise" with it, so its fine to just use patches / sed as you like.
This is all AFAIK, IANAL ofcourse, but this is what other troublesome packages have been doing sofar.
Regards,
Hans
Jon Ciesla wrote:
Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 09:51 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
Jon Ciesla wrote: > I know Armagetron is on the will not package list, and I know it's > due to > trademark issues. Is there more to that that just the name? If > not, then > either we need to package it or drop/modify kdegames, as it has > ktron, > which, AFAICT, meets the same standard. > Indeed it does, I think the name for that should be changed or it should be dropped.
> If this has been discussed previously and I missed it, I apologize, but > I'm just curious as to what the litmus test is. > It hasn't been discussed before, I've added Spot to the CC as he usually makes the decisions surrounding legal stuff. Tom, my assessment of the situation is that ktron indeed is a problem too.
While at the subject, I think that renaming Armagetron and removing any references to Tron from the docs / text printed in the game, should make Armagetron acceptabl, do you agree? And is anyone willing todo this?
Yes. This is the conclusion that Red Hat came to several years ago as well.
As long as it isn't using the exact same graphics and sounds, and doesn't use the trademark (or any derivation of the trademark), it's fine.
Ktron and Armagetron need to be renamed. Klightcars, for example. I have no suggestion for Armagetron.
I would be willing, and could likely come up with names. :)
Cool, let me know when you've got something to review. Be sure to kindly inform upstream that we will be including a version under a different name. It would be good to let them choose if you can come up with several names.
I've filed a bug to get ktron renamed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248343
To clarify further, would it be adequate to sed -i s/old/new/ the infringing text where it occurs, changing filenames/paths as appropriate, at build time, or should the source tarball be modified beforehand, to prevent presence of infringing material in distributed SRPMS?
In order to infringe a trademark one must "advertise" with it, so its fine to just use patches / sed as you like.
This is all AFAIK, IANAL ofcourse, but this is what other troublesome packages have been doing sofar.
I've got a basic package ready that's modified somewhat to fit Fedora's filesystem layout. I still need to add a Desktop file, and clarify the handling of the user account for the -dedicated package. It comes with a script that tries to do it for you, as well as the initscript portion. Before I test those, I'd like to know whether I should use upstream's scripts, or if there's a preferred way of handling the user and initscript issues in the spec.
I'm also looking for more detail as far as how deeply the name needs to be changed. I know I have to change the package name, the name displayed in Desktop, and the name as seen in-game. What about path names, variable names, etc?
Regards,
Hans
Jon Ciesla wrote:
Jon Ciesla wrote:
To clarify further, would it be adequate to sed -i s/old/new/ the infringing text where it occurs, changing filenames/paths as appropriate, at build time, or should the source tarball be modified beforehand, to prevent presence of infringing material in distributed SRPMS?
In order to infringe a trademark one must "advertise" with it, so its fine to just use patches / sed as you like.
This is all AFAIK, IANAL ofcourse, but this is what other troublesome packages have been doing sofar.
I've got a basic package ready that's modified somewhat to fit Fedora's filesystem layout. I still need to add a Desktop file, and clarify the handling of the user account for the -dedicated package. It comes with a script that tries to do it for you, as well as the initscript portion. Before I test those, I'd like to know whether I should use upstream's scripts, or if there's a preferred way of handling the user and initscript issues in the spec.
Does this user uid need to be persistent over different installs within the same network? If so it needs special handling, else just an adduser from %pre, with the proper shell (or better lack there of), description, homedir etc, will suffice.
Do not remove this user on erase, unless you are 100% sure that no files owned by it will be left behind under for example /var after erase.
I'm also looking for more detail as far as how deeply the name needs to be changed. I know I have to change the package name, the name displayed in Desktop, and the name as seen in-game. What about path names, variable names, etc?
Only user visible things need to be changed, again think "advertising" not as in adds, but as in visible in the spash screen, etc.
So variables are not an issue at all, path names / filenames are not an issue either AFAIK. Spot?
Regards,
Hans
So variables are not an issue at all, path names / filenames are not an issue either AFAIK. Spot?
That is correct. The only places where we are concerned are really the following:
- Desktop Menu Items (the user should not think that they are launching the "trademark" item) - What the game calls itself when it is running (e.g. the contents in the title of the window) - Anything visible to the user during execution (if the game shows the trademark, its out) - The documentation needs to be cleaned (no references to the trademark, other than anything that would fall under the Lanham Act, aka, Fair Use)
Path names, filenames are not a concern according to RH Legal. Internal variables which are not shown to the user during execution (if char * ktron has "KTron" in it, you'd need to change the contents, not the variable name) are also ok.
When in doubt, ask. :)
~spot
So variables are not an issue at all, path names / filenames are not an issue either AFAIK. Spot?
That is correct. The only places where we are concerned are really the following:
- Desktop Menu Items (the user should not think that they are launching
the "trademark" item)
- What the game calls itself when it is running (e.g. the contents in
the title of the window)
- Anything visible to the user during execution (if the game shows the
trademark, its out)
- The documentation needs to be cleaned (no references to the trademark,
other than anything that would fall under the Lanham Act, aka, Fair Use)
Path names, filenames are not a concern according to RH Legal. Internal variables which are not shown to the user during execution (if char * ktron has "KTron" in it, you'd need to change the contents, not the variable name) are also ok.
When in doubt, ask. :)
After a bit of funging, I've got a spec and a few patches which conform to the above. I contacted upstream about the name, and got no response. The name I'm currently working under is WeaselCycles.
Anyone want to see it, and/or offer suggestions before I submit it for review?
~spot
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:00 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
After a bit of funging, I've got a spec and a few patches which conform to the above. I contacted upstream about the name, and got no response. The name I'm currently working under is WeaselCycles.
Anyone want to see it, and/or offer suggestions before I submit it for review?
Sure. I'll give it a once-over.
~spot
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:00 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
After a bit of funging, I've got a spec and a few patches which conform to the above. I contacted upstream about the name, and got no response. The name I'm currently working under is WeaselCycles.
Anyone want to see it, and/or offer suggestions before I submit it for review?
The code change looks ok on a first pass, you need to do the docs as well.
Also, the spec file from upstream makes me cry. Please rewrite it. :)
~spot
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:00 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
After a bit of funging, I've got a spec and a few patches which conform to the above. I contacted upstream about the name, and got no response. The name I'm currently working under is WeaselCycles.
Anyone want to see it, and/or offer suggestions before I submit it for review?
The code change looks ok on a first pass, you need to do the docs as well.
If you look at the html docs included in the RPM, you'll see that they are affected by the change in the configure file.
Also, the spec file from upstream makes me cry. Please rewrite it. :)
I know, I could hear the kittens screaming when I read it. I intend to, once the name is sorted out. :)
~spot
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:00 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
After a bit of funging, I've got a spec and a few patches which conform to the above. I contacted upstream about the name, and got no response. The name I'm currently working under is WeaselCycles.
Anyone want to see it, and/or offer suggestions before I submit it for review?
The code change looks ok on a first pass, you need to do the docs as well.
If you look at the html docs included in the RPM, you'll see that they are affected by the change in the configure file.
Also, the spec file from upstream makes me cry. Please rewrite it. :)
I know, I could hear the kittens screaming when I read it. I intend to, once the name is sorted out. :)
When I mentioned that I'd altered the logo, there were eager suggestions from upstream to provide us with a version of the logo reflecting the name change. Is it ok to include the project's URL, http://www.armagetronad.net, in the logo? It's not a deal-breaker if it's not.
~spot
-- novus ordo absurdum
Fedora-games-list mailing list Fedora-games-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 06:28 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:00 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
After a bit of funging, I've got a spec and a few patches which conform to the above. I contacted upstream about the name, and got no response. The name I'm currently working under is WeaselCycles.
Anyone want to see it, and/or offer suggestions before I submit it for review?
The code change looks ok on a first pass, you need to do the docs as well.
If you look at the html docs included in the RPM, you'll see that they are affected by the change in the configure file.
Also, the spec file from upstream makes me cry. Please rewrite it. :)
I know, I could hear the kittens screaming when I read it. I intend to, once the name is sorted out. :)
When I mentioned that I'd altered the logo, there were eager suggestions from upstream to provide us with a version of the logo reflecting the name change. Is it ok to include the project's URL, http://www.armagetronad.net, in the logo? It's not a deal-breaker if it's not.
I'm going to say its OK, as we're not calling the software the URL.
~spot
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 06:28 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:00 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
After a bit of funging, I've got a spec and a few patches which
conform
to the above. I contacted upstream about the name, and got no
response.
The name I'm currently working under is WeaselCycles.
Anyone want to see it, and/or offer suggestions before I submit it
for
review?
The code change looks ok on a first pass, you need to do the docs as well.
If you look at the html docs included in the RPM, you'll see that they
are
affected by the change in the configure file.
Also, the spec file from upstream makes me cry. Please rewrite it. :)
I know, I could hear the kittens screaming when I read it. I intend
to,
once the name is sorted out. :)
When I mentioned that I'd altered the logo, there were eager suggestions from upstream to provide us with a version of the logo reflecting the name change. Is it ok to include the project's URL, http://www.armagetronad.net, in the logo? It's not a deal-breaker if it's not.
I'm going to say its OK, as we're not calling the software the URL.
I've got approval for the new name, Armacycles Advanced, and they've provided a new logo. I've also cleaned up the spec. Any reason not to submit for review?
~spot
-
Hans de Goede -
Jon Ciesla -
Tom Callaway