Format: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ Upstream-Name: Openbve Stable source Upstream-Contact: Michelle Boucquemont Source: http://trainsimframework.org/downloads.html (openbve_stable_source.zip) Comment: From http://trainsimframework.org/credits.html Files: * Copyright: 2008-2012 Michelle Boucquemont Anthony Bowden Jens Rügenhagen License: openbve-permissive License: openbve-permissive From 'http://trainsimframework.org/index.html', current: . openBVE is a cross-platform, free-as-in-freedom train simulator placed in the public domain. This means that you can make any modifications to it you like and share your modifications with others. . From 'Readme.txt', current: . This program is placed in the public domain. This means that you can make any modifications to it you like and share your modifications with others. . From 'http://trainsimframework.org/index.html', earlier versions: . Dedication to the public . This program, along with all website content, is dedicated to the public. I do not pose any restrictions or requirements on how this material can be used, and explicitly encourage redistribution and modification for any purpose. . From 'Readme.txt', earlier versions: . Dedication to the public . This program is dedicated to the public. I do not pose any restrictions or requirements on how this material can be used, and explicitly encourage redistribution and modification for any purpose. Comment: Below are some of the accompanying statements that Openbve and the upstream developers have made regarding how the work can be used, this provides greater insight and context into the wishes of upstream, beyond the simple and permissive "public domain" wording. . It's notable that the intent and appreciation for sharing and openness has always present with upstream, as can be seen from the name "Open...". Openbve was itself a reaction to "freeware" but non-distributable, and non-fixable programm "BVE Trainsim" (originally called "Boso View Express", 鉄道運転シミュレーション). . Although the intent has been constant, the PD wording has evolved, attempting to remain short. Upstream have welcomed input where it as been offered on the licence-terminology; as can be seen in the discussion: the upstream preference would be for copyright law to not exist (international treaties dictate otherwise for the moment). . History . In 2008, in preparation for Debian packaging, discussion was started with upstream via the upstream bugtracker/forum, and is copied below for context. (At the time it was the best introduction to the licence and original intent behind the Openbve project). . More information on the thinking behind the "licence-free" intend has been saved here in this 'debian/copyright' file, the essence of which is: . Post by michelle on Sat, 14th Feb 2009, 18:00, UTC . I have been approached by some individuals over the time, including from the GNU project and the Ubuntu Foundation (as it appears at least), and was told that they lack a means of "legal security" for reuse without an explicit license. You can read my above post on details about my attitude regarding this matter, but as a start, I have decided to put the following line on the homepage and will also include it in any later release: . " This program, along with all documentation provided, is dedicated to the public. I do not pose any restrictions on how this material can be used, and explicitly encourage redistribution and modification for any purpose. " . Full thread from which the above is taken: --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://openbve.freeforums.org/licence-t39.html == Licence == . Post by Sacro on Sat, 26th Apr 2008, 16:39, UTC . Just out of curiosity, what licence applies to OpenBVE? It'd be nice to know if it's GPL or BSD or whatever as I'm quite interested in helping out. . Sacro . == Re: Licence == . Post by michelle on Sun, 27th Apr 2008, 07:43, UTC . My attitude differs from so called "free software" licenses. I try to explain: . With proprietary software, the developers usually try to restrict what you are allowed to do with the software to the uttermost extreme that is legally possible. This falls under the category of copyright. . Then there is something that is sometimes called green copyright. So called free software falls in this category. As with proprietary software, a license is used to tell users what they are allowed to do and what not. The difference to proprietary software is that so called free software licenses are usually much more permissive, yet the author decides what you are allowed to do and what not. So called free software is usually attributed to derive from "freedom" instead of "free of charge". Still, if the author employs a license telling other people what they can or cannot do, this inherently cannot have anything to do with freedom. . Then there is something called public domain, which I consider to be an inherently good thing as everyone has eventually the same rights as the author. However, releasing a work into the public domain is not legally meaningful in many countries. Also, releasing a work into the public domain (if possible) depends on the generosity of the author, and this decision is made by the author. . My attitude is even one step further: I am opposed to copyright, thus I marked the game with the legally not meaningful phrase of "anti-copyright". It is legally meaningless, because in every country that has some form of copyright, it would require these laws to be abandoned. Still, why do I have this attitude? . With a license, I would be telling other people what they can or cannot do. I am not such a person. I will not make any silly restrictions on how you can use this program, I will not tell you to put my name on any derived work, I will never ever give "permission" for you modify or redistribute the software, because I don't think that it is up to me telling you what you can or can't do. You should make this decision for yourself. . I hope this briefly explained the situation. . User avatar michelle . == Re: Licence == . Post by michelle on Sat, 14th Feb 2009, 18:00, UTC . I have been approached by some individuals over the time, including from the GNU project and the Ubuntu Foundation (as it appears at least), and was told that they lack a means of "legal security" for reuse without an explicit license. You can read my above post on details about my attitude regarding this matter, but as a start, I have decided to put the following line on the homepage and will also include it in any later release: . " This program, along with all documentation provided, is dedicated to the public. I do not pose any restrictions on how this material can be used, and explicitly encourage redistribution and modification for any purpose. " . michelle . == Re: Licence == . Way to go Michelle! . Good to hear from another lonely soul out there who gets the true meaning of freedom. . BVEColorado --------------------------------------------------------------------- . Managed content . In Openbve=1.4.0.0 in-program managed content was introduced, Openbve has gone out of their way to ensure that anything to be included in the managed content repository is explicitly distributable. Although this does affect Debian/Ubuntu directly, is shows an understanding of the problems that can be present without having explicit statements: . http://trainsimframework.org/develop/managed/licenses.html Managed add-ons - Accepted licenses . All packages that you want to make available under managed content must contain a LICENSE file in the root directory of the package. The LICENSE file must contain either one of the following texts: . ----------------------------------------------------------------- This add-on is placed under the following license: . YOU ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE VERBATIM COPIES OF THIS ADD-ON. . There are no terms and no conditions. This applies worldwide and is unlimited in duration. If additional permissions are granted, they are covered in a separate license. ----------------------------------------------------------------- . ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIS ADD-ON IS PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. . If this is not legally possible, you are given permission to use the add-on in any way you want (including redistribution and modification). There are no terms and no conditions. This applies worldwide and is unlimited in duration. ----------------------------------------------------------------- . This does not affect plugins packaged /in/ Debian, but is what is necessary should a developer wish to make their content available from the new in-program managed content downloading system. Files: debian/* Copyright: 2009-2012 Paul Sladen License: permissive Copying and distribution of this package, with or without modification, are permitted in any medium without royalty.