View Single Post
Using Alice name in a derived work.
Posts: n/a
Default Using Alice name in a derived work. - 05-07-2009, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by DrJim View Post
Based on much earlier postings, I believe the issue is not the distribution of the modified code but simply using the name "Alice." This is apparently trademarked/copyrighted/service mark registered/etc. by several groups.
Yes. I'm saying this is an opportunity to clarify other matters, which are not so distantly related.

No matter how much the OSI "cultural norm" may wish - people are simply not going to give up their hard earned legal rights. There are no free lunches.
Absolutely. That is why I see the use of the term "open source" in the FAQ to be in need of clarification.

And frankly, I personnally think that modifying code and reissuing it under the original name is potentially an insult to the original creator. If you can come up with good new code, surely it isn't that hard to come up with a new name.
I agree with this, too. Incidentally, among people doing shared development with git, "forking" (a name derived from the Unix system call to spawn a new copy from a process) the repository seems to be becoming normal practice. I'd much rather pass patches back to the developers of the original. That way there is no ambiguity about to whose repository the code belongs. But my point in raising this was not about stealing the good name of a product. It was about saying that a work is derived: giving due credit, citing sources. It is also about the ability to provide a demonstrably working copy with proposed features that can be tested easily, to facilitate peer review, particularly review by people accepting suggested changes into the original code base. Or rejecting them, of course.

Whether I am in favour of such an approach is entirely irrelevant. I'm pointing out that there is room for misunderstanding, and that the Alice Team are perfectly entitled to choose whatever licensing model they desire. But given the existing climate (Alice runs on Linux for one thing), clarity would seem to be useful. I can't tell them to do or decide anything, but I can suggest that it seems worth considering the related matters. And as owners of the project they are entitled to say my opinion is of no value, and ignore it.

I really was trying to be constructive. That's why I pointed out that the discussion has got heated before, and that I was trying to avoid heat. Now they are in a working relationship with Sun and with EA games, there may be all sorts of constraints on what they can do, so advocating any particular style of license would seem to be futile at this stage, and it is entirely a matter for them, not me, anyway.
Reply With Quote