Spectrum Computing

It's overdue but I'd like to give the following permissions:

To ZXDB in general, permission to distribute programs and source code I've posted into any public forum (WoS or Spectrum Computing so far) as demonstrations. So far this includes 50Hurts, my part in ColorPrint48, River Raid Tech Demo, Bi-Colour Scrolling-Buffer Game Engine and the CharAde graphics engine for Sinclair BASIC.

Also any of my crap game contest entries (including but not limited to Paralympic Obstacle Kayaking, Agatha Christie's Parrot, ALS: Tactics, Murk Alpha) should anyone want to.

Also if anyone ever finds a copy of APT Software's Easy Time or Easy Math (unlikely) then those too.

As for completed game releases (namely "Buzzsaw+ (Foxton Locks Mix)") and any more to come, I choose to restrict those to distribution by websites or disk-mags on an individual permission basis. At the moment that applies to World of Spectrum but now also Spectrum Computing. But not any other site using ZXDB without individual permission being sought. If this is not technically possible then I must withold permission from Spectrum Computing until such time as this accommodation can be met in ZXDB.

Also note that with any physical media release version that differs from that offered for download, the physical media version is NOT to be hosted for download, anywhere, without EXCEPTIONAL persmission being obtained.

[mention]Joefish[/mention] Thank you so much for these permissions. It will be fine to restrict permission to Spectrum Computing. The ZXDB database just contains a path to the filename on the server where the file is stored.

Sorry, but I don't think that's enough. If it means that another site displaying the ZXDB must link to the Spectrum Computing page for the game then OK. If another site just has a direct download link that looks like they are hosting the file and doesn't actually send the user to the particular site then no, I'm not happy with that (for Buzzsaw - I don't mind about the rest so much).

The point is I want the user to come to a site I trust for their download, not just cross-link the download file from any old site. If you can't manage this then I'm going to ask you to remain to refer people to WoS for the download. I don't have any control over who you give access to ZXDB and I made clear permission was not given to ZXDB.

Hi [mention]Joefish[/mention] I have sent you a PM.

Does anyone have a working link to the 50 Hurts demo? Or a copy? PM me if the latter pleez. My original copy went down with a laptop a few years back.

Sorted now, tar Bob.

You will find most of these files at my archive under "_third_party_demos".


EDIT: Actually... almost everything stored at my archive are files I preserved in the last few years since WoS stopped updating. They must be organized into ZXDB now!

Is there any way of adding aliases to the database? For example, if I search for just "Jason Railton" I get nothing.

Joefish wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:29 pm Is there any way of adding aliases to the database? For example, if I search for just "Jason Railton" I get nothing.

Yes, it's possible - for example Joffa Smifff also exists in ZXDB as Jonathan M. Smith

But.. it also depends on how the website implements the use of ZXDB, for example
spectrumcomputing gives a result if you search for 'Joffa Smifff' but nothing for 'Jonathan M. Smith' and for ZXInfo.dk it's the other way around - nothing for 'Joffa Smiff' but 15 titles for 'Jonathan M. Smith'

So.. Jason Railton should be an alias for Jason R. Railton?

I just tested all these searches directly in ZXDB and they all worked fine.

There's probably just some minor detail missing on each site implementation to make it work as expected. I will contact you both tonight, I'm sure we can easily work it out!

Searches at SpectrumComputing seem to be working better now.

OK, another issue has come uo. Why does 'original price' have to say 'freeware'? It could just say 'free'.
But if you're going to use the term 'freeware' then is it possible to add a reminder (there or in the downloads section) that redistribution of the downloadable content without permission is not permitted.

Joefish wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:43 pm OK, another issue has come uo. Why does 'original price' have to say 'freeware'? It could just say 'free'.
But if you're going to use the term 'freeware' then is it possible to add a reminder (there or in the downloads section) that redistribution of the downloadable content without permission is not permitted.

Hi Joe. The reason not to allow any site to provide download links? I guess you don't want your games modded, hacked, cracked, sexually-abused

This is another freeware game with "redistribution of the downloadable content without permission is not permitted"
https://awesome-table.com/-KTJLy2xX7_E1 ... limpgeddon

Could it be something like itch.io? if a game is donationware they show a button to donate before showing the download link.
By the way, it would be a good idea a way to list donationware games and encourage donations. I provide a tag called 'donate'. I'm sure you can find a better way though.

Joefish wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:43 pmOK, another issue has come uo. Why does 'original price' have to say 'freeware'? It could just say 'free'.

There are several kinds of "free", such as "Freeware", "GPL", "Creative Commons", etc.

ZXDB doesn't just store the information that it's free, it also distinguishes what kind of "free". Exactly like in Martijn's original WoS archive! For instance:

http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseek ... id=0027057

Joefish wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:43 pmBut if you're going to use the term 'freeware' then is it possible to add a reminder (there or in the downloads section) that redistribution of the downloadable content without permission is not permitted.

But that's exactly the meaning of "Freeware"!

From Wikipedia :

Freeware is software that is available for use at no monetary cost. In other words, while freeware may be used without payment it is most often proprietary software, as usually modification, re-distribution or reverse-engineering without the author's permission is prohibited.

As far as I can see Joefish would like:

1/ To retain copyright;
2/ To allow SC to distribute the title for free; and
3/ Not grant other sites distribution rights.

Which is the right categorisation for this? It certainly should not be freeware.

Rorthron wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:06 pm As far as I can see Joefish would like:

1/ To retain copyright;
2/ To allow SC to distribute the title for free; and
3/ Not grant other sites distribution rights.

Which is the right categorisation for this? It certainly should not be freeware.

That is the definition of freeware, the fact the author retains ownership and thus may still exert control over when and where a title may be distributed or modified is what distinguishes "freeware" from "public domain".

Sorry, in my haste I did not read Einar's post properly.

Freeware may lead to confussion in the case if Joefish as most of freeware authors permit distribution for nonprofit, so many people read freeware as free to download and distribute for nonprofit.

Free sounds Open-Source too much to mean anything else. It's like encouraging to hack and "improve" to redistribute

IMHO it'd better to add an adjective next to 'Freeware' explaining the type of license behind. Perhaps showing restrictions in capital like FOR NONPROFIT ONLY, DISTRIBUTION ONLY ALLOWED FOR SC, PROHIBITED TO DISTRIBUTE HACKED VERSIONS, WINNERS DONT USE COFFEE,etc

hikoki wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:32 pm Freeware may lead to confussion in the case if Joefish as most of freeware authors permits distribution for nonprofit, so many people reads freeware as free to download and distribute for nonprofit.

Free sounds Open-Source too much to mean anything else.

IMHO it'd better to add an adjective next to 'Freeware' explaining the type of license behind. Perhaps ahowing restrictions in capital like FOR NONPROFIT ONLY, DISTRIBUTION ONLY ALLOWED FOR SC, PROHIBITED TO DISTRIBUTE HACKED VERSIONS, WINNERS DONT USE COFFEE,etc

On a database driven site its not quite that simple, we would need to add an extra field in ZXDB to accommodate this. Lets see what [mention]Joefish[/mention] comes back with. As [mention]Einar Saukas[/mention] says we are using the same terminology as WoS has used for years.

This was exactly my point. Far too many people do not recognise that as the definition of 'freeware'. They just assume 'free' means the same as 'public domain'. A solution to this problem may simply be a short warning or explanation of that term. Or another option in that field to distinguish between free and unrestricted downloads. I don't see why an extra option to an existing field is so difficult.

But there is also the question of why that word is used for the field 'original price'. What is that field supposed to be, 'price' or 'license'? The word 'freeware' is a 'license', not a 'price'. The 'orginal price' is '£0.00' or 'Free'.

Joefish wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:42 pmThis was exactly my point. Far too many people do not recognise that as the definition of 'freeware'. They just assume 'free' means the same as 'public domain'.

You are basically saying that, whenever a program is "Freeware", we shouldn't reveal it's "Freeware", because writing '"Freeware" will make everybody think the opposite of "Freeware"???

Joefish wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:42 pmA solution to this problem may simply be a short warning or explanation of that term. Or another option in that field to distinguish between free and unrestricted downloads. I don't see why an extra option to an existing field is so difficult.

But there is also the question of why that word is used for the field 'original price'. What is that field supposed to be, 'price' or 'license'? The word 'freeware' is a 'license', not a 'price'. The 'orginal price' is '£0.00' or 'Free'.

Don't you think "Free" will be even worse? It would seem that it's free AND doesn't have any license, therefore people could do whatever they wanted!

Here's my suggestion. Let's write "Original price: Free (Freeware license)", providing a link to Wikipedia where it explains the exact meaning of "Freeware". This way, nobody will be able to claim they understood something else. Like this:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=27057

Ambiguous as for redistribution.
What about donationware which is a variant of freeware? In contrast to freemium (Terrapins comes to mind)

If it has never been a commercial product, hence there is no price, then would it be better to show "N/A"?
The licence should be shown separately. Then you could have a hyperlink to a definition (like you currently have).

Mark

hikoki wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:49 amAmbiguous as for redistribution.

Every short description will be ambiguous for everything including redistribution. This is exactly the reason we use a word that means, for redistribution and everything else, people should check program documentation and/or contact the author.

The alternative would be requesting each author to provide a long description explaining all his conditions regarding redistribution and everything else, to put in the game page. Problem is, it would be impractical (too much work for everyone involved), and the page would look boring as hell. This is the reason Martijn never did it despite all his attention to details, and I don't like the idea either.

However, if any author would like to send me a short sentence about specific conditions of a program, feel free to send me the text and I will add it to "comments". For instance:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 6&id=30399

Perhaps Buzzsaw comments could say "Author doesn't allow program redistribution without explicit consent." if that's what Jason wants!

hikoki wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:49 amWhat about donationware which is a variant of freeware?

Exactly! It's "Freeware".

hikoki wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:49 amIn contrast to freemium (Terrapins comes to mind)

Do you mean there's a free demo for a commercial software? That's just a new name for an old practice!

Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:20 amYou are basically saying that, whenever a program is "Freeware", we shouldn't reveal it's "Freeware", because writing '"Freeware" will make everybody think the opposite of "Freeware"???

You are the one that has labelled all these games 'Freeware', not the authors. I have never called my game 'freeware' - that is your label.

The Wikipedia definition you keep referring to specifically says:
"There is no agreed set of rights or a license or an EULA which would define "freeware" unambiguously; every Freeware publisher defines their own rules for their Freeware. For instance, redistribution of Freeware by third-parties is often permitted but there is a significant portion of Freeware which prohibits redistribution."

You have labelled games 'freeware' with no regard to whether you have specific permission to distribute them, or whether the authors allow distribution by anyone that wants to. I think you should distinguish between the two different definitions so that that information is passed on to whoever takes a download from your site. Simply applying the word 'freeware' to games is not sufficient. And neither is that Wikipedia definition.

Einar Saukas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:20 amDon't you think "Free" will be even worse? It would seem that it's free AND doesn't have any license, therefore people could do whatever they wanted!

Again, you confuse 'price' with 'licence'. They are not the same. You give an original price for paid-for games. You do not say anything about the terms by which you distribute them. So why try and force the licence for free games into that field?

You need an extra field for the licence under which you are distributing a game. Even previous commercial games, you need to state if the permission to distribute them is specific to your site or public, and if the author retains copyright or has offered everything as public domain.