File permissions.

Whether it's Mire Mare or a BASIC tape you found in the attic, it needs to be preserved digitally. Post here and experts can help to do so.

Moderator: pavero

User avatar
Einar Saukas
Bugaboo
Posts: 3070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Einar Saukas »

Searches at SpectrumComputing seem to be working better now.
User avatar
Joefish
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:26 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by Joefish »

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.
hikoki
Manic Miner
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:54 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by hikoki »

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.
User avatar
Einar Saukas
Bugaboo
Posts: 3070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Einar Saukas »

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.
User avatar
Rorthron
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:35 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Rorthron »

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.
AndyC
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1388
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:12 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by AndyC »

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".
User avatar
Rorthron
Dynamite Dan
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:35 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Rorthron »

Sorry, in my haste I did not read Einar's post properly.
hikoki
Manic Miner
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:54 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by hikoki »

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
Last edited by hikoki on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6857
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: File permissions.

Post by PeterJ »

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.
User avatar
Joefish
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:26 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by Joefish »

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'.
User avatar
Einar Saukas
Bugaboo
Posts: 3070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Einar Saukas »

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
hikoki
Manic Miner
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:54 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by hikoki »

Ambiguous as for redistribution.
What about donationware which is a variant of freeware? In contrast to freemium (Terrapins comes to mind)
User avatar
1024MAK
Bugaboo
Posts: 3104
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:52 pm
Location: Sunny Somerset in the U.K. in Europe

Re: File permissions.

Post by 1024MAK »

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
:!: Standby alert :!:
“There are four lights!”
Step up to red alert. Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb :dance
Looking forward to summer later in the year.
User avatar
Einar Saukas
Bugaboo
Posts: 3070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Einar Saukas »

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!
User avatar
Joefish
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:26 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by Joefish »

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.
User avatar
Joefish
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:26 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by Joefish »

1024MAK wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:10 am 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).
Yes, as I have said, someone is trying to force license terms into the wrong field. If the field is 'price' then the 'price' of a free game is '0.00'.
Last edited by Joefish on Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
hikoki
Manic Miner
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:54 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by hikoki »

Terrapins is a recent game on ZXDB. You provide a freemium demo to download and regard the title as commercial with a price. Please tell me how one could search for premium titles and donationware titles.

If you don't want to add different type of freeware licenses but just add restrictions into the comments sections, it's fine. I just suggest that before showing the download link to the user, you could just show their license restrictions in front of his face just as it is done on the itch.io site. Probably that would have more to do with every site's GUI than with the database model.
hikoki
Manic Miner
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:54 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by hikoki »

Is it tedious? Just provide a form for collaborators and game developers so they fill in the information for you.
Something like this: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AujU5 ... etUAzabfWc
Authors could fill in restrictions, files and other info about their developments.
User avatar
Joefish
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:26 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by Joefish »

I don't think it needs even that. Just an extra field listing distribution rights - for all games, not just free ones.
Commercial games will not all have the same agreement - some authors have agreed to free public distribution of their games; some have given specific permission to a site to distribute. Free-of-charge games are no different.

It doesn't require a vast range of unique definitions. There seem to be some fairly simple definitions:
  • Author / publisher has specifically denied redistribution.
  • This site has not obtained permission to distribute.
  • This site has specific permission to distribute. Re-distribution without permission is not permitted.
  • Author / publisher has given permission for any public re-distribution.
  • Author / publisher relinquishes all copyright (public domain).
But using crude undefined terms like 'freeware' is avoiding the responsibility of preserving the author's copyright.

What I am asking for is the license you have to distribute the game to be presented to the user alongside the download link for the game, so that they are made aware of their rights. They should not have to download it first to find out if they have permission to download it or not.
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6857
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: File permissions.

Post by PeterJ »

[mention]Joefish[/mention]

This is obviously going to take some thought as to the best approach, and if it does end up needing extra fields then time for Einar to change ZXDB.

Can I just ask what it is specifically about the WoS listing that you presumably have no issues with as it's been there since the title was released marked as Freeware with no additional information. We can then work from there. I would assume other sites have not attempted to get permission for every 'free' as in cost title. If we go down this route it would possibly lead to the need to remove all downloads from the site as we would not have the resources to contact all authors of such titles.

Thanks
User avatar
Joefish
Rick Dangerous
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:26 am

Re: File permissions.

Post by Joefish »

I never said I was happy with the WoS listing. I complained a long time ago but was still not satisfied with the result. However, I didn't think it worth withdrawing my permission to host the file over. And it doesn't look like anything is going to be improved there in the short term.

I don't like the term 'freeware' being applied to my software. It's an ambiguous definition. I didn't agree to it. It doesn't mean anything definite, but it is easily mistaken for meaning 'completely free'. And because you have applied it to all games that have been distributed for free then it implies they are all distributed under the same terms.

If the only thing you can offer me is a comment then please add a note along the lines of:
"Redistribution of this game is only permitted on sites and services with the explicit consent of the author."

But if you're seeking individual consent for Spectrum Computing to host files then surely you should be displaying such a message for most of your game downloads?

I think that by not clarifying the licence by which you are distributing a game at the point it is offered for download, you are not properly respecting the author's right to control its distribution either. It's a fundamental piece of information about a game which seems to be missing from your database.
User avatar
PeterJ
Site Admin
Posts: 6857
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: File permissions.

Post by PeterJ »

We can add your comment as you have requested, but it's not practical to go back over 1,000s of titles.

We are trying to do the right thing and build a free upto date resource for the whole community.
User avatar
Einar Saukas
Bugaboo
Posts: 3070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Einar Saukas »

Please hold on. I will try to answer tonight everything that has been posted here. Sorry but I won't have time to do it right now...

For now, let me just make something clear: One of the main purposes of ZXDB is to help Spectrum authors promote their work. Last thing we want is to get any author upset, thinking that ZXDB-based sites (like SC) are not handling their software properly! So please don't take anything I wrote as refusal to cooperate. So far, I'm merely explaining my points of view and trying to better understand everybody else's. I'm sure we will be able to reach a consensus soon that will make everybody happy!

To be continued...
User avatar
Einar Saukas
Bugaboo
Posts: 3070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Einar Saukas »

OK, it seems there's still a lot of misunderstanding here! Before I reply to specific posts, we better clarify a few things:

* The word "Freeware" means "Free but Copyrighted". It doesn't mean anything else.

* The word "Free" means users can download and play the game without paying for it.

* The word "Copyrighted" means users cannot do whatever they want with it. Instead, they need to check documentation or contact the author to figure out what else they are allowed to do (for instance if anyone else can redistribute it).

* Let me say it again: "Freeware" means "Free but Copyrighted". Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't believe me, please re-read the Wikipedia page.

* A long time ago, when Martijn created WoS, webpages of Spectrum games released for free (but copyrighted) showed "Original price: Free". However many game authors complained to Martijn that perhaps players would assume these were public domain titles, and they could do whatever they wanted with them. To solve this problem, Martijn changed these pages to "Original price: Freeware", because it means "Original price: Free but Copyrighted". At the time, game authors were satisfied.

* To be honest, I'm not really 100% sure that's exactly what happened, I'm just assuming it's the most likely explanation. Since WoS forum searches are broken, we would never be able to locate old discussions to confirm or refute this story... Regardless of it, my point is that ZXDB follows exactly the same criteria that Martijn's original WoS archive adopted for 2 decades about showing prices and licenses. I cannot understand the reason this suddenly became a major problem now!

* Frankly I also have trouble understanding the concern that a word meaning "free but copyrighted" would make people think something is not copyrighted.

Even so, it's my intent to find a good solution for everybody. Let's see...
User avatar
Einar Saukas
Bugaboo
Posts: 3070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: File permissions.

Post by Einar Saukas »

Joefish wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:41 pmI don't think it needs even that. Just an extra field listing distribution rights - for all games, not just free ones.
There's already an entire table in ZXDB called "permissions", that stores all details about distribution rights. This is the table that all ZXDB-based sites check to decide if they should distribute a certain file or not. For instance:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... el_id=6929

Notice that Martijn's WoS worked exactly the same way:

http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseek ... J.+Railton$

Except ZXDB is more complete since it stores this information for multiple sites.


Joefish wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:41 pm
  • Author / publisher has specifically denied redistribution.
In this case, the author/publisher page will show permission denied.


Joefish wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:41 pm
  • This site has not obtained permission to distribute.
In this case, the author/publisher page won't show permissions.


Joefish wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:41 pm
  • This site has specific permission to distribute. Re-distribution without permission is not permitted.
In this case, the author/publisher page will show permission for this site only.


Joefish wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:41 pm
  • Author / publisher has given permission for any public re-distribution.
In this case, the author/publisher page will show permission for all free sites.


Joefish wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:41 pm
  • Author / publisher relinquishes all copyright (public domain).
In this case, the game itself will say "Original price: Free (Public Domain)".


Joefish wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:41 pmBut using crude undefined terms like 'freeware' is avoiding the responsibility of preserving the author's copyright.
Again, I cannot see how indicating a game is "free but copyrighted" could be avoiding the responsibility of preserving the author's copyright!


Joefish wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:41 pmWhat I am asking for is the license you have to distribute the game to be presented to the user alongside the download link for the game, so that they are made aware of their rights. They should not have to download it first to find out if they have permission to download it or not.
This situation you described would be impossible. If a file is denied, then SC won't have a link to download it. Therefore users would never be able to download it first, then find out they cannot download it...
Post Reply