Source Code currently not Open Source

[mbit2]

The source code cannot currently be considered Open Source since there is only explicit
permission to use it in any way (studying it, attempting to run it) and to modify it,
but not explicit permission to distribute it as it is and to distribute modified versions.

If possible, try to select any of the existing Open Source licenses for the code.
This would reduce any confusion.

[axet]

it is opensource, check readme. and here is no need to be "existing Open Source licenses" applied for.

[mbit2]

I checked the readme and nowhere does it say that you are allowed to distribute it as it is or to distribute modified versions. Both these things are required for the software to be Open Source.

[axet]

"As the author and copyright holder of this source code, I personally have no problem with anyone studying it, modifying it, attempting to run it, etc. Please understand that this does NOT constitute a grant of rights of any kind in Prince of Persia, which is an ongoing Ubisoft game franchise. Ubisoft alone has the right to make and distribute Prince of Persia games."

Menas do what everyouwant but clean up PoP name before publish it.

[mbit2]

A copyright license is a legal document and as such the use of the word etc leaves too much room for interpretation.

[axet]

friend. compile it first ;)

[mistydemeo]

Thanks for your interest, but Jordan isn't interested in adding a more explicit license.

(Don't let that deter you from playing around with the code though!)

[mbit2]

Sadly, from that I can only conclude, the release of Prince of Persia here was not intended to be Open Source.

[catseye]

Unlike say SourceForge, github doesn't require that code hosted on github be put under an open-source license.

I guess my main concern would be, am I legally allowed to fork this project? Forking is quite arguably a form of distribution, and "Ubisoft alone has the right to make and distribute Prince of Persia games". (And how much would I have to modify the game for it to no longer be a Prince of Persia game? Taking off the name might not be enough -- it still has the "look and feel" of a Prince of Persia game. Either way, forking it will copy the entire revision history, which will still contain the Prince of Persia branding.)

On the other hand, forking is central to how github operates. One could conclude that, if the copyright holder was OK with you "studying, modifying, trying to run" the code, but they didn't want other copies of it appearing on the Internet, they wouldn't have chosen github as the place to make the code available.

But I can't say how a lawyer would look at it.

[mistydemeo]

@catseye See the Github TOS: http://help.github.com/terms-of-service/

Specifically, F.1:

... By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

[catseye]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention @mistydemeo. However, in light of that, it seems like there may be a conflict here, if a legal expert decides that forking a github repository containing a Prince of Persia game constitutes distributing a Prince of Persia game; I couldn't say which "licensing term" would take precedence.

(Note, I don't necessarily expect the rights holders to provide a binding answer to this question. Just that, following Jordan's suggestion in the README to direct such open legal questions to "the community at large", I can't think of a better way than using the repository's public issue tracker, to contact the part of the community that would be interested in these questions.)

[donatj]

I would have to believe that if Ubisoft would go after anyone for the source code being on github it would be @jmechner long before some nobody who forks it. Just my 2¢ though.