4 ms·

> as far as I could tell was dedicated to the public domain I recommend everyone to read this regarding that matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments

> as far as I could tell was dedicated to the public domain I recommend everyone to read this regarding that matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/ay0w64/one_hour_one_life_one_mess/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/ay0w64/one_hour_on... I don't think Jason really understood what public domain means when he released the game into public domain. Once people started using his work as PD work, he started to complain, file DMCA requests, etc.

abetusk 7y ago
Very interesting, thanks! Just to be clear, it looks like Jason Rohrer is still very much committed to putting his work in the public domain and, as far as I can tell, has been consistent in his commitment to keeping the work he's dedicated to the public domain in the public domain. What looks to be happening is more of a trademark issue. I think Jason Rohrer might be backpeddling on that. It looks like he clearly indicated to people making a port that the "One Hour One Life" name was also in the public domain and could be used but that they shouldn't, essentially making an ethical argument. When the iOS port that was similarly named ("One Hour One Life for iOS") and became more popular than his released game, that's when he started to push back. [1] It looks like a big point of contention for Jason Rohrer is brand confusion as many people don't realize the iOS port of "One Hour One Life" has nothing to do with Jason Rohrer. I sympathize with him but I wish he had taken a bigger stance on his trademark. Free/libre/open source organizations have understood this and use trademark to brand themselves and make sure others don't dilute that brand without permission. This is how the Open Source Hardware Association essentially does their certification and why you can't use "Free Software Foundation" in your open source project's name without permission. [1] https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5479 https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5479
- aasasd 7y ago
  From his twitter, he apparently has recently filed a trademark application for OHOL.
  - abetusk 7y ago
    link: https://twitter.com/jasonrohrer/status/1113873478929674240 https://twitter.com/jasonrohrer/status/1113873478929674240
- Dayshine 7y ago
  Then he probably shouldn't have released his content with the following license: "This work is not copyrighted. Do whatever you want with it, absolutely no restrictions, and no permission necessary." If you care about your fame, don't pick a license that literally states you are happy for people to do whatever they want. I have no sympathy for somebody who writes a license himself (what's wrong with MIT), reassures people that they're allowed to base their livelihood off his work, then changes his mind once they start making more money than him. He's of course welcome to have whatever restrictions he wants on his work. But don't claim to have some moral high ground when you're litigating against people who trusted you to be honest. At best he's doing it to satisfy his ego, at worst for money.
aasasd 7y ago
On the contrary, from the quote it seems he has crystal clear understanding of copyright and public domain—not too surprisingly since his adherence to these principles dates at least fifteen years back (http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribut...) He's appealing to ethics, not the law. He says right there that his objection is to the naming of forks. If that looks to you like violation of the public domain promise, you must think the name constitutes the body of the work. I'm not sure what to make of the DMCA filings, though, since those should obviously rely on copyright in the first place. From his twitter, it seems he's also convinced by now that the trademark law provides perfect solution for this problem, and has apparently filed an application for a trademark on the OHOL name.

abetusk 7y ago

Very interesting, thanks! Just to be clear, it looks like Jason Rohrer is still very much committed to putting his work in the public domain and, as far as I can tell, has been consistent in his commitment to keeping the work he's dedicated to the public domain in the public domain. What looks to be happening is more of a trademark issue. I think Jason Rohrer might be backpeddling on that. It looks like he clearly indicated to people making a port that the "One Hour One Life" name was also in the public domain and could be used but that they shouldn't, essentially making an ethical argument. When the iOS port that was similarly named ("One Hour One Life for iOS") and became more popular than his released game, that's when he started to push back. [1] It looks like a big point of contention for Jason Rohrer is brand confusion as many people don't realize the iOS port of "One Hour One Life" has nothing to do with Jason Rohrer. I sympathize with him but I wish he had taken a bigger stance on his trademark. Free/libre/open source organizations have understood this and use trademark to brand themselves and make sure others don't dilute that brand without permission. This is how the Open Source Hardware Association essentially does their certification and why you can't use "Free Software Foundation" in your open source project's name without permission. [1] https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5479 https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5479

aasasd 7y ago
From his twitter, he apparently has recently filed a trademark application for OHOL.
- abetusk 7y ago
  link: https://twitter.com/jasonrohrer/status/1113873478929674240 https://twitter.com/jasonrohrer/status/1113873478929674240
Dayshine 7y ago
Then he probably shouldn't have released his content with the following license: "This work is not copyrighted. Do whatever you want with it, absolutely no restrictions, and no permission necessary." If you care about your fame, don't pick a license that literally states you are happy for people to do whatever they want. I have no sympathy for somebody who writes a license himself (what's wrong with MIT), reassures people that they're allowed to base their livelihood off his work, then changes his mind once they start making more money than him. He's of course welcome to have whatever restrictions he wants on his work. But don't claim to have some moral high ground when you're litigating against people who trusted you to be honest. At best he's doing it to satisfy his ego, at worst for money.

aasasd 7y ago

On the contrary, from the quote it seems he has crystal clear understanding of copyright and public domain—not too surprisingly since his adherence to these principles dates at least fifteen years back (http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribution.html http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/freeDistribut...) He's appealing to ethics, not the law. He says right there that his objection is to the naming of forks. If that looks to you like violation of the public domain promise, you must think the name constitutes the body of the work. I'm not sure what to make of the DMCA filings, though, since those should obviously rely on copyright in the first place. From his twitter, it seems he's also convinced by now that the trademark law provides perfect solution for this problem, and has apparently filed an application for a trademark on the OHOL name.