Ironically a group of people who believed that software should be free started this. Linnux coming out of this; even though it was originally made to learn the 386 better. Their biggest backers have been businesses the power they were supposed to fight. I'm not even sure you guys; even new of the motto that started in the eighties. You guys would be grouped with these people; even, if you did not know of this.

It may also be unlikely if Paul, and Fred hold the copy right to star control 1 and 2. You know if you had star control 3 you could try and fix it.

Forgive me if this is a question that's obvious to everyone else, but when there's talk about "What if Stardock (or anyone else) sued UQM?", who is it, exactly, that would be sued?  It seems to me like that's hard to answer.  And that difficulty makes it just as hard to suggest that Stardock sign legal paperwork allowing UQM to continue; other than Stardock, who would be able to sign for the other side of that agreement?

I assume that as an open source project there's nobody like a company's CEO who could credibly claim in a court to be able to limit the actions of developers on the project and be meaningfully accountable for their decisions and actions.  Without any person or entity having control and accountability, I don't understand how there could be an agreement.

I trust Brad at his word that he doesn't have any interest in shutting down UQM, but if a future rights-holder wanted to shut it down, I'd guess they direct their legal focus at webhosts and similar distribution mechanisms, rather than any individual who volunteered programming time on the project.

Can someone help me explain what I'm missing here?

Can you elaborate more?  I can see how it *would* be interesting and important to open source projects that are derived from another project, as in this case.  But I don't think I understand yet how any of the projects I'm familiar with, UQM and others, actually *have* any realistic level of legal independence and surety. 

Based on my limited understanding, all I see are signaling tactics (like removing the name of the original source but leaving absolutely no confusion as to where it all came from) that leave the project and the rights-holders with a plausible storyline to follow since both groups generally want the same thing.  But it seems like the key part of that is that both groups do legitimately want the same thing to begin with; if there was no alignment but the same fig leaf of "this totally isn't actually Star Control <wink><wink>", I think the resultant argument would be rather one-sided and brief.  Years ago I knew a judge (not practicing in IP matters) who said something along the lines of "some of my longest days at work are when a lawyer tries to convince me that it's my job to be naive."

If that's true, then it suggests that the goodwill is the most important (only important?) part of this.  Which is still great news!  Since for Stardock (or Atari, or any other well-managed company), they have a strong vested interest in having UQM be successful.  I remember seeing elsewhere some discussion about models for what results in well-spent marketing dollars on a project of this scale, and spending zero dollars to have all of the fan passion for Star Control get ignited by UQM is a huge bargain

That question really revolves around whether trademark protection really is as expansive as Brad has suggested.  If it is, then I'd be inclined to agree:  Any open-sourced release of a game would need to forever fear litigation from its trademark rightsholder. 

I'm not a lawyer, and we won't know the real answer to this question until it goes before a judge.  However, I suspect that Brad's arguments are stretching the limits of what trademark is supposed to do.  If that trademark argument gets shot down, open-source projects will be able to be reasonably confident in their independence as long as their copyright issues are in order, and they aren't clearly stepping on a name or mark used to establish the brand of their corporate originator.

I'm not so sure.  Copyright, not trademark, is what prohibits distributing actual copies of digital works, and Stardock doesn't have the copyright.  It kind of feels to me like the argument you describe would require stretching trademark law to make it do what copyright law is intended for.

To put it another way, trademark law is what stops another company from putting the Nike logo on a pair of shoes, regardless of what those shoes look like.  But as long as the company doesn't use Nike's logo, it doesn't matter that the shoe is otherwise identical to what Nike sells.  What Stardock is trying to do is like claiming that the tread, the weave, the color, and other functional aspects of the shoe are also covered by their trademark, and I don't think that's right (they could be covered by patents, but that's also not applicable here).  But, as I said, we'll see what the court has to say when the time comes.

If that's correct, then I agree with you.  But I believe this question requires a real IP attorney to answer.

The benefit to Stardock would be that they could say to the UQM community:  "We're waiving any claim to be able to control you, other than by enforcing the NC license that you are already subject to".  That contrasts with their current position, which appears to be:  "We've decided to turn a blind eye to any court precedents that say that distributing free software counts as engaging in commerce...at least for now.  But we reserve the right to shut you down if we change our minds, which we could do at any time." 

One of these two positions is much more supportive than the other, and would net them a windfall of goodwill if they were to take it.  But only Stardock can decide the relative value of keeping that control, vs. the value of the goodwill gained by giving it up.

That is most definitely not their current position. Their position is that the purpose of UQM's activities does not constitute engaging in commerce and that those activities do not cause confusion. They are not turning a blind eye to anything, Brad made a very deliberate determination here, likely taking into full consideration the fact that there have been cases where distribution of free software counted as engaging in commerce. Stardock has however determined that UQM's activities do not cross that line, and if they ever believe otherwise, the only recourse UQM has to contest that determination would be to fight it out in court.

Again, there is nothing for Stardock to actually waive. If UQM is not engaged in commerce or causing confusion with Stardock's trademarks, trademark law doesn't impact its activities and Stardock has no standing to try to interfere. There are no claims for Stardock to waive, because what UQM is doing, as Brad has stated repeatedly, does not infringe upon Stardock's trademark. Without that infringement, trademark law doesn't even come into play. If Stardock however ever does believe UQM is engaging in commerce or causing confusion with its trademarks, as the trademark owners, they have basically an obligation to take legal action to prevent their trademark from being so misused in order to protect it.

You need to really stop premising your arguments around the notion that Stardock assumes some sort of implicit control over UQM. They don't. In fact Brad has stated quite clearly that they don't. His remarks about being able to shut UQM down are on the basis of UQM infringing upon Stardock's trademark. If UQM does not infringe however, that power doesn't exist. This is literally no different from any other trademark out there. Possession of a trademark does not give you any power over something that isn't using that trademark. Conversely, it gives you a lot of power over anything that does.

I contend that there is:  Presuming its current registrations are approved, Stardock will have potential trademark claims against any "use in commerce" of the alien races.  Informal reassurances about what Stardock considers "use in commerce" are welcome, of course, but are not binding enough to instill confidence.  I am advocating that they formally waive the right to make such claims for any uses that are permitted under the CC-NC license.  This would mean that the CC-NC license would continue to be the sole determinant of what can be done with the UQM code base, instead of developers needing to additionally worry about potential trademark risks.

I really at this point dont think you will believe him no matter what he says. You just dont trust him. This asking for a gnu is at a bad time you shouldve waited untill after the trial. How many years does it take before you will realise this is not going to happen.

If you are really concerned rename the aliens, redo the alien art, and rewrite the storyline. There is no point behind this, but you think so. All that is going to happen if stardock wins is you will get a real old dos based game, and all three games will get a new modernised engine, unless paul, and freds copyright prevents you from modernising the game. You still wont trust him, even if he has no reason for this. I bet dimes to dollars he supports what you are doing about making a free game.

I have no reason to doubt his support for the UQM project, but in matters of legal risk, I believe that it is prudent not to rely on informal assurances.

So, it sounds like you are asserting that it is impossible for Stardock to do as I suggest without harming its ability to enforce its trademark even against projects not covered by CC-NC.  If that assertion is true, then I agree with you that it is not a plausible option.  However, it could also be the case that it is possible for Stardock to waive its trademark rights for a well-defined category of uses, without sacrificing its ability to enforce them elsewhere.

This is a technical enough point of law that I don't think we armchair lawyers should assume we know the right answer without input from a real IP attorney.  But that would cost money (or at least favors), so it's not worth looking into unless Stardock says that it would be willing to do so if it were possible.

I agree, but Stardock still has the discretion to grant permission to use its trademark if it so desires.  My argument is that it can choose to grant permission for these trademarks to be used in cases where the CC-NC license is being adhered to, just as it could decide to only grant such permission to projects founded on Tuesdays.  It would essentially be voluntarily subordinating its trademark claims to a copyright test, such that it would bar itself from pursuing them in that particular corner case.  This couldn't broaden the scope of its trademark claims, but it could narrow them.

The original Star Control did not have a story mode.  The only included story/lore elements in it were contained in the manual.  The entirety of SC1's story can be summed up as follows...

"Well, humanity had reached the stars and was chilling when these crystal dudes showed up in Earth's orbit.  They told some really bad dudes were coming, and bringing friends.  They then asked us to join with them and some other races because human ships were really tough against the enemy's flying pickles.  We said we weren't sure, then they told us the clones we used to have, the ones we used to beat up and steal their lunch money, joined up with the baddies, and their flaming tennis-ball ships can wreck ours.  Well, being conquered didn't sound like fun, so we said 'Sign us up!', and the rest is history."

That's it, all of SC1's story!