For me it's a difference, if I spent money by my own decision or if somebody steals it from me.

You made a reference to his site, where he clearly writes, that he got permission, that's a non-commercial site and that he avoids commercial banner. But you wrote:

|: I'm guessing the designer doesn't see any money from this, and I'd
|: bet he wasn't asked for permission.

Why do you write such defaming nonsense?

The discussion is not, if theft is possible or not.
The discussion is about: is it theft to publish a game without permission?

Here I see a language problem, maybe my failure: The game mechanic versus a game mechanic.

(In Germany) you cannot protect one simple element, f.e. tapping cards.
It's free to be used in other way and other games.
But the combination of such elements is more than just the sum of these elements. This is protected. And this is the game.

Moreover the theme can be protected additionally, but this depends from single case.

Bottle Imp with another theme would be the same game (structure), but a different game, because the theme is important. It something like a variant (In German 'Bearbeitung', but there are too much translations for this word). (In Germany) it's basic designer right to make variants of his game. [1999 the highest court forbid to publish 'Laras Tochter', a prosecution of Dr. Schiwago, because of use of the elemnts from the forerunner)]

In this case the question is: Is it a variant or is it another game?
And, of course, it's important for designers to discuss this question from two sides:

Protection is need for designed games but not to prevent from designing news games. Get inspiration from other games is what designers usually do, but just changing a little bit and publishing as own is theft.

No, I know this, but the discussion is not: How to prevent from stealing. The discussion is about it's theft or not.

If guys like you say, it's not theft, because many people do so, than it's no wonder that the respect for law is trivial. I try to get respect not only for designers creation but also for designers right to decide about his creation.

sorry I'm not sure. You say it's not right to steal a game, but also that's not theft what we're talking about. Maybe here is the source of misunderstanding.

1. The site that I'm looking at doesn't say anything about permission. If he's clearly written it, it must have been in German. Nothing I see

People who are worried about paying their bills aren't usually in the habit of giving away what people are willing (maybe even eager?) to pay them for. Maybe things are different in Germany.

I believe I've been abundantly clear in the points I'm making. I'll list them here to make sure there's no further misunderstanding or misattribution:

1. Whether or not it's "theft" is completely subjective,

Should the creator of Race For The Galaxy put his lawyers on the guy who made San Juan? Well, that's somewhat impossible to say. It looks to me like, apart from a few minor mechanical changes, a tiny bit more complexity (mostly in the expansions and overall number of cards) and a new theme, it's the same game. Of course, a court might say it's just different enough to be unactionable, which would mean that it's not "theft". So is San Juan "stealing" from RFTG or isn't it?

I never said it's not theft. I'm not particularly interested in making that distinction, as I think it's irrelevant what we decide to call it as long as we do what we can to prevent it. If it doesn't happen at all, no theft occurs, right? The closest I got was in discrediting your car analogy, which still does not hold up. Apart from that, call it theft if you want. Calling it one thing or another isn't going to affect it at all, and the law is another matter entirely (where the law is actually applicable and enforceable).

I don't think we actually disagree on a lot of things under discussion here, I think you're just mistaking what my point is with what it isn't.

The more this conversation goes on, the clearer it is to me that you and I are having two completely different conversations discussing two different concepts altogether. The language barrier doesn't help either, I guess. :)

The site is in German, but if you scroll down, you may read:
"Autor: Günter Cornett - Online-Umsetzung: Thomas Rosanski
Copyright © 1995, 2003 Bambus Spieleverlag - Copyright © 2001-2004 Thomas Rosanski"
At the imprint you can read it in detail. And google should help you to translate it.

So it's ok to say: 'I guess Pellbort is a robber, I bet Pellborts rape' ???? Very strange your argumentation

yes, there is a point from which a game is not a variant but an own game. It's not always clear where the point is. But this is different from publishing a game with another theme or just another name.

San Juan was published 3 year before RFTG.

It could be an interesting discussion to find out where is the point between variant and different game. But it seems to me you don't want such constructive discussion.

It says nothing about whether or not the work he based on your game has been released with permission. Usually, a free game like that would say something like "Web version created with permission. All art, theme and game mechanics are the sole property of the original author/publisher." and maybe even a link to a place where one can order your game.

No. What you're saying doesn't make sense. It's just a silly association. That's nothing like what I said, which I said based on the observation that there is no claim of permission made on the site.

My point is that it's NOT always clear, and that's WHY it's not different from publishing a game with another theme. That's WHY it goes to court. That's what the court is for- to make that decision. It's not just "theft" because you say it is.

There is a link to my site. Please look! And at imprint you can read:

"Die Nutzung der Spielideen und -grafiken erfolgt mit freundlicher Genehmigung von:

* Amigo Spiel + Freizeit GmbH (6 nimmt!)
* Bambus Spieleverlag GbR (Flaschenteufel)
* Corné van Moorsel (Floriado)
* Kronberger Spiele Roland & Tobias Goslar GbR (Cronberg, Bonobo Beach)
* Michael Schacht (Paris Paris, Kardinal & König)"

I can understand that you didn't read it at first time. But inbetween you had the chance to do so. You refuse it because you don't want take back your defaming 'guess and bet'.

Telling it's ok, to publish a game with another theme is supporting theft.

Oh, BTW - wasn't Thomas Lehmann involved in the production/play testing of San Juan in some way? Did he steal from himself?

Man, am I sorry I ever posted my original comment.

A quick look at both pages simply lists Andreas Seyfarth as San Juan's designer, and Thomas Lehmann as RFTG's designer. The Wikipedia page on RTFG, however, yields more info:

"The play style of the game is similar to that of another Rio Grande game, San Juan, which is the card game version of the board game Puerto Rico. Lehmann, Race's designer, developed his own card game version of Puerto Rico at the request of the publisher. Some of its ideas were incorporated in San Juan. Later, Lehmann used those ideas to create a different game, one of space exploration and conquest rather than colonial development in the Caribbean."

So, Lehmann was hired by the publisher to create a card game, which became San Juan. Then, Lehmann used the same ideas to create a "different" game (not a different game at all if you're using Gunter's definition). All that space exploration/colonial development stuff is just pasted-on theme.