I don't really know. The original game is Microsoft Reciprocal as I said. But I am open for using GPL. The assets (graphics/sound) have to retain their non-commericalness though. Which I'm fine with anyway.
As for the $10, I'll still hold the giveaway in your name. You can choose the winner then if you want :D

Sounds like a plan! Also this counts as a minor bump!

You can probably find a similar document online, but all you really need in the EU is a phrasing (like the one you have given in the OP - though one outlining your intentions as well) and the specific details of each of you (ie adress, website, tax numbers* etc) and maybe a few screens of the game (to bolster it). then sign, scan, send and have the other party do the same.

*presuming you're both declaring this - does help with the legalities though

Edit: didnt see this was also a GA - not in! TA!

I found this form that you can edit and then have them sign and send it back, if that helps.

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name here), am] OR [I represent (copyright holder's name), ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CHOOSE ONE: [URLs of the content] OR [attached images/text].

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). (THIS IS THE STANDARD CHOICE; YOU MAY CHOOSE ANOTHER ACCEPTABLE FREE LICENSE, IF YOU WISH TO)

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Sender's name]
[Sender's authority (If applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)]
[Date]

I can't really help you with that but may I ask how Google requested this from you?

Personally, I wouldnt use that - the language indicates it to be rather US-centric legally, and that could put Blotunga in some dark waters as to his rights in the EU (seen it happen before - I dont sign US made contracts myself as a result).

Probably a good choice for a US citizen though. :) tinyE's donkey express?! O____o

I don't know what to say so let me just post this.

no, I will not let you do that. -_____+

As far as I understand this is not a ownership transfer and sounds similar to a CLA (Contributor License Agreement), you can read the one Google themselves use here https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual?csw=1

If I were you I would probably ask the original developer to write this agreement as he owns the copyright, don't know if it makes a difference but it could legally. This type of things need to be done with lawyers to be on the safe side, it could get messy if it's not clear. You might also want to read this http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/58338/when-porting-code-must-i-follow-the-original-license

We are both just 2 persons, I don't think either of us has a tax number. The original is open source. However I think Google's problem are more related to trademark (I'm just guessing here). Via an email exchange of course... I have sent them screenshots with my email exchange with the original dev, however they don't find that sufficient.
The original dev asked me to draft up one and then work on it together if it needs changes. We can't afford lawyers for this (I for certainly can't). It's not a commercial project on either sides, we're just two dudes who want to share stuff with the world. However it is harder and harder to do that.

Welcome to "barriers of entry to the market" v 2.0

Some advice I can give is that as individuals you both will have some fiscal ID. Use it, a corporate one isn't necessary.

On trademark, you either register it, thereby "proving" you can use it, or I guess you research existing trademarks and figure out different name to register. This is not just related to the game you're porting from. It's broader, so trying to prove no one will sue you seems to me Herculean unless you apply for trademark.

What you've mentioned above would make the game be incompatible with the GPL or LGPL license which does not permit additional restrictions. For example, the GPL and LGPL license does not restrict the software licensed under it from being sold (at any price), however if a piece of software or it's assets or other agreements that are in place for it do prevent it from being sold (for commercial gain for example), that would have to be something retained and compatible with the copyright license terms applied to the product. But the GPL/LGPL forbid the addition of any additional restrictions over the terms specified in the GPL/LGPL. That is something people often get confused about however.

What you really need is a written agreement between the two parties which is on solid legal grounds and a binding contract. You really need to talk to an IP attourney in order to get this right as you're only likely to get all kinds of incorrect and misleading information from random folks such as ourselves over the Internet - as well intentioned as everyone might be (including myself). If you don't get an attourney to whip something up you may or may not end up with a proper legally binding document in the end, which if nothing ever becomes of it anyway wouldn't matter. But proper legal documents generally only end up mattering when there is a legal dispute about something - and not having correct legal documentation at that time is when the problems start to mount.

I'd definitely talk to an IP attourney, doesn't have to be some $$$ bigwig, just someone with experience with IP related issues that can provide advice for cheap or even potentially free. It's the only way to be sure and to have your ass covered. Anything else is just taking varying degrees of unnecessary risk IMHO and I couldn't recommend that. :)

I found this criteria for a consent document

1. The consent document must clearly identify the applicant’s mark. The application number(s) is sufficient. It is not essential to include the trade mark or to identify the earlier trade marks owned by the person giving consent.

2. The consent document must clearly identify the person giving consent and be signed by that person. Where the person giving consent is not recorded on the register as the owner of the mark, the letter should indicate that the person signing has the necessary authority to consent on behalf of the owner and proof of that authority should be supplied. For example, for corporate bodies, the person signing should indicate his or her name and position within the company, on official letter-headed paper or on paper carrying the company seal.

3. The consent document must relate to the registration of the applicant’s mark. The consent document may identify the goods and services. Where the consent document does not refer to the specification, IPONZ will assume that the applicant’s specification is acceptable to the party giving consent. However, if the owner of the cited mark consents to the registration of the applicant’s mark, but in respect of a narrower specification of goods or services than that originally applied for, then the applicant must request a limitation of its specification, pursuant to section 37(1) of the Act, so that the specification includes only those goods or services listed in the consent document.

A general letter of consent may be provided confirming that one party is prepared to consent to any trade mark applications made by another party. The general consent document must still meet the requirements above except that the general consent need not identify the applicant’s mark. The general consent document need only identify the applicant to whom the general consent is being given.

Whenever a copy of the general letter of consent is filed or referred to, the applicant or their agent must supply a covering letter certifying that the general consent is still valid and on which file the general consent is attached.

http://www.iponz.govt.nz/cms/trade-marks/practice-guidelines-index/practice-guidelines/10a-overcoming-a-citation/3-consent

Everyone seems to be worrying about covering for legal action, but from the sound of what you explained your just reviving abandonware and re-releasing it at no charge. If the original copyright owner doesn't mind your using it I don't think your agreement will have to be a rock solid legal wall just good enough to pass muster. Hope this helps and good luck.