License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Face]

So, you actually do need that exception.

If you want to enable a bundled distribution, you need the exception, making your project effectively unable to "simply" include other GPL material.

If you don't care about bundled distributions, you don't need the exception, making your project capable of "simply" including other GPL material. However, everybody bundling your addon with Orbiter would than violate the GPL.

With "simply" I mean something like "hey, folks, cool GPL lib you have there, would you mind me using it in my own GPL'ed Orbiter project here?"-"No, go ahead."

In the exception case, you would have to ask the lib holders to also allow redistribution with the exception, which would make it more of a hassle.

And just so nobody misunderstands me again: this is my understanding of it, my interpretation of the situation as argued here, my opinion. It is not a categorical statement that should be viewed as authoritative.

 

[Artlav]

So.... Anyone got a TL;DR for this thread?
Cause' you lost me around page 4.

 

[dseagrav]

So, you actually do need that exception.

Let me try again.

Remember that the Orbiter exception only covers distributing your addon together with Orbiter. Usage does not come into play.

If NASSP had an Orbiter exception, it can use only GPLed code that has an Orbiter exception. This is because I don't have the right to apply the exception to other peoples' work without their OK. I can have the exception, and I can apply it to NASSP, but there's nothing to stop the third-party copyright holders from pursuing litigation against someone who later distributes NASSP+Orbiter. If everyone approves of Orbiter, combined distribution is OK. If even one copyright holder doesn't approve, the whole thing is no go.

Since NASSP is vanilla GPL, I can use anything. The presence or absence of an Orbiter exception does not matter to me. Nobody can make a combined distribution, but this doesn't matter to us.

In neither scenario is an end-user's rights affected.

 

[Lisias]

So does this mean - again in your legally not binding or in any way restraining and jadajadayouarenotgoingtobesuedbyme OPINION - that my use of GPL for Ascension Ultra is making the license void? So that everybody wanting to re-distribute the project because he made changes to it is in danger of doing so illegally?

Not only in my opinion anymore. It appears that there is other guy around here stating that.

 

[dseagrav]

It doesn't matter how many people are wrong, they're still wrong.

 

[Urwumpe]

But seriously, I think you are right. Running to attorneys in order to get code released as open source is a non-starter, and will only split the community.

Actually, it might make the decision faster and easier, because it would result in a license that I won't support. :lol:

Not for technical or practical reasons. Just personal issues.

 

[dseagrav]

Running to attorneys in order to get code released as open source is a non-starter, and will only split the community.

What does this even mean?

NASSP is our work. We can release it under whatever license we like. It's none of "the community"'s business. It's been GPL v2 for almost ten years now and nobody has breathed a word of complaint until this week. Now all of a sudden we are attacking the community and encroaching upon your utopian society of license-free programmers.

I'm sorry I try to help make software people can use. What a criminal I am. I guess I should have just kept my work to myself where it would die without ever seeing the light of day.

None of you were contributing while I was out sick, none of you has put in any work, why do you get to decide for me what I should and shouldn't do? Screw you and the high horse you rode in on. Keep your fearmongering going, keep driving everyone away, then Orbiter will stagnate and die and you can keep it all to yourselves.

 

[jarmonik]

Let me try again.

I got it all wrong again :facepalm: Bundled Orbiter+GPL distribution was not my intention.

Is the linking exception to non-free modules like OrbiterSound also a bundled distribution exception ?

Here's a revised edition:

(removed)

 

[Face]

NASSP is our work. We can release it under whatever license we like. It's none of "the community"'s business. It's been GPL v2 for almost ten years now and nobody has breathed a word of complaint until this week. Now all of a sudden we are attacking the community and encroaching upon your utopian society of license-free programmers.

I'm sorry I try to help make software people can use. What a criminal I am. I guess I should have just kept my work to myself where it would die without ever seeing the light of day.

None of you were contributing while I was out sick, none of you has put in any work, why do you get to decide for me what I should and shouldn't do? Screw you and the high horse you rode in on. Keep your fearmongering going, keep driving everyone away, then Orbiter will stagnate and die and you can keep it all to yourselves.

I totally agree with your anger and I share it, too. This was what I meant with the statement... having to run to attorneys now out of a sudden to give something to the community will just split it. It is a non-starter solution to me, as in: I won't even start to think about doing it.

 

[dseagrav]

Is the linking exception to non-free modules like OrbiterSound also a bundled distribution exception ?

Yes.

The only time you have to make an exception to the GPL is if you wish to allow people to make a copy, modification, or distribution that would otherwise not be permitted. It is never necessary to modify the GPL to permit an end-user to do something, as the GPL does not restrict any end-user rights.

End-users are free to use NASSP with OrbiterSound. In fact, we require it to compile the software. We just don't distribute it together with NASSP.

---------- Post added at 05:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 AM ----------

I won't even start to think about doing it.

And that's what they want, they want Orbiter to be their private closed thing, where people like us aren't allowed because we might spread it too far and make it not special anymore.

You're supposed to give up and go away. That's why it's called FUD - It's spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

 

[jarmonik]

Yes.

The GPL FAQ speaks about linking and doesn't mention anything about bundled distribution. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.

Anything more and my head's gonna blow.

 

[Face]

Yes.

The only time you have to make an exception to the GPL is if you wish to allow people to make a copy, modification, or distribution that would otherwise not be permitted. It is never necessary to modify the GPL to permit an end-user to do something, as the GPL does not restrict any end-user rights.

End-users are free to use NASSP with OrbiterSound. In fact, we require it to compile the software. We just don't distribute it together with NASSP.

---------- Post added at 05:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 AM ----------



And that's what they want, they want Orbiter to be their private closed thing, where people like us aren't allowed because we might spread it too far and make it not special anymore.

You're supposed to give up and go away. That's why it's called FUD - It's spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

I am in totally agreement with you. I also see it as FUD tactics. But I really get the saddening impression that it works here, because obviously it was brought up again and again, and still a suggestion to a newbie to use GPL triggers a emotion-laden discussion like this.

This is also what I meant with "dismissive advice". I'll state it in German now first, so people hopefully don't get upset with personal affronts anymore: "In der Orbiter Community wird GPL als Lizenz für Addins/Plugins eher ablehnend bewertet. Wird diese erwähnt, so ist prompt mit einem Hinweis über die mangelnde 'Legitimität' zu rechnen."

Trying a translation now: "GPL used as license for addins/plugins is more or less dismissed in the Orbiter community. If you mention it, chances are you get advised about its questionable 'legitimacy' promptly." But then I'm not so good at translation from German to English. Feel free to correct me on this!

 

[dseagrav]

The GPL FAQ speaks about linking and doesn't mention anything about bundled distribution.

Yeah, this is what confused everyone (including me) in the beginning, and had me panic about the idea of having to relicense NASSP.

It isn't mentioned because it's taken care of higher up, in the list of what the GPL covers. From the GPL itself:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted

So unless you are engaged in copying, distribution, or modification of the program, you don't have to worry about linking. The act of running the program is directly stated as unrestricted.

 

[Athena]

So.... Anyone got a TL;DR for this thread?
Cause' you lost me around page 4.

Yeah, tried to catch up as to reading the discussion and I totally lost it at page 9.

 

[jarmonik]

So, we went through this due to pure miss understandings. The case is closed my behave. GPL is OK.

 

[kamaz]

I also understand it that way. The exception is only necessary if you want to enable legal distribution of your addon together with Orbiter itself. If you don't mind that, you can just use the GPL, because it is "totally fine" for Orbiter addons.

No, the real reason the exception is necessary is that FSF keeps proclaiming its fantasy that "every dynamic linking constitutes a derivative work" and there is a group of loud people with zero knowledge of copyright law who will flame you into submission unless you bow to this fantasy.

BTW, you could plausibly argue that shipping GPL'd add-on together with Orbiter is allowed by the license under the "mere aggregation" clause.

 

[Lisias]

The GPL is fine. The "current practices" (they sure as hell aren't MY practices) are not.

It's also a valid point of view. We are biased differently - you towards GPL, me towards the current practices (at least, the defensible ones).

OR if the code you are using is under a GPL-compatible license. If something is GPL or LGPL, I don't have to have explicit permission.

If the code I'm using is already GPL, I already had the explicit consent given by the GPL License.

Such a license would be very dangerous; Implied consent in and of itself is dangerous. What do you do if Doc Martin passes away and his inheritors decide to interpret your verbal differently? Or deny it ever existed? You're up a creek without a paddle. This is why most Linux distributions won't bundle software without a clear license.

As far as I know, they would withdraw the permission, but would not retroactively change that permission - but I must desist in keep distributing such material nevertheless.

The worst I think that could happen in such situation will be the same that would happen if Mr. Schweiger decides to withdraw Orbiter from distribution. A risk that all of us are exposed, no matter the license you choose in your add-on.

In any event, Doc Martin's "All Rights Reserved" is clear and unambiguous. He reserves all rights. You have none. He may not have INTENDED this, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

So your conclusions are severer than mine. (not making judgment of value about them, just stating the severity).

(From this point out: "assets" means the artwork and sounds and such associated with a project. Basically, that which isn't code.)

There's also nothing that says you HAVE to apply the GPL to your assets. It's YOUR license, and YOU decide what it applies to. You just can't apply it to only part of a program/library. You can GPL your code and CC BY-NC-ND your assets. You can distribute them in the same archive. It's your copyright. Problem solved. The only thing you can't do is relicense someone else's work without their permission.

Good to know. So all that the guy has to do is to enumerate what artifacts are covered by the GPL, and what ones are not (and state the license to that artifacts), I'm correct?

If by some reason, one given artifact is not listed in the LICENSE STATEMENT, where each one of the artifacts should be listed with his respective license, what would be the legal status of such artifact? It would prevent the package to be distributed?

There is no license, or no other legal document, that is totally fine to be accepted or applied without consideration. It is not the GPL's fault that you have to think carefully about what rights you give others with respect to your work.

It's not the hammer's fault not being fine to be used with screws - the fault lays on the guy that claimed that using hammer on screws is fine.

I got it.

But still, using hammers on screws is not fine.

Of course not. You're doing your best to drive us away.

You are shooting the messenger. And you are giving me too much credit.

I'm doing my best to vocalize what I understand being the concernings of the guys that develops add-ons around here.

If this drives you away, I can only regret. As I will regret driving them away by forcing them into a lot of legal actions just to cut their teeth on some Orbiter development and share it.

How can you not? The GPL is totally fine to be used with Orbiter add-ons. The fact that some people don't want to use it doesn't change this. The fact that other people have sloppy releases and don't want to share their artwork does not change MY obligations to anyone.

This is not about you. Not about you at all. Nobody are talking about your obligations.

What I understand we must be talking is about what would be the developer add-ons obligations that, as you state before, are not being fulfilled.

The GPL does not create any additional liability that you would not already otherwise have. There is no license that will permit you to release works you do not have permission to release. There is no means by which you can relicense someone else's work without their consent.

I want to bring again to your attention that as far as I understand, the vast majority of the resource sharing I saw here occurred under permission.

Informal, sometimes implicit, and at least one appears to be indefensible - but every resource sharing I saw here until the moment were done by mutual consent.

I agree that no license can possibly grant you the right to grant rights that you don't have (ugh).

But the rights to use and distribute the material were granted in all the cases I saw here - people asks for using the mesh, people asks for the source code by email, people exchange snippets of code by email and by forum in order to help the fellow orbiter on completing his add-on.

Aside Mr. Schweiger's code (that explicitly reserved all the rights and, by following your statements, there's no way to legally use this code), there are consent, permission and authorization to use each other code and assets around here.

It just happens that they not fulfil GPL requirements.

Blaming the GPL for this is shooting the messenger.

I agree. GPL is not at fault here. Never was (and I'm repeating myself ad nauseam on this).

People that uses GPL without fulfilling its terms can be the ones in fault here.

 

[Face]

Not only in my opinion anymore. It appears that there is other guy around here stating that.

Almost missed that. Who do you mean? If you mean dseagrav, I'll be confused again.

 

[kamaz]

GPL is OK.

Except that FSF believes that it isn't.

But unless your add-on contains code authored by FSF, you can simply ignore them.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

So.... Anyone got a TL;DR for this thread?
Cause' you lost me around page 4.

Here is a write-up concerning the same controversy in a different context:

https://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/

 

[dseagrav]

Good to know. So all that the guy has to do is to enumerate what artifacts are covered by the GPL, and what ones are not (and state the license to that artifacts), I'm correct?

Doing it in plain English by the usual means is fine. You could put a file at the top level saying "The code is GPL V3, everything else is CC-BY-SA" and that will do. You could put license statements at the top of each file. You could put a file in each directory with the license for that directory. You do not have to make an exhaustive list. YOU are the one issuing the license. You are not subject to it, you already have all the rights.

If by some reason, one given artifact is not listed in the LICENSE STATEMENT, where each one of the artifacts should be listed with his respective license, what would be the legal status of such artifact? It would prevent the package to be distributed?

No. It's whatever you intended for it to be, unless you didn't make it, then it's whatever the author intended it to be.

I beg your pardon, but as far as I understand, the vast majority of the resource sharing I saw here occurred under permission. Informal, sometimes implicit, and at least one appears to be indefensible - but every resource sharing I saw here until the moment were done by mutual consent.

Then that is fine! If you know that someone isn't going to sue you for using their code in your GPL project, then you can use it. The only thing that comes into play is that YOU can't decide the license on someone else's behalf. If someone gives you a file and says you can use it, and they have a valid right to make that statement, then you can use it. As long as there isn't a contradicting statement elsewhere, you are OK. The FSF are not going to go through every file in your releases checking for a valid legal right to distribute.

It just happens that they not fulfil GPL requirements.

What requirements? All you have to have is the right to use the item you are publishing in the manner you are telling others is OK. If someone gives you a file that they have created and says you can use it in your GPL project, then you can use it. Period.

The only thing you cannot do with the GPL is use something without someone's permission. It doesn't matter how you get that permission so long as you have it. It's best if you can PROVE it in case their inheritors come along and want money, but even that's not really necessary.

The GPL is not something YOU as the addon developer are subject to. The GPL is something that descibes what other people can do with your addon.
YOU are the one granting the rights, not the FSF!