License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[dseagrav]

The FSF can sue you, simply because you have entered a licensing relationship with them and are using their code in a ways they don't approve.

The GPL doesn't have a termination clause that would permit the FSF to rescind it against me. I have to violate the license for it to be terminated. This makes the copyright holder's approval or disapproval even more irrelevant. If I am not violating the license, I am safe. Any attempt to sue me despite this will fail.

 

[Face]

I come back after less than 24 hours and this thread has 8 more pages of posts....

What happened? :lol:

Nobody got shot, at least.

Wait... messengers were shot, but fortunately they survived...

Ok, so, correction: nobody died, at least.

 

[dseagrav]

Another thing - FSF's stance against dynamic linking is based on protection against threats to the Free Software community. Nothing I am doing presents such a threat. The interface I am using to communicate with Orbiter is published. There is nothing to prevent an enterprising group of Free Software advocates from creating a Free Software spaceflight simulator that implements a compatible API, and there is nothing I am doing to lock myself into working only under Orbiter. If anything, the large ecosystem of Orbiter addons would create ideal conditions for a proliferation of compatible simulators, should someone desire to write one. The non-existence of such a Free Software alternative is not my fault.

---------- Post added at 10:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

Nobody got shot, at least.

Only because it is not yet possible to shoot someone in the face over the internet.

One of these days someone will invent such a thing, and they will become a billionaire. And then get shot in the face over the internet.

 

[kamaz]

Avoiding GPL'd or FSF code because someone might file a lawsuit they're almost certain to lose is pointless.

I'm just pointing out that there are different levels of risk involved:

own code < third party BSD/MIT/LGPL code < third party GPL code < FSF's GPL code

 

[Lisias]

But, if you are a copyright holder of the GPL'd add-on, then you can distribute the combo, simply because even if such action were a violation of GPL, you are not going to sue yourself.

I would like to dispute that affirmation uniquely on an intellectual exercise basis. (assuming, of course, that I still have an intellect to exercise)

I agree that only the copyright holder, you, would be able to sue you(relf) for copyright infringement if such a combo is not legally possible (one possible situation stated in the parent post).

But it's being sued by the Copyright Act the only concerning?

There's a strange law around here (my country loves being ruled by such laws) that states the you are not entitled to waive some guarantees. If you send me legally a copy (no matter the reason) of a software you made stating what the thing does, and by using this software the thing doesn't do what is expected and somehow I was in prejudice, I'm entitled to sue you.

Ok, my country is nuts (no argument here). But I doubt nuttiness is something inherent to my fellow citizens.

There's no chance that you could be sued by some other means?

All your end users are not allowed, under the GPL, to further distribute the combo as expected, and since the GPL can be not applied when distributed under GPL terms violation, chances are that your end users doesn't have even the usage rights about your software.

By knowingly and willingly proceeding in distributing such combo to your end users, there's no situation in which one of them could, rightfully and with the support of the Law, sue you?

 

[meson800]

Is this whole additional discussion based on the fact that most addons at one time used the SDK examples?

 

[Lisias]

Nobody got shot, at least.

Wait... messengers were shot, but fortunately they survived...

Ok, so, correction: nobody died, at least.

But I will probably sleep on my stomach tonight. :rofl:

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

Is this whole additional discussion based on the fact that most addons at one time used the SDK examples?

Yes. Some still are, by the way.

---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

Next time someone asks me why NASSP is taking so long I'm pointing them to this thread.

Ninja Edit: Would that be cruel and unusual punishment?

Call me here and I will probably make it so.

 

[meson800]

If you want to bring down the entire Orbiter add-on community -- by all means please do. I have actually met these people (including in person) and I know what they are capable of: a massive flame war which will end up with everyone packing up their toys and going home. Been there, done that.

Let's have that not happen :thumbup:

Is it still true that the only possible issue is a redistributed Orbiter+GPL addon combo, where one of the copyright owners is not one of the addon devs?

So all this arguing over martins's "All Rights Reserved" code is null and void unless someone is packaging Orbiter+addon packages?

 

[kamaz]

There's a strange law around here (my country loves being ruled by such laws) that states the you are not entitled to waive some guarantees.

But that has nothing to do with GPL.

I'm responsing to the argument that GPL should not be used for Orbiter add-ons, because linking to the non-free core causes non-compliance with the GPL. My answer to that is: even if it were causing non-compliance (which I stronly doubt), so what? If it's all my code, the only person which can sue me is myself.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Is it still true that the only possible issue is a redistributed Orbiter+GPL addon combo, where one of the copyright owners is not one of the addon devs?

The other risky situation is using third-party GPL'd code in a GPL'd addon, because FSF says that GPL'd addons are a no-no. That said, their argument does not really hold water, so they would likely lose in court (and they probably know it).

So all this arguing over martins's "All Rights Reserved" code is null and void

Largely yes, see #210, #211, #212.

 

[Face]

Is it still true that the only possible issue is a redistributed Orbiter+GPL addon combo, where one of the copyright owners is not one of the addon devs?

So all this arguing over martins's "All Rights Reserved" code is null and void unless someone is packaging Orbiter+addon packages?

Thanks for reminding. The discussion got away from that detail.

 

[Lisias]

So all this arguing over martins's "All Rights Reserved" code is null and void unless someone is packaging Orbiter+addon packages?

My initial argument was that such code could not be licensed under the GPL.

It was counter (or over?) argumented that it is a lot worst. Such code is a legal liability under the Copyright Act itself without any mitigation (not sure if "mitigation" is the right word).

But granted, only Mr. Schweiger would be entitled to pursue and he is not slightly interested in doing that (as far as I know).

But there can be a day in which by any means (as Mr Schweiger retiring and selling/giving/I don't know Orbiter to someone else), a new copyright holder decides it could be a viable source of incoming suing everybody.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

But that has nothing to do with GPL.

I'm responsing to the argument that GPL should not be used for Orbiter add-ons, because linking to the non-free core causes non-compliance with the GPL. My answer to that is: even if it were causing non-compliance (which I stronly doubt), so what? If it's all my code, the only person which can sue me is myself.

No doubt about that, being that reason that I did the arguing in pure intellectual exercise spirit.

I would like to hear what would be the possibilities - my legal system is somewhat (to say the least) different from yours (Common Law).

Under no circumstances I intended to dispute any affirmation of yours.

 

[kamaz]

It was counter (or over?) argumented that it is a lot worst. Such code is a legal liability under the Copyright Act itself without any mitigation (not sure if "mitigation" is the right word).

And all it would take to fix this is ask Mr. Schweiger to issue license clarification for SDK samples.

Why don't you go ahead and do this instead of arguing with me?

I would like to hear what would be the possibilities - my legal system is somewhat (to say the least) different from yours (Common Law).

We're both under civil law, actually.

And copyright law in basic aspects is the same everywhere.

 

[Lisias]

And all it would take to fix this is ask Mr. Schweiger to issue license clarification for SDK samples.

Why don't you go ahead and do this instead of arguing with me?

And then I took a good dosis from my own medicine. :lol:

That paragraph was intended to answer meson800's question, not intended to argue you.

I was not trying to argument about Mr. Schweiger suing us or not under the Copyright Act.

I intended to argue about how other ways one could be, plausibly without being promptly dismissed by the Judge, sued under such situation. But that was only an "intellectual exercise", this thread doesn't need such argumentation.

Never mind that.

 

[meson800]

We should still ask Dr. Schweiger for his clarification on the SDK samples.

I wonder if saying Orbiter three times summons martins, like gpl gpl gpl summons face.... :hmm:

Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter!

 

[kamaz]

I was not trying to argument about Mr. Schweiger suing us or not under the Copyright Act.

Oh, neither did I.

But you have correctly identified that there is a problem with license of SDK samples. Now: what about trying to fix this?

 

[Lisias]

Oh, neither did I.

But you have correctly identified that there is a problem with license of SDK samples. Now: what about trying to fix this?

And I took yet another dose from my own medicine.

You are damn right, I'm talking too much and doing too few.

 

[Face]

We should still ask Dr. Schweiger for his clarification on the SDK samples.

I wonder if saying Orbiter three times summons martins, like gpl gpl gpl summons face.... :hmm:

Orbiter Orbiter Orbiter!

You've missed the part about the mirror. Now let's not get sloppy with our voodoo.

 

[Xyon]

While we wait for the Doctor to see this thread, I have some questions for the developers at large concerning licensing and OHM, as I am (slowly) building a new version of OHM and feel it would be beneficial to add license information to each addon at the OHM level.

The way I see it working is thus:

1. "Uploader" (not necessarily developer) creates a new addon and uploads files to it.
2. Uploader can then set the same sort of options now while the files are processed (more on this elsewhere); pictures, descriptions etc.
3. At the addon upload or modify screens, the uploader can specify software licensing, to different elements of the addon; so, for instance, the "code" could be set "GPL" and the "assets" could be "CC-BY-NC-ND" or something along those lines. Choose from predefined options or enter a bespoke value. (Note that we have already discussed the concept of "development groups" owning the addon itself, and thus multiple authors being credited for the addon)
4. If the license is something like "GPL", the uploader can specify that OHM should bundle the license in with the addon package (this is a requirement of the license, but it might be that the packager has not added it, so OHM could take care of that).
5. Once submitted, the license selected is marked against the addon. Users can see the selected license (both the fact that it is, for instance, GPL, and the actual license text) and optionally (at the uploader's selection) when a restrictive license is selected a warning can be shown about the distribution license when the files are downloaded (a reminder not to bundle a GPL'ed addon with non-GPL'ed addons in a release bundle, for instance)

Would this be a beneficial feature, or a waste of time? Would you want it any differently?

 

[SolarLiner]

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

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=511419#post511419

We are discussing about license issues that actually are none, because we are not distributing add ons with Orbiter.

 

[meson800]

3 sounds convenient, as it would make it very clear what the license would be without downloading. It's similar to what Github asks you to select when you create a new repo.

4 sounds like it wouldn't be used often. I would think most people already bundle the license text with it, so it wouldn't be utilized much.

1 and 2 it would just have to be clear that the "uploader" has the consent of all the copyright holders (but that's already part of the OH upload rules anyway)

Note that we have already discussed the concept of "development groups" owning the addon itself, and thus multiple authors being credited for the addon

That would be awesome