License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Lisias]

[*]"Uploader" (not necessarily developer) creates a new addon and uploads files to it.

If the guy developed an add-on, the guy is a Add-on Developer.

We, Software Developers, are used to using Developer as a acronym for Software Developer. But there're other roles for development.

But I don't have any specific desire to see them called "developers". I would perfectly fine on calling them Add-On Builders.

I just found undesired calling them only "uploaders".

(On a second thought, Builder can be a better name....)

[*]Uploader can then set the same sort of options now while the files are processed (more on this elsewhere); pictures, descriptions etc.

[*]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)

Sounds nice. But the Add-On should have a copy of these information on the zip file itself, and the page where he is setting this options must state that.

Once you download the add-on, there's no way to link the .zip to the licensing terms you accepts by downloading the zip.

[*]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).

In my opinion, it should not be something like GPL. If should be anything that fits Orbiter Hangar best. Double Licensing is an option, and it's easier to cope a Double Licensed code to GPL (I want it, I do it - it's that simple) than to invent a new license that fits you and also is compatible with GPL.

GPL *is tricky*.

Giving the Builder/Developer/Uploader/<???:> the option to use more than one license on this artifacts appears to be a better solution.

[*]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 add-ons in a release bundle, for instance)

I would like to make this a N<>N relation. "Once submitted, the licenses selected are marked <blablablabla>"

I nice touch this remind talking about the restrictions applied to the bundle. Nice idea!

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

I don't see any hurt coming of this. I can see some useful and beneficial effects (as alerting the Orbiter user about what can be done with the bundle *before* downloading it).

I see no reason to do not do it.

But IMHO would be a good idea to, additionally, propose a Standard Orbiter Hangar license to be used by default, and saving the Uploader/Builder/Developer/<????> the burden to learn about this licensing mumbe-jumbo . Such a license should be hightly restrictive in order to protect the casual developer (that knows squat about the matter) from "over-releasing" some copyrighted material of his.

You know, there're people that make a live building meshes, textures and images. These guys don't want to see a work of them being used commercially for free. Graphical Artists are workers too.

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 PM ----------

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

I beg to differ. Orbiter was never been at risk.

The legality of the Add-Ons was being discussed.

Imagine a World where no one could legally possessing add-ons for Orbiter - and by using, you would be liable for software piracy.

What can be a nasty problem, for example, in Australia.

The Copyright Act 1968 similarly provides for criminal sanctions. Under this Act it is an offence to:

knowingly import, possess, sell, distribute or commercially deal with an infringing copy

You would be incurring in error if you think that your problems are just GPL complying or USA Copyright Act overcoming.

Software Piracy is a felony.

 

[Face]

In my opinion, it should not be something like GPL. If should be anything that fits Orbiter Hangar best.

Do you propose that GPL should be forbidden on OHM? Or just not listed as one of the "default" licenses?

---------- Post added at 16:32 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------

Software Piracy is a felony.

Do you think that the act of violating GPL licenses with software that is completely free (as in beer) to begin with is piracy?

 

[Lisias]

Do you propose that GPL should be forbidden on OHM? Or just not listed as one of the "default" licenses?

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY before making such statements. I also state in my original post:

Giving the Builder/Developer/Uploader/<???:> the option to use more than one license on this artifacts appears to be a better solution.

THE WHOLE SOLUTION given by Xyon mentions more than one license, GPL being one of them. I was proposing ANOTHER LICENSE to be used by default for the guys that don't want to deal with such mess.

 

[Xyon]

If the guy developed an add-on, the guy is a Add-on Developer.

We, Software Developers, are used to using Developer as a acronym for Software Developer. But there're other roles for development.

But I don't have any specific desire to see them called "developers". I would perfectly fine on calling them Add-On Builders.

I just found undesired calling them only "uploaders".


(On a second thought, Builder can be a better name....)

See the ticket here for a rationale on that terminology.

Sounds nice. But the Add-On should have a copy of these information on the zip file itself, and the page where he is setting this options must state that.

Once you download the add-on, there's no way to link the .zip to the licensing terms you accepts by downloading the zip.

That's correct, depending on the license. OHM will be capable of opening up submitted .zip files (and potentially verifying that the selected license is present, and inserting a copy if not).

In my opinion, it should not be something like GPL. If should be anything that fits Orbiter Hangar best. Double Licensing is an option, and it's easier to cope a Double Licensed code to GPL (I want it, I do it - it's that simple) than to invent a new license that fits you and also is compatible with GPL.

GPL *is tricky*.

Giving the Builder/Developer/Uploader/<???:> the option to use more than one license on this artifacts appears to be a better solution.

That decision rests with the author(s) of the work in question. My aim with the feature in OHM is to give as many options as possible to the content creators, rather than impose mine or anyone else's opinions about software licensing to their work (hence the "bespoke" licensing options).

I would like to make this a N<>N relation. "Once submitted, the licenses selected are marked <blablablabla>"

Naturally, if you have multiple licenses, you'll see them reflected in the addon (where this doesn't cause a licensing problem in itself, of course, in which case you'll get an error).

But IMHO would be a good idea to, additionally, propose a Standard Orbiter Hangar license to be used by default, and saving the Uploader/Builder/Developer/<????> the burden to learn about this licensing mumbe-jumbo . Such a license should be hightly restrictive in order to protect the casual developer (that knows squat about the matter) from "over-releasing" some copyrighted material of his.

Good point.

You know, there're people that make a live building meshes, textures and images. These guys don't want to see a work of them being used commercially for free. Graphical Artists are workers too.

Naturally. The point about credit, and the issue of actually licensing an addon, isn't part of OHM's responsibility; if you are uploading a work, you are stating you have the necessary permission from the content creator(s) to do so. Likewise, if you apply a license to that work, you are stating that you have the same permission from the content creator(s). If you don't, then you don't have the right to apply a license to it, as I understand the matter.

 

[Lisias]

Do you think that the act of violating GPL licenses with software that is completely free (as in beer) to begin with is piracy?

What I think is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

The Australian Law says that YES, it's a criminal offense to merely possessing software in copyright infringement.

This is not about me. You gives me too much credit.

On the other hand, if you asked me "Do you think that the Australian Law is right on thinking that an stupid mistake made on licensing a Free Software bundle is a criminal offense?", I would gladly reply: "THIS IS NUTS."

But again - I'm not an Australian Legislator. What I think is irrelevant: if you are in Australia, I strongly recommend you to ignore what I'm thinking and to obey that law. It's *YOU*, fellow australian, that it' facing the possibility to being prosecuted, not me.

 

[Face]

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY before making such statements.

What statements? I asked two questions there. Would you please stop shouting at me for asking questions? ALL CAPS is seen as that in text messages, you know.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:06 ----------

What I think is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Not to me. That's why I'm asking you questions. Sorry for listening!

It's *YOU*, fellow australian, that it' facing the possibility to being prosecuted, not me.

Then I'm happy to not be australian, but austrian :lol: . Big differences, it seems.

 

[Lisias]

See the ticket here for a rationale on that terminology.

Understood. I withdraw my suggestion.

That's correct, depending on the license. OHM will be capable of opening up submitted .zip files (and potentially verifying that the selected license is present, and inserting a copy if not).

That would be a nice feature, indeed. But I'm unrest about the consequences.

I know I'm being picky, but the law is picky - and I hate being poked by the law (it usually hurts).

Imagine somehow that the uploader mess up the setup, and OHM inserts two conflicting licenses in the bundle. Who made the mess? Can you prove it?

Because unless you can prove beyond doubt that the uploader did such mistake, you made it.

That decision rests with the author(s) of the work in question. My aim with the feature in OHM is to give as many options as possible to the content creators, rather than impose mine or anyone else's opinions about software licensing to their work (hence the "bespoke" licensing options).

Being the exact reason you should not take default actions on "things like GPL" - GPL ties you up into the concept of Free Software, forcing you to be bounded forever to it.

You should be very careful about everything that is "something like GPL".

If IT IS GPL, do a set of actions that make GPL happy. IF IT IS BSD, do another set of actions. If you don't know what it is, ask uploaders about what to do or create a set of actions to be done by default - being this last set of actions the most restrictive you could without denying the purpose of the bundle.

GPL *is tricky*.

Naturally, if you have multiple licenses, you'll see them reflected in the addon (where this doesn't cause a licensing problem in itself, of course, in which case you'll get an error).

yep. The point is to guarantee that any possible errors that would be made, lays on the uploader - so any eventual problem will be solved easily by taking down the bundle and re-uploading.

Things became a little more messy if you, the host, make the mistake. This creates more liability to the host, as being the responsible for the involuntary infringement and, so, by eventual (hypothetical) losses.

Naturally. The point about credit, and the issue of actually licensing an addon, isn't part of OHM's responsibility;

Agreed. Being that the reason I'm suggesting that you be very careful to avoid any action that would bring such a burden to OHM.

if you are uploading a work, you are stating you have the necessary permission from the content creator(s) to do so.

This is common sense - you should be right, but sometimes laws and regulations goes beyond the common sense.

(and this is why I suggested that OHM does not inserts any kind of file on the bundle - search for the files that you want there, and if don't find, refuses the bundle)

Likewise, if you apply a license to that work, you are stating that you have the same permission from the content creator(s). If you don't, then you don't have the right to apply a license to it, as I understand the matter.

yes, is exactly this as far as I understand. But since a lot of uploaders are not software developers, many of them don't follow what we are discussing here.

So my concernings is that by some reason, these set of options and actions you are proposing leads them into releasing their work on terms that they don't want to - being this the reason I freak-out when you said "something like GPL", a license rightly demanding on such terms.

Imagine this Scenario: a 3D modeller uses a mesh of his in an add-on, you find this licensing terms "something like GPL", and *you* flags his contents as freely distributed and usable under "GPL like rights". Other guy use that mesh on a commercial solution (what's perfectly acceptable by GPL) and the first guy loses a commercial opportunity.

Do you want to be dragged into such a mess?

Would be it your fault? I think not. But the guy will blame you nevertheless.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------

What statements? I asked two questions there. Would you please stop shouting at me for asking questions? ALL CAPS is seen as that in text messages, you know.
[....]

Not to me. That's why I'm asking you questions. Sorry for listening!

I beg your pardon. I already saw enough people losing piles of time and/or money for small mistakes and subitities while dealing with licensing. Everytime I'm talking about laws and regulations, I became paranoid.

I was dragged, once, into a situation that could cost me a lot of money because someone asked me about my opinion about something that was also a criminal offense - and then I was accused of a felony named "crime apology" or "crime invitation" (unsure how to translate this to English). What's a felony itself on some countries.

This cost me a lot of trouble, and could had cost me a considerable amount of money.

I'll do my best to avoid such reactions on the future.

Then I'm happy to not be australian, but austrian :lol: . Big differences, it seems.

It appears to me that perhaps not that much. Assuming this text reflects the reality (and I don't have the meanings to know), if you have the intention and distribute it, then you can be charged of criminal offense in your country too.

But again, my comment reflects what I had read in this link - I don't have the slightest clue if that content is trustable or just a pile of nicely written nonsense.

 

[Face]

I beg your pardon. I already saw enough people losing piles of time and/or money for small mistakes and subitities while dealing with licensing. Everytime I'm talking about laws and regulations, I became paranoid.

Exactly due to this mistakes and subtleties, I try to understand what you are saying BEFORE making statements. I think the best approach to do this is to reformulate the sentence as I understand it, then ask if this is what you meant. If my formulation is wrong, just say so.

I'll do my best to avoid such reactions on the future.

Thank you very much.

It appears to me that perhaps not that much. Assuming this text reflects the reality (and I don't have the meanings to know), if you have the intention and distribute it, then you can be charged of criminal offense in your country too.

You wrote that the australian law text says that it's a criminal offense to merely possessing software in copyright infringement. That's a different statement than "if you have the intention and distribute it, then you can be charged of criminal offense". This is again mixing usage and distribution, which was your fallacy (fallacy means "Trugschluss" in German, it is not meant as an offense at all!) in the beginning of the thread already.

 

[Lisias]

Exactly due to this mistakes and subtleties, I try to understand what you are saying BEFORE making statements. I think the best approach to do this is to reformulate the sentence as I understand it, then ask if this is what you meant. If my formulation is wrong, just say so.

And please call my attention when I fail to do the same.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

You wrote that the australian law text says that it's a criminal offense to merely possessing software in copyright infringement. That's a different statement than "if you have the intention and distribute it, then you can be charged of criminal offense". This is again mixing usage and distribution, which was your fallacy (fallacy means "Trugschluss" in German, it is not meant as an offense at all!) in the beginning of the thread already.

This is when a well paid lawyer can play havoc with your pockets.

In Australia, just the possession is already a felony.

In Austria (and based only in that link), you can possess such material (and, so, even use it) without being a felon.

But if you give it to someone, I think it says you are a felon.

Now follow me in my rationale: the law says you are a felon by intently distributing copyright infringing material - it does not says intently and being aware of distributing copyright infringing material.

It just says intently distribution.

So, you host a site and some moron uploads a file. You, intentionally redistributes the file (you even writes a review for it). 10.000 downloads after, you are informed that file infringes someone's copyright, and the claims is valid.

You are a felon or not? **** Se the bottom of this post.

Now, let's bring this matter to another ground - in a pure intellectual exercise.

John sold a computer and got paid in 10 false 100 hundred bucks bills. John tries to buy something with that money, and the shop owner called the police. John made something wrong?

Unfortunately, yes. It's a severe felony to distribute fake money. John will have to prove that he did it without intention, and by succeeding on it he will avoid prison time.

But it will be punished anyway - he will surrender the fake bills without "refund". It's up to him to get the (real) money from the computer buyer by suing the guy - but chances are that the best he can expect is to get the computer back, as the buyer will probably be arrested by that time.

The bottom line is: you *can* be a felon without knowing it. Your ignorance could be used to attenuate your punishment, but not for excusing you from being punished by the felony.

---------- Post added at 07:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

This is again mixing usage and distribution, which was your fallacy (fallacy means "Trugschluss" in German, it is not meant as an offense at all!) in the beginning of the thread already.

I think you misunderstood everything. In any moment, usage was considered in my arguments.

In Australia, the possession of such material is a felony - the usage is not mentioned. Since it's impossible to use something without somehow possessing it, you cannot use copyright infringing material without being a felony first by possessing the material.

In Austria, the possession of such material is not a felony. So, as it appears, you are allowed to receive and use such material without being a felon (the other guy is to blame). But if you give a copy of such material to anyone, then you are this other guy to be blamed.

There's no double that in Australia the law is a lot harsher. But I don't see the Austria's law being benevolent neither.

So I don't understand your choice of using the word fallacy to my argumentation. Au contraire, your choice to bring use to a discussion where my concerning where possession (and posterior distribution) can be saw as a deception (one possible meaning for fallacy) or false conclusion (one possible meaning for Trugschluss).

--- DISCLAIMER ----

I added "(and posterior distribution)" some minutes after posting this by the first time.


---- BOTTOM OF THIS POST ----

(added some 4 hours after the posting)

I was "fishing" when I made that statement. Since nobody bitten the bait , I will expose my failed attempt of being a jerk

You are not a felon by did allowed that 10.000 downloads. But from the 10.001th and forward downloads, you will be liable. But not because of some common sense, but because someone wrote a Law that says so, and some others are making a living on it.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I find this thread more convoluted every time I read through it. It's almost leading me to believe it would be easier and less headache to not release the things I'm working unless I have 30+ pages of detailed license and EULA that most users aren't going to read anyway.

Any addon I make is firstly for my own will and pleasure. If someone else wants to use it I am 100% OK with it. The chances of them making any monetary gain with my crappy addon in somewhere around nil. Almost every Orbiter video I've ever seen lists what addons (and the authors) were used in the video and points to the 'hangar.

This whole license X+ License Y is legal unless Z comes over to party bringing liquid beverage Y. In which case if you live in county L you're OK but it's a felony in country S, but it's only a misdemeanor in countries M, N, O and P (sheesh, driving me to drink; admittedly it doesn't take much).

To the best of my knowledge and belief we don't have this problem often in our little community. Piracy is pretty much self-policed by the users here and when it happens (and gets reported) the investigation is usually fairly quick. Some of our contributers are in their teens; asking them to decipher international copyright law before adding an XR-2 repaint is something that (I think) may scare them away from doing so.

I think laws are written in such language to keep other lawyers in business, and I say this knowing many of them (probably 100 or so) and actually friends with a few.

 

[Lisias]

Now that (I think) the harsh implications of distributing copyright infringing material (inclusive in Austria) appears to be clarified, can we please go back to discuss Xyon's proposal?

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------

Any addon I make is firstly for my own will and pleasure. If someone else wants to use it I am 100% OK with it. The chances of them making any monetary gain with my crappy addon in somewhere around nil. Almost every Orbiter video I've ever seen lists what addons (and the authors) were used in the video and points to the 'hangar.

Exactly my point. An "Standard Orbiter Hangar License" being using by default to all add-ons, where the rights to Download, Use it on Orbiter and (optionally) further distribute it (as long the bundled contents as not touched neither incorporated in other bundles, and only using in Orbiter) will do.

If the guy plans to waive further rights to the end user, double dual license it and we are all done!

---- and yet another edit ----

As it appears, "dual licensing" is the correct way to call what I was meaning by "double licensing". I don't understand why, but I'll try to prevent further confusion in the future.

 

[Face]

So, you host a site and some moron uploads a file. You, intentionally redistributes the file (you even writes a review for it). 10.000 downloads after, you are informed that file infringes someone's copyright, and the claims is valid.

You are a felon or not?

Not here, at least. This example of yours would fall under "Treu und Glauben", meaning that you trust the original authors that their statement (about the valid copyright) is true. If it turns out to be false, the original author might be in troubles, but you as re-distributor are no felon... yet. If you got informed that it is invalid, but you are not "unverzüglich" (meaning is like "immediate", but a bit more focused on the degree of possibility of this immediate action) taking the redistribution down, only then you might be a felon, which term always depends on whether or not you got finally convicted. As long as he/she is not finally convicted, calling him/her a felon is actually something you can be sued for here ("Unschuldsvermutung").

It now seems to me that law in your country is really, really weird, otherwise I can't really explain your view on some legal situations. No wonder you are so hurt about legalese, I'm sorry for what you must have been through there. Makes me almost ashamed now for bitching about my country's copyright law before. :tiphat:

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:26 ----------

I find this thread more convoluted every time I read through it. It's almost leading me to believe it would be easier and less headache to not release the things I'm working unless I have 30+ pages of detailed license and EULA that most users aren't going to read anyway.

My impression exactly.

 

[Lisias]

Not here, at least. This example of yours would fall under "Treu und Glauben", [...] Makes me almost ashamed now for bitching about my countries copyright law before. :tiphat:

I'm migrating to Austria. Where I apply a request?

--- EDIT ----

I was the guy requesting to go back to Xyon's proposal, and I am the guy that further drives the discussion alway.

My apologies, Xyon. :embarrassed:

 

[Face]

So I don't understand your choice of using the word fallacy to my argumentation. Au contraire, your choice to bring use to a discussion where my concerning where possession (and posterior distribution) can be saw as a deception (one possible meaning for fallacy) or false conclusion (one possible meaning for Trugschluss).

And again you are trying to interpret my choice of words in the worst way possible, when I already stated that I do not mean it as an offense. :facepalm:

There is no value in discussing this way, so I'd say we agree to disagree.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ----------

I'm migrating to Austria.

I'm pretty sure they won't let you in (there is much xenophobia here, unfortunately), but of course you can try.

 

[Lisias]

And again you are trying to interpret my choice of words in the worst way possible, when I already stated that I do not mean it as an offense. :facepalm:

I didn't interpreted "badly", I just didn't understood your argument as I'm used to correlate "fallacy" to "deception". "False conclusions" were not applicable neither (I wasn't concluding anything). "Erroneous belief" wasn't applicable (as I was not "believing" in nothing, neither asking you to - and my ignorance about the real meaning of the link I posted were correctly stated).

So I communicated my confusion to you and explained why I was confused - your choice of words just seems not applicable to the situation and "could be saw" as something deceptive itself.

It was my intention declares my confusion and the reason of my confusion.

Sorry.

There is no value in discussing this way, so I'd say we agree to disagree.

Sorry again - but perhaps the statement "we don't understand each other" could be applicable instead.


So, going back to Xyon's proposals, what do you think of them?

Do you have any reserves about my counterproposals?

 

[Loru]

I think forcing uploader to include license file is bad idea. Of course site may be set up to check if proper "license.txt" is inside zip, and if not refuse upload but how would you verify what's inside said "license.txt"

Also I think choosing of license is developer's task as he decides what part and in what manner can be further restitributed and IMO there shouldn't be any restrictions on that.

 

[jangofett287]

-- MY OPINION HAS CHANGED (A BIT). READ THIS POST THEN READ THIS ONE. --

Having looked back at some of the quotations, I believe some of the confusion has come about due to people literally not looking at the same page. Some people may not know that there is, for the most part, 2 versions of GPL widely used. GPLv2 and GPLv3. I have carefully read the text of these licenses, and it is my personal opinion, at this point I must state I am not a lawyer, that neither GPLv2 nor v3 is suitable for orbiter addons. As much as I would like to be able to say otherwise there is no way I can think of to interpret GPLv3 section 1 to not include at least Orbiter's SDK files, if not all of Orbiter, in its definition of "Corresponding Source". (Unless you somehow construe Orbiter as being an Operating System, at which point the SDK files become system libraries and cease forming part of the Corresponding Source.)

The wording in v2 near the end of section 2 is similar and causes the same problem.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This interpretation of GPL's wording does not cause problems for the addon dev, who holds the copyright anyway. It does not cause problems for OHM. By uploading his work to OHM the dev effectively grants a de-facto license to OHM to distribute it. It does not cause problems for a end user receiving it from OHM. It may cause problems if the end user creates a derivative work and then wishes to distribute it. I believe under the terms of the Orbiter Freeware License the end user could distribute Orbiter with every addon, but this is clearly not a good way of doing things. Also the Orbiter Freeware License is at odds with the copyright header on the SDK source files. Clarification should be sought on this matter immediately.

SECOND IMPORTANT NOTE: Under GPLv2's wording, not only would distributing a derivative addon in source form solve the problem, but a binary distribution would only need "interface definition files" to be distributed with it. (I am not an experienced programmer and I am not sure how to interpret "interface definition files".)

EVIDENCE:
(In all cases below emphasis mine)

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

(side note: Me bolding little bits of those quotes is not an excuse for you to read just the bold bits. Please read the full quotes.)

FINALLY: Again, this is just my interpretation of the wording in the GPLv2 and v3. I am still considering this and my opinion may change. If it does I will make a new post and add a note to the top of this one appropriately.

 

[Lisias]

I think forcing uploader to include license file is bad idea. Of course site may be set up to check if proper "license.txt" is inside zip, and if not refuse upload but how would you verify what's inside said "license.txt"

That's not exactly what I as meaning... Since some licensing is needed, Xyon proposed to ask uploader to inform the desired licenses and, being one (or more) standard licenses, coding the site to automatically insert the respective file(s) (those content is well known) to the bundle.

I became unrest with that solution because this can made OHM co-responsible (and perhaps, co-author) of the bundle, bringing some liability to OHM by directly associating itself to the bundle.

I also freak out about doing some actions based on the license being "like GPL". I would do actions *only* if the license *is* GPL to avoid exactly the risk of taking decisions for the uploader.

But still, I like the Xyon idea in the sense of checking the bundle. If the user wants GPL, the respective GPL file must be there and it's a nice touch the site warning the uploader that he forgot the file.

I don't like being forced to anything, so I'm sympathetic to your objection. But, at least technically, the uploader *must* use a license that allows at least the bundle to be distributed and used by Orbiter users.

My proposal for a minimal OHM License seeks to provide a way to automatically do that - and without such file in the bundle, how the downloader knows for sure that the uploader accepted your terms? Or (being the Devil's advocate now), how the uploader can be sure that OHM would not change the terms *after* he uploaded the file?

So, the presence of a OHM.txt file can be a good idea. No objections on dual licensing the bundle and adding a GPL.txt file. (or a BSD.txt file, or whatever).

Also I think choosing of license is developer's task as he decides what part and in what manner can be further restitributed and IMO there shouldn't be any restrictions on that.

I could not agree more. Really.

But one minimal set of rights *must* be granted to OHM (in order to distribute the bundle) and to Orbiter Users (in order to the bundle be legally used), so OHM already made some decisions for (to tell you the true, imposed demands to) the uploader.

My proposal of demanding such "OHM Standard License" (the minimum set of rights that the uploader must grant OHM and Orbiter users) and encouraging the uploader to state any additional license he wants (as suggested by Xyon) appears to me to be one way to satisfy your concernings, my concernings, the GPL supporter's concernings and yet guarantee Orbiter's end users solid rights to use the bundle now and in the future.

One really tricky part would be trying to guess what can be done or not if the uploader adopts a custom license. In my opinion, any action based on such licensing is prone to misunderstandings.

----------------------

On a side note, I would compromise with any solution that would not bring OHM any burden - including doing nothing at all and leaving things the exact way they are now (assuming this will not cause any future damage to OHM) - neither, as you state, imposing (unnecessary) decisions to the developer.

 

[jangofett287]

I've done some more reading and thinking.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
[snip]
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
[snip]

Based on the above part of GPLv3 I think that having a file in the addon stating links to where all of its dependencies and Orbiter itself can be obtained from would be enough to enable the end user to distribute derivative works under GPLv3. I'm not sure what something like the Orbiter Sound website vanishing would mean though.

---------- Post added at 00:50 ---------- Previous post was at 00:31 ----------

That's not exactly what I as meaning... Since some licensing is needed, Xyon proposed to ask uploader to inform the desired licenses and, being one (or more) standard licenses, coding the site to automatically insert the respective file(s) (those content is well known) to the bundle.

I became unrest with that solution because this can made OHM co-responsible (and perhaps, co-author) of the bundle, bringing some liability to OHM by directly associating itself to the bundle.

I also freak out about doing some actions based on the license being "like GPL". I would do actions *only* if the license *is* GPL to avoid exactly the risk of taking decisions for the uploader.

But still, I like the Xyon idea in the sense of checking the bundle. If the user wants GPL, the respective GPL file must be there and it's a nice touch the site warning the uploader that he forgot the file.

I don't like being forced to anything, so I'm sympathetic to your objection. But, at least technically, the uploader *must* use a license that allows at least the bundle to be distributed and used by Orbiter users.

My proposal for a minimal OHM License seeks to provide a way to automatically do that - and without such file in the bundle, how the downloader knows for sure that the uploader accepted your terms? Or (being the Devil's advocate now), how the uploader can be sure that OHM would not change the terms *after* he uploaded the file?

So, the presence of a OHM.txt file can be a good idea. No objections on dual licensing the bundle and adding a GPL.txt file. (or a BSD.txt file, or whatever).

OHM doing anything to the .zip/.rar after receiving it could get, for lack of a better word, messy, with regards to licensing and copyright.

I could not agree more. Really.

But one minimal set of rights *must* be granted to OHM (in order to distribute the bundle) and to Orbiter Users (in order to the bundle be legally used), so we already made some decisions for (to tell you the true, imposed demands to) the uploader.

My proposal of demanding such "OHM Standard License" (the minimum set of rights that the uploader must grant OHM and Orbiter users) and encouraging the uploader to state any additional license he wants (as suggested by Xyon) appears to me to be one way to satisfy your concernings, my concernings, the GPL supporter's concernings and yet guarantee Orbiter's end users solid rights to use the bundle now and in the future.

One really tricky part would be trying to guess what can be done or not by the uploader adopting a custom license. In my opinion, any action based on such licensing is prone to misunderstandings.

"minimum set of rights" being just giving OHM explicit permission to distribute as opposed to implicit. The end user needs no special permission to use the addon. You'd probably want to make it explicit that they can use and make copies of the addon though, just to be sure. SIDENOTE: See bottom of post.

On a side note, I would compromise with any solution that would not bring OHM any burden - including doing nothing at all and leaving things the exact way they are now (assuming this will not cause any future damage to OHM) - neither, as you state, imposing (unnecessary) decisions to the developer.

The only point at which OHM could come under any danger is if someone uploaded something they didn't have the rights to. (They uploaded meshes ripped from a game they didn't have permission to use and the developer of the game got angry) All that OHM needs to do is say "Send DMCA takedown requests 'here'" and take an addon down if it recives a valid one, and it gets protection from being sued under DMCA's safe-harbor clause. At that point the only person who could be sued would be the person who uploaded the addon in the first place.

SIDENOTE from above: "making copies" when refering to digital media is a slightly nebulous term, especially when one considers that to display the DG on my screen, the data which makes it up much be copied 4 times. (Hard Drive->Drive Buffer->RAM->VRAM->Frame Buffer. And that's assuming no paging is going on.)

 

[Lisias]

"minimum set of rights" being just giving OHM explicit permission to distribute as opposed to implicit. The end user needs no special permission to use the addon. You'd probably want to make it explicit that they can use and make copies of the addon though, just to be sure.

It is my understanding that Usage Rights *must* be explicitly granted somehow.

I was informed (and until the moment, didn't found anything that states the inverse) that the author has, automatically, all the possible rights over this work reserved at his inception, and to anyone else should be explicitly granted the right to do something to such work. Usage Rights is one of them.

I have no reasons to believe it's impossible that some exceptions could exists, but IMHO the safe way is to explicitly grant Use Rights of the Add-On to Orbiter's users. The OHM TOS already demands the uploader's acceptance for availability to download, but once the download is made, there's no way to track the bundle back to this TOS. And the Usage Rights are implicit.

---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

The only point at which OHM could come under any danger is if someone uploaded something they didn't have the rights to. (They uploaded meshes ripped from a game they didn't have permission to use and the developer of the game got angry) All that OHM needs to do is say "Send DMCA takedown requests 'here'" and take an addon down if it recives a valid one, and it gets protection from being sued under DMCA's safe-harbor clause. At that point the only person who could be sued would be the person who uploaded the addon in the first place.

That DMCA alert is a nice idea. OHM don't need to do that, but warning the uploaders about it is indeed a welcoming courtesy.

When I said "damage" I wasn't, necessarily, talking about legal liability - it's my understanding from all the posts in his thread that OHM is not legally liable to any mess an uploader does in his bundle - as long OHM comply to the Cease and Desist letter as soon as it is received.

What were argued before is that the present Add-On's lack of explicitly granted rights is a vulnerability to the Add-Ons themselves. It was our understanding (the guys that posted in this thread) that they are on a legal limbo, where no one can say for sure if they are perfectly legal to download *and* use or not.

Assuming an hypothetical and very pessimistic scenario, taking down all the Add-Ons that doesn't explicitly grants the needed rights is a very nasty damage to OHM at my eyes.

---------- Post added at 03:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 AM ----------

(perhaps "damage" was a poor choice of words)