License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Urwumpe]

I think OHM is totally fine as repository of addons. I just don't think it makes sense for hosting open source projects. That's all, and also only my personal opinion.

Well, what we lack is something like the SF or github for orbiter, ideally with a build system...

 

[dseagrav]

What will change my feelings, OTOH, is a clear statement that GPL is either OK or NOT OK for Orbiter addons, which there still is not.

Then I'll make it, for the I-don't-know-how-many-ith time: The GPL is OK for Orbiter addons. The only ways to create a legally actionable GPL violation in an Orbiter addon are to include code you don't have permission to include (which would get you into trouble regardless of the license) or to distribute the GPLed add-on together with a non-GPLed program. Non-code content packaged with the GPLed code is irrelevant. The licensing of documentation, meshes, textures, and sounds does not matter unless those things are described by their rightsholder as being subject to the GPL.

Edit: In any of these violation cases the ONLY parties that can file a lawsuit with any legal basis are copyright holders of the items involved; There is no case in which the FSF or any uninvolved third party can pursue legal action against anyone as a result of a GPL violation.

 

[Face]

The GPL is OK for Orbiter addons.

Perfect! Now I will let that sit here until tomorrow and see how many posts follow up telling you that you are wrong. It won't be one of my posts, of course.

 

[dseagrav]

Perfect! Now I will let that sit here until tomorrow and see how many posts follow up telling you that you are wrong. It won't be one of my posts, of course.

I'm sure there will be several, all of which rehash the same old FUD from earlier in the thread.

 

[Face]

I'm sure there will be several, all of which rehash the same old FUD from earlier in the thread.

Indeed. And it might continue. This is where my feeling comes from.

I think you are a very respectable member of the community, dseagrav, but nevertheless I personally see your arguments as equally important as Lisias', even if I agree with you and disagree with Lisias. Other members of the community may think the same, and also may see it as unclear whether or not they can continue working on GPL addons.

For me, there are only two outcomes of this thread: it either gets clear ones and for all that GPL is OK, or the same FUD continues ad nauseam. Until this is clear for me, I don't see the thread as a waste of time, because regarding Orbiter, I don't have other things to do, anyway (because I stopped developing). If it is clear for me, I'll review the result: OK means picking up developing again, continuing FUD means focusing on other things in life. For anything else I don't have the patience anymore, really.

 

[dseagrav]

I don't see the thread as a waste of time

Oh, it's absolutely not a waste of time. Most of the FUD is due to ignorance, and ignorance is like kudzu - You have to keep fighting it or you'll drown in it.

I myself was wrong a week ago. Now I know better, and I wish to help others know better too. If I thought this was a waste of time I'd do something more fun.

On another note, I am reminded of an old Russian joke I heard awhile back:

An unconscious man is brought to the hospital where he is pronounced dead. The doctor puts him on a stretcher and tells the orderly "To the morgue!". Halfway there the man moans and asks "Where are we going?"
"The doctor said 'To the morgue!', so to the morgue it is!"
"Why?"
"The autopsy will show!"

The sentence "The doctor said 'To the morgue!', so to the morgue it is!" is now a Russian idiom for when something unpleasant absolutely must be done.

With this in mind I propose we retitle this thread as follows:
"License Wars MEGA THREAD (to the morgue it is!)"

 

[Urwumpe]

Well... how can we get the following then please?

Encouragement,
Certainty,
Confidence

As I see this, there is only one way: Fight the weasels. Any such statement "I don't know but maybe something is bad." should be punished.

if you don't have a clue, please shut up and research first!

Otherwise we get another 20 pages of "Idunnos"

 

[Artlav]

The sentence "The doctor said 'To the morgue!', so to the morgue it is!" is now a Russian idiom for when something unpleasant absolutely must be done.

More precisely, it's about when you screwed up so much that you better just scrap it and start from the square one.

Not to be confused with "the puppy is dead", which is the same, only without the ability to start from scratch.

"The autopsy will show!"

And don't forget about this one, often used on it's own as an answer to "will this plan work?".

 

[dseagrav]

And don't forget about this one, often used on it's own as an answer to "will this plan work?".

That is outstanding, I'm gonna have to recycle that.

For some reason Russian humor works really well for me, even though I don't speak a word of it.

 

[Lisias]

I think instead of forcing user user to include license we can just modify OHM ToS. Currently it looks bit simple but with proper augmentation with added "minimum license" should be enough IMO. Then, if uploader wants some specifics extending basic license, he can include license file in the package.

The current TOS doesn't says, explicitly "The uploader grants all Orbiter users the right to use the bundle" - or something like that.

So the Usage Rights are implicit, and I was informed that implicit rights granting is shady.

However, there're something that I realized just now: even if we agree that we must add such OHM_TOS.txt file on the bundle, we also agree that it's not acceptable messing with the already uploaded files.

So my proposal's main purpose ("no 'damage' to OHM) is not reachable anymore, as a lot of add-ons are pretty old and it's unfeasible that most of them would be updated by the copyright owners. :facepalm:

So, using my own criteria, doing anything is so "harmful" as doing nothing. There's no way to run, my criteria is unfeasible.

So, I drop it.

I will compromise with any solution that doesn't add "damages" to OHM's eco system. What includes doing nothing. :dry:

 

[Urwumpe]

The current TOS doesn't says, explicitly "The uploader grants all Orbiter users the right to use the bundle" - or something like that.

So the Usage Rights are implicit, and I was informed that implicit rights granting is shady.

However, there're something that I realized just now: even if we agree that we must add such OHM_TOS.txt file on the bundle, we also agree that it's not acceptable messing with the already uploaded files.

So my proposal's main purpose ("no 'damage' to OHM) is not reachable anymore, as a lot of add-ons are pretty old and it's unfeasible that most of them would be updated by the copyright owners. :facepalm:

So, using my own criteria, doing anything is so "harmful" as doing nothing. There's no way to run, my criteria is unfeasible.

So, I drop it.

I will compromise with any solution that doesn't add "damages" to OHM's eco system. What includes doing nothing. :dry:

Citation needed.

What damages? Are there realistic, reasonable damage scenarios possible? Or are you just pretending that the sky is falling?

 

[Lisias]

If whatever is done there makes people believe that without a double-license, addons are somehow not legal now, I think you will lose many contributors for good this time.

I don't see how a dual license is a issue. Implicitly, all the add-ons are dual-licensed already: they must comply with the OHM Terms Of Service, and with the uploader choosed license.

Please note that OHM TOS is not GPL incompatible, while adds further restrictions (no pr0n).

That was my problem all along: the explicit nitpicking on only one license. Dseagrav brought it to a point at the end of his post here (a bit more emotional, but I wholeheartedly understand that).

Because, and only because, the GPL makes some demands that can render the add-on not legally distributable and usable. If the GPL didn't had that clause, a lot of possible hypothetical issues would simply not exist at all.

But such clause is the reason that GPL's programs are protected now and forever, so we can't blame GPL for this. We are the ones that, apparently, are incompatible with GPL without adding some safeguards.

It's a technical "nitpicking", not a personal one. Solve the technical legal issue, and the "nitpicking" stops.

You see, the posting etiquette here says this:
I've really got the impression that there always was an unspoken exception there: "unless the GPL is involved". I hope this thread will in the end clarify that it isn't so, but up to here I don't see that.

There is no such implicit exception. Not one was namely accused of copyright infringement by using the GPL. The discussion is about probable issues on licensing, GPL being included because it is a license, and extensively "nitpicked" due a lot of confusion around it and, also, because some clauses that can render all this effort counter productive (by barring legally distribution of the content).

---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

Citation needed.

What damages? Are there realistic, reasonable damage scenarios possible? Or are you just pretending that the sky is falling?

Damage : njury or harm that reduces value or usefulness .

But I will gladly edit my posts replacing "damage" to any other word that fits best and avoids confusion.

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 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

Like I said, he's deliberately trying to drive people away so Orbiter remains some private special thing that makes him special rather than a wider community. If Orbiter goes huge like KSP did, it won't be special anymore.

Why the heck are you doing that? Baiting members is just putting oil into the fire in an already heated debate. Did you not see that many developers got upset already? Or do you find it funny to drive developers away from the community?

So may I ask you to follow the Forum rules (that you, Face, already alleged to not being followed), and make a complain to the Moderators instead of making such accusations publicly all the time?

 

[dseagrav]

Just to remind you, all of these scary-sounding potential violations matter not a bit unless the copyright holders show up with lawyers. OHM doesn't have to worry unless someone uploaded something they didn't have the rights to, in which case they are in trouble regardless of licensing.

If I release something that has a license violation but the copyright holder doesn't care, then effectively there is no violation. It's "bad" because if the rights ever transfer (by death or assignment) the new rightsholder can decide to pursue litigation but it's hardly the earth-shattering catastrophe you seem so desperate to paint it as.

Copyright is civil law, not criminal law. There is no prosecutor. I have nothing to fear but the lawyers of the copyright holder.

"Where there is no police, there is no speed limit."

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

may I ask you to follow the Forum rules

Not a violation to point out what everyone can see and you yourself admitted to.

 

[Face]

So may I ask you to follow the Forum rules (that you, Face, already alleged to not being followed), and make a complain to the Moderators instead of making such accusations publicly all the time?

Häh? You said yourself that you were "fishing", and made a sad face because nobody took the bait. How is asking why you do that a public accusation, if you already publicly admitted that you did it?

 

[Lisias]

For me, there are only two outcomes of this thread: it either gets clear ones and for all that GPL is OK, or the same FUD continues ad nauseam.

My opinion, for what's worth (if worths something), is that GPL *is OK* if you follow some rules (as not using someone else's work - meshes, music, etc - without licensing terms compatible incompatible with the GPL).

You *will not* made any mistakes about, but my concernings is not you. The Amateur Add-On Developer don't know, don't wanna now and probably will actively refuses to learn about this issues.

But I want this guy developing with us. They are, probably, the most important part of this community (they can be not professional coders, but they do marvelous jobs in other fields. Some meshes I saw are spectacular).

I want the work of such guys protected the way they want - or I'm afraid they will leave.

 

[dseagrav]

You *will not* made any mistakes about, but my concernings is not you. The Amateur Add-On Developer don't know, don't wanna now and probably will actively refuses to learn about this issues.

Great, so you'd rather he remain ignorant of risk until someone comes along to sue him?

I want the work of such guys protected the way they want

...except you aren't protecting them at all! Ignorance is not a defense.

Also nice that apparently these guys should be protected "the way they want" but if I protect myself the way I want I am turbosatanhitler and my work is attacking the community.

 

[Lisias]

Not that it matters really, but by uploading to OHM you certify that you have the right to distribute the content you upload, and that you grant OHM the right to do the same. That's an uploader decision, the act of uploading the addon makes it, OHM is not making the decision for you

But once I download that file, how I can track back the file to such certifications?

You see, when we talk about copyrights, I can only do what I have specific (and, as it appears, explicit) permissions to do.

Once I download the file, how i can prove that I have the needed permission? Because the file is there?

And if the uploader, by personal reasons, withdraw the add-on? I'll be in copyright infringement, as the bundle take-down is automatically a withdraw of my use rights? (as I can't prove anymore that I downloaded the file from OHM).

 

[Urwumpe]

Great, so you'd rather he remain ignorant of risk until someone comes along to sue him?



...except you aren't protecting them at all! Ignorance is not a defense.

Also nice that apparently these guys should be protected "the way they want" but if I protect myself the way I want I am turbosatanhitler and my work is attacking the community.

Turbohitler sounds really like Rock'n'Roll.

 

[Lisias]

Great, so you'd rather he remain ignorant of risk until someone comes along to sue him?

Of course, not. I'm defending an "Standard OHM Minimal License" for these guys.

"Look, while you don't understand how this thing called GPL, BSD, MIT, whatever works, use our SOHML for while. This will grant Orbiter Users the right to download and use your add-on, but will retain all the other rights you have as an Author. You can, at your entirely discretion, to dual license your work to one of these licenses (or one you make for yourself) at any time. Drop us a mail if you need help".

---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

...except you aren't protecting them at all! Ignorance is not a defense.

And you are, by dealing with them as they had the DUTY to know everything about GPL, or the OHM community the DUTY to be compatible to GPL?

 

[Xyon]

Well, what we lack is something like the SF or github for orbiter, ideally with a build system...

I can do that. If you like, that is.

What I can't promise is that I'll do it quickly, but it could well be in the feature list for OHM, should there be interest in its existence.