License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[dseagrav]

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?

We've already been over this. The GPL doesn't impose any additional burden on OHM. The liabilities in redistributing GPL addons are no different than the liabilities in redistributing addons under any other license. Either the uploader has permission to upload the addon or he does not, and by extension either OHM has permission to redistribute it or they do not. There is no "duty to be compatible" because there is no special action required to BE compatible.

They don't have to know anything they wouldn't have to know to use your license either. They either took other peoples' code or they didn't, and those people either care or don't. The only way anyone gets into trouble is if they took someone else's code and used it and that person cares enough to hire a lawyer. Otherwise there is effectively no risk, and even the presence of risk doesn't equate to a guarantee of damages being awarded.

You're making a mountain of a molehill, deliberately, because you have an axe to grind and you will not stop until you have driven us off. You argue in bad faith, you even admitted to it, and I am tired of it.

Do you even develop an add-on? Have you even done any work? What have you released? What makes you qualified to decide for the rest of us who HAVE released their work what we can and cannot do? Who elected you community representative?

In my opinion you have no standing on which to decide for other people what they can and cannot do with their work. None of your ten-year-old-FUD objections to the GPL holds any water, yet you keep reposting them like a broken record because apparently that's ALL you know how to do - To tear down, to destroy, to belittle and harass. It's clear you have a personal grievance against the GPL and you won't stop until you've eradicated it, or you just like stirring up trouble.

To put it plainly, either post your work or shut up.

 

[Urwumpe]

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.

Well, for SSU, since we are thinking about leaving SF behind, having a new repository and a new location for nightly downloads would be fine. But its not that urgent here.

Also for a CI system, we would need to restructure SSU a lot... not happening soon.

 

[Face]

Do you even develop an add-on? Have you even done any work? What have you released? What makes you qualified to decide for the rest of us who HAVE released their work what we can and cannot do? Who elected you community representative?

Well, to be fair, he is developing this: http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=35928 .

Not sure about release, though.

 

[Lisias]

We've already been over this. The GPL doesn't impose any additional burden on OHM.

No, we don't.

By releasing their work as GPL, they must comply with GPL terms. Not all of them are coders, not all of them agrees in other guys using their work in commercial applications.

It's their right to think so.

So, if such a guy adopts the GPL just because he had read here that GPL is totally fine to be used in Add-Ons, the guy is risking one of the situations that follows:

1) Adding a second, non GPL compatible license to his mesh (by example). Since GPL cannot be bundled together code non compatible to GPL, and since you had stated that Meshes can be seen as binary code for a program, this renders the GPL ineffective for this bundle, and as you also had stated, the "orphaned" artifacts are reverted to "All Rights Reserved". So, the bundle is not legally distributable neither usable.

2) The guy see some artifact being used by other people in a way he didn't foresee neither agrees.

The guy must understand what he is doing. Not GPL's fault (it' our fault).


---- POST EDIT ----

GPL is not a direct burden to OHM. It *can* be a burden to OHM's Add-On developers, as much of them just don't understand the matter. Other than that, I have no other reserve (if I can say that, as my reserves is about the developers ) about GPL.

 

[Urwumpe]

By releasing their work as GPL, they must comply with GPL terms.

And which terms do you have to follow as developer? AGAIN? :facepalm:

 

[kamaz]

By releasing their work as GPL, they must comply with GPL terms.

Nonsense. Read both the license and the law.

1) Adding a second, non GPL compatible license to his mesh (by example). Since GPL cannot be bundled together code non compatible to GPL

Mesh is not code.

See RedHat/CentOS for prior example of combining non-GPL artwork with GPL code.

 

[Urwumpe]

Mesh is not code.

Exactly. Meshes are artifacts.

 

[kamaz]

Exactly. Meshes are artifacts.

More to the point, in Orbiter interaction between mesh and code is done only through SDK API which means that the legal tests for derived work will fail.

 

[Lisias]

And which terms do you have to follow as developer? AGAIN? :facepalm:

As a add-on developer, all the terms I have to follow is:

1) Grant OHM the right the distribute my work

2) Grant Orbiter Users the right to use my work

2.1) Optionally (and IMHO desirable to) further distribute my work, inside new bundles, as loong none of my copyrighted files are modified neither their licensing terms changed neither omitted.

Any other terms are not required to distribute an Add On on OHM, and should be left entirely to the Add On Developer to consciously choose - or just stick with that one above if he doesn't wants to bother with licensing terms and/or are not willing to grant further rights.

GPL goes far beyond that. It grants *UNLIMITED* usage and redistribution by the licensee, as long the licensee comply with GPL terms.

As long as the Add-On developer understand this, I have not a single objection to GPL.

Were we dealing with a Software Developers only community, where all integrants are expected to understand Software Development and the legal nuances of all the Licenses we use, I was not arguing.

I just don't want the Software Developers taking decisions for the Amateur Add On Developer (nor leading them to such decisions) that can be not what the guy expect.

 

[Urwumpe]

As a add-on developer, all the terms I have to follow is:

1) Grant OHM the right the distribute my work

2) Grant Orbiter Users the right to use my work

Lets cut the FUD here. Scenario: I have made GPL software.

Does the GPL forbid OHM to distribute my work?

Does the GPL forbid any user, commercial or not, to use my software, after downloading it from OHM?

 

[Lisias]

More to the point, in Orbiter interaction between mesh and code is done only through SDK API which means that the legal tests for derived work will fail.

And as far as I understand, if the Mesh are licensed in terms that GPL doesn't cope, any GPL code cannot be legally distributed bundled with that mesh.

Since GPL gives up on granting any rights on such bundles, the code (binary and source if any) became not licensed at all, and the bundled cannot be legally distributed and used - unless a second license is used in parallel.

This will hurt the End User, as he will be using the work in copyright infringement (without being aware of).

Of course, this situation can be avoided by alerting the Add On developer that GPL can backfire on him unless all the bundle artifacts are equally licensed under the GPL. Meshes, music, scenarios, everything.

Make this crystal clear to every Amateur Add On Developer, and give the guy an alternative if he doesn't plan to release everything (but just something) under the GPL, and everything will be fine at my eyes.

 

[Urwumpe]

And as far as I understand, if the Mesh are licensed in terms that GPL doesn't cope, any GPL code cannot be legally distributed bundled with that mesh.

Fully wrong on all accounts. You have just made all Linux distributions illegal.

 

[Lisias]

Fully wrong on all accounts. You have just made all Linux distributions illegal.

But this is not something that I get out of my hat....

It' my understanding that in such cases, the code not belonging to you retains its original license (no matter what license), and the GPL is null and void about your package. The part of the code that ir really yours was not GPLed, as GPL demands that you fully satisfy its terms, or don't use it at all.

That part of the code that is really yours, so, is not licensed and should not be used either.

(but this is just my interpretation).

Anyway, the binary distributed is not usable, as not all of the code that was used are covered by the GPL.

Right. You have to GPL the whole package. If you cannot GPL a part of it, you cannot GPL it. This does not mean that your code goes into the public domain, or that the GPL is suddenly invalid, it just does not apply. Your work goes back to the default "all rights reserved".

Moreover, our add-ons are not just code. There're meshes, there're textures, there're configuration files and sounds and PDFs. GPL doesn't covers all (or any) of that, and by releasing your code under the GPL, the mesh, the PDF, the texture et all are not automatically protected nor has usage rights guaranteed.

This is not true. You can GPL anything. The GPL FAQ again:

You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.

Meshes and assets are binary files edited as-is, so they are their own source code. It's just like a text file, there is no separate "source code" for a text file, the text is the text.

From the texts above, I understand that meshes (at least) are code as any other.

It is my understanding that I cannot bundle non GPL compatible *CODE* with GPL code.

Also, it's my understanding that the fact the user CAN BUT DON'T WANT TO license the mesh as GPL is not different from the user willing, but can't doing it. The aftermath is that the mesh IS NOT licensed under the GPL.

Since I'm aware of Add Ons developers that are willing to give the code for free (as they get it from Delta Glider for free, built over it and wants to pass the word), but not the Meshes (that are of their own, and by some reason, he/she wants to keep more rights - or belongs to someone else that doesn't wants to grant anyone else's the right to bundle and distribute), we have a stalling situation. The guy license the mesh on a proprietary style license and licenses the code as GPL. But as GPL can't be bundled with GPL incompatible code (or the GPL don't grant the licensee any rights), and we have a deadlock (unless we use that dual licensing with that minimal rights).

I am perfectly fine with the hypothesis that Meshes are CONTENT, and beyond the scope of the GPL licensing and restrictions. But this must be perfectly clear to everyone, and must be legally defensible.

In another terms: "Meshes ARE code" (and dev must bundle it separately), or "Meshes ARE NOT code" (and we don't have an issue at all).

The concept of "Meshes CAN BE code" is messy, as the Dev On Developer will be unsure about the licensing issues.

 

[dseagrav]

But this is not something that I get out of my hat....

And we already went over this.

If you GPL something, it is GPL'd.
If you don't, it isn't.
You just can't GPL only part of a software's source code.

If I GPL my meshes they are GPLed, but they still aren't part of the source code.
If I GPL my documentation it is GPLed, but it's still not part of the source code.
Repeat for textures and sounds.

Source code makes the executable, meshes and textures and sounds do not.
The GPL just says you have to give everyone all the pieces necessary to build something.

In any event, ALL of this doesn't matter a whit unless you release someone else's work without their permission and they sue you.

If they are unwilling to sue you, then effectively there is no violation and you are OK.

If the rights to their work ever change hands the new owners might change their minds, that's why you get such permission in writing.

Being ignorant of permission does not constitute a defense against this.

 

[Linguofreak]

This will hurt the End User, as he will be using the work in copyright infringement (without being aware of).

Only if the addon developer is violating the license of the non-GPL works in the package, in which case that will be an issue no matter whether the GPL is involved or not.

If the addon developer is combining 3rd party GPL code with redistributable but non-GPL-compatible works whose license he is not violating (assuming that artwork licensing is an issue for GPL code, which others seem to be objecting to), then he is in violation of the GPL, but the end user, per the terms of the GPL, still has full usage rights, and can even redistribute the parts of the package as long as he separates the GPL and non-GPL elements.

If the developer is distributing his own GPL code with redistributable GPL incompatible content whose license he is not violating, he is *not* violating the GPL (as he is the copyright holder on the GPL code and thus has full distribution rights on the code under copyright law without bringing the GPL into it). The end user has full usage rights, but may not be able to redistribute the combined package due to licensing inconsistencies. However, if he redistributes it in the exact same manner that the addon developer has, then, while he may technically be in violation of the GPL, I doubt the developer would be able to take him to court over it, and in any case, he could redistribute the components separately.

 

[Lisias]

Only if the addon developer is violating the license of the non-GPL works in the package, in which case that will be an issue no matter whether the GPL is involved or not.

Not under the Copyright Act.

If you receive and use something without being entitled to, you are in Copyright Infringement. In some countries, you don't need even to use to be in Copyright Infringement.

We can argue if the guy will or not be liable to being punished somehow - I really don't know how things are in your country.

But the guy will be in Copyright Infringement nevertheless.

You can be perfectly fine with it. It's your right.

But please don't deny my right on stating the problem, and prevent people that aren't fine with it on living the problem without being aware of.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

Being ignorant of permission does not constitute a defense against this.

I could not agree more.

So I defend that until we can made this crystal clear to *every* Add On Developer, explaining exactly all the nuances and demands of such licensing and everybody finally be aware of this, OHM can offer to them that Standard OHM Minimal License until the guy is comfortable and educated enough to relicense this works using the GPL or any other license that fits him.

 

[Linguofreak]

Not under the Copyright Act.

If you receive and use something without being entitled to, you are in Copyright Infringement. In some countries, you don't need even to use to be in Copyright Infringement.

There's being entitled to distribute, and entitled to receive. The GPL entitles anyone to receive and use a copy of a covered work, *whether or not the person they received it from was entitled to distribute it*.

 

[dseagrav]

until we can made this crystal clear to *every* Add On Developer, explaining exactly all the nuances and demands of such licensing and everybody finally be aware of this, OHM can offer to them that Standard OHM Minimal License until the guy is comfortable and educated enough to relicense this works using the GPL or any other license that fits him

You do understand that relicensing a work does not undo the previous license, right?

If this "Add On Developer" makes a release under your Standard OHM Minimal License, someone takes his work and reuses it commercially or whatever, and he objects, he can relicense his future changes, but that doesn't undo the previous release. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. You're stuck with it forever.

It's far better to understand licensing BEFORE you release rather than release ignorant of it and have it bite you in the ass later.

Edit: And what about collaboration projects? Relicensing requires explicit consent of all copyright holders. If two people contribute to an add-on and relicensing becomes necessary but one of them has moved on to another project and can't be found, then you are screwed and you can't relicense.

 

[Xyon]

Well, for SSU, since we are thinking about leaving SF behind, having a new repository and a new location for nightly downloads would be fine. But its not that urgent here.

Also for a CI system, we would need to restructure SSU a lot... not happening soon.

I'll make a new thread for OHM stuff when real life calms down a bit, perhaps the top end of next year. We can have feature requests and status updates and everything, it'll be great.

Meanwhile, in this thread, I hope we can continue to have a civil discussion about software licensing.

 

[meson800]

Is it just me, or is it ridiculous that this thread has reached this proportion?

All this talk about "copyright infringement" and felonies and Australian law.

It still hasn't changed that the only time this starts happening is when you possibly start distributing Orbiter with a GPL addon that you re-distributed under a non-GPL license (or any other similar license) without being the sole copyright owner. That is such an edge case. Is there one example of an addon being bundled with Orbiter?

The second argument is about "newbie" developers. Why would any newbie developer pick a license they don't understand? Would anyone here pick a license they don't understand? When I was a "newbie" developer, I used the MIT license, because I understood it (it's also just a paragraph). Now I understand the GPL, so I'll use it from now on.

So we're talking about two very unlikely edge cases.

Can we stop talking about these edge cases unless we actually think that anyone will do them? Saying that GPL shouldn't be picked because 1) if you bundle it with Orbiter you can get problems in a small case or 2) people can misuse it if they don't understand it is like saying people should generally not own guns because if you shoot the explosives in your house(normally people don't store explosives in their house) they can explode and if you don't know which way the bullet comes out, you can kill yourself.

As to the auto-license-addition, how about we use Github as a model?

When starting a new repo, you get an option to use a license. It defaults to "none" (which is All Rights Reserved + implicit right to fork if the repo is public, because anyone can fork a public repo on Github). If you are confused about the licenses, they created http://choosealicense.com

Obviously Github isn't worried about getting sued if some newbie developer picks the wrong license.

On OH there could be a similar thing. If you don't want to pick one, it defaults to "none", which would be All Rights Reserved + implicit right to distribute on OH (because you're uploading it to OH...). We could even direct people to choosealicense for more information!

Something like that would work really well