License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Lisias]

Well, thanks, but I have to admit that you made me thinking right the opposite thing.

Smart guys can be dull headed sometimes (but so the stupid ones - all I can say of me is that I'm dull headed too - and somewhat grumpy).

Before the distribution-not-usage-license argument, I thought that somehow Orbinauts cannot modify, compile and re-distribute my code without risking take-downs/bans/infractions or whatnot.

It's my understanding that this can happens if you are not careful enough. But the set of circumstances that must happen in order to do so is not that common, and even by happening, it's something that it's easily fixable - if you could be reached.

If by some means you decide to volunteer yourself for Mars colonization, nobody else will be able to fix such a problem if it is discovered while you would be seeing that cozy blue evenings.

Things can get messier when the guy is not that smart and/or careful. The chance of such problems is bigger, very bigger. And if this guy decides to live next you on Mars, the consequences would be a bit harsh - not because the problem per se, but by its incidence: a lot of little problems together became a big problem in practice.

And if it only were people circumventing the project, because "nah, didn't you read that? GPL is dangerous, let's not even touch that genericvessel/AU/OMP thingy with a 10-foot-pole".

No matter what, will be *always* people claiming GPL is dangerous.

Some of them will have some reason, but these ones will gladly take back their objections as soon as the problem they see are mitigated or solved somehow.

The remaining are beyond hope - we must learn to live with them.

And I thought to myself: "perhaps this is the reason why superb things like NASSP lay dead for so many years as soon as the main team is offline, perhaps this is the reason why people prefer the cathedral approach to software distribution instead of the bazaar one, perhaps this is why talented - and all in all level-headed - developers here prefer closed source: they fear that with GPL their work is all for naught."

My understanding is that GPL is not for everyone neither for everything.

Let me tell you a history: Some years ago, I was a happy and productive (hugely productive) Linux Desktop user. I had an fancy HP 17" notebook running a i7 with 8G RAM and two HDDs. Very nice machine.

My develop environment was Gnome2 and a lot of VirtualBOX VMs.

And I was happy, very happy with that setup.

But something happens, I had to spend sometime developing using Windows (what is not exactly bad, but pale compared with that marveolous setup I had). And then, everybody changed to Gnome 3 some months before I had a chance to came back to Linux hosted development.

Do you know what? I could not sustain such "offense". Gnome 3 at that time was horrid (ask Linux Torvalds about).

Aftermath? I sold a kidney and brought a Mac Mini (terribly expensive here at Brazil nowadays, but somewhat more affordable at the time). Spending that money hurted, but since then I can do my work without hassle, being offended while handled as a moron or being dragged by "features" I don't want nor need (and I'm talking both Windows *and* Linux Desktop at that time). Let me tell you something: Mac OS X is good, very good. We have to grant Apple so much.

I've been told that Gnome3 finally became a decent desktop again, and if I don't cope with it, MATE is also very stable and usable. So, today, i probably would not spend my money on a Mac just to be able to work sanely again.

But at that times, I found myself without any usable (by my terms) alternative - I never, ever managed to like KDE.

My reasoning is that being Open Source is no guarantee of being always right. It's just the guarantee that no matter how badly you screw up everything, eventually all can be fixed if you stand for the licensing terms.

(please note that I said "can be", not "will be").

post edit: I'm currently a happy Mac Fa... uh... User. But the best development machine I ever had is still that i7 notebook running my highly trimmed Linux / Gnome 2 box

---------- Post added at 01:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 PM ----------

If you don't have the right to distribute the item beyond the binary distribution of your addon, then you can't open-source it under any common license at all. BSD,MIT,GPL,whatever. It does not matter. If it cannot be reused would have to make your own license that restricts usage of the source to your project only.

uh... I beg to differ. At least with BSD, this would be a non issue at all.

BSD just don't cares about what you do with the code. It's a totally different concept from Free Software.

I can't talk about MIT. (yet)

 

[kamaz]

Ok, so this is now new information for me. It means that if I use some of FSF code (is that all under the GNU umbrella? Savannah?), although I distribute the addon alone, although I don't give a dime what happens to bundlers, although it is the same GPL that the FSF code uses, I can not use the GPL unmodified, because the FSF have legal grounds to be jerks?

FSF believes that GPL'd code cannot be used to extend non-free software in the form of dynamically-loadable plug-ins and that such action is a violation of the license.

At this point, there are two issues:

(1) Whether FSF's belief is grounded in reality.

(2) Does FSF has right to sue / harass you for GPL'd add-ons.

As for (1), the thing is that FSF's interpretation of their own license is probably invalid, for reasons which have been given in this thread. But, since FSF is sticking to it anyway, these arguments would only have merit in court. Therefore, it sadly does not matter if FSF is right or not, because, unless you are actually willing to take them to court over this, they will simply try to bully you into compliance with their vision.

As for (2), you should realize that unless you use FSF's code in your add-on, then FSF has no legal standing against yourself. Therefore, it ultimately does not matter is FSF's interpretation of the license is correct, because you have never entered a licensing relationship with them, and they simply have no legal ground to sue you. So their objections can be simply ignored.

If that is so, wouldn't that mean I can never use FSF code in my project, because as soon as I add an exception to my license, I would also have the FSF licensors to agree to that exception?

Yes, precisely. And FSF will NOT grant you this exception, because their strategy has always been to use a threat of lawsuit to force people to publish closed source components under GPL.

Now, as to whether distributing the add-on separately or with Orbiter makes a difference.

We have to realize that GPL simply states that a work derived from GPL'd code must be GPL'd, and not following this rule is a violation of the license.

The legal question is whether the Orbiter + (GPL'd addon) combo is as derived work of the addon. If yes, then distribution of the combo would require the entire combo covered under GPL (i.e. a GPL'd Orbiter). Of course, this is impossible to satisfy because we don't have a GPL'd Orbiter.

However, it is not at all clear whether, legally speaking, the Orbiter + addon combo forms a single "derived work", or "mere aggregation" of two independent works. If the latter, then the combo can indeed be distributed. That said, since there is no clear case law in the area, the smart thing to do is err on the side of caution, i.e. do not distribute such combos.

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.

TL;DR Stay away from FSF's code.

 

[Urwumpe]

(1) Whether FSF's belief is grounded in reality.

(2) Does FSF has right to sue / harass you for GPL'd add-ons.

Just my two cents to this:

(1) Yes, but its absolutely not free from dogma or agenda. The way how the FSF interprets how its licenses are supposed to be used, is centered around strengthening their own licenses. The more projects conform to FSF-licenses, the more power such licenses (and the FSF) have. Its absolutely logical and reasonable from their POV, but that does not mean that you must like it or that the FSF is acting for your benefit.

(2) Sue? No. Harass? Like anybody else. Pick a number and wait over there.

 

[Lisias]

In this case, the "incorporating" is being done by your end-user, not you. As the end-user is not distributing the "incorporated" result, they are safe and you are safe.

No. I didn't made myself clear. Let me try again.

I wrote a fancy CPP code for a vessel. A friend o fmine kindly allow me to use and bundle a mesh under the condition that only my vessel, and only this vessel, can load the mesh. The mesh uses a texture that a friend of my friend authorized to be used only by that mesh, but no matter where neither how.

You see, I am fully entitled to bundle and distribute such add-on, I have all the authorizations I need.

But my end-users are not allowed to the same rights on the mesh and texture. This is restricting the GPL freedoms, and by assuming your previous statements that the meshes and textures can be GPLed as code, by licensing them under a non GPL compatible also as code, I cannot license my CPP file using GPL and also bundle the binary, the mesh and the texture in the same package.

 

[kamaz]

The "linking" that FSF opposes does not happen until Orbiter is combined with the GPL code.

Of course you are right. But this does not stop the FSF from claiming that such linkage is impermissible because... eh... because they say so.

 

[dseagrav]

Of course you are right. But this does not stop the FSF from claiming that such linkage is impermissible because... eh... because they say so.

Doesn't matter. The license doesn't say so. They can't sue you unless they're the copyright holder you do something the license says you can't do it. The combining is being done by your users, and the combined result isn't being distributed. FSF has no standing to sue either party.

 

[kamaz]

Doesn't matter. The license doesn't say so. They can't sue you unless they're the copyright holder you do something the license says you can't do it. The combining is being done by your users, and the combined result isn't being distributed. FSF has no standing to sue either party.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[Lisias]

Or simply because they know that OSS development is not easier than closed source development at all, especially since it happens in the spotlight of the public. You have to be brave enough to be confronted with your errors.

From all the statements I saw today, this is on the most insightful.

 

[dseagrav]

I wrote a fancy CPP code for a vessel. A friend of mine kindly allow me to use and bundle a mesh under the condition that only my vessel, and only this vessel, can load the mesh.
(...)
You see, I am fully entitled to bundle and distribute such add-on, I have all the authorizations I need.

Yes, but not the SOURCE.

You can't BSD-license the addon source and distribute it because you can't grant the right to reuse the mesh and texture.

You have to make your own license that preserves the restrictions given to you by your friends.

Edit:
To make things easy, here's two-clause BSD:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

You can't do this. You were told it was for your exclusive use. This license doesn't convey that restriction.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

You can do this, but the result isn't a source distribution.

 

[kamaz]

This is restricting the GPL freedoms, and by assuming your previous statements that the meshes and textures can be GPLed as code, by licensing them under a non GPL compatible also as code, I cannot license my CPP file using GPL and also bundle the binary, the mesh and the texture in the same package.

And the problem with splitting this in two packages is...?

Also, see the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL. I'd posit that if your ZIP contains two directories named "ARTWORK" and "CODE" and each of these contains a separate LICENSE file -- then you are perfectly in compliance.

Also, FYI, FSF recommends AGAINST using GPL for artwork.

 

[Face]

No matter what, will be *always* people claiming GPL is dangerous.

Some of them will have some reason, but these ones will gladly take back their objections as soon as the problem they see are mitigated or solved somehow.

The remaining are beyond hope - we must learn to live with them.

At least I could now point them to read this thread, which will certainly shut them up for a while :lol: . And if they come back too early and still complain, I can say "Oh, you didn't read this (link to some argument) and that (link to some counter-argument) part? Please review, it is import." And off they would go for another day or two. :rofl:

But jokes aside, I agree, you can't convince all people. It is anyway the majority that makes the difference in this regards IMHO. If the majority of the Orbiter community would say "That's a no-no. Don't use GPL with Orbiter addons. Danger, Will Robinson!", it has more weight to me than some trolls nitpicking on my license choice. I have the confidence that such trolls will in the end be moderated away from productive development.

 

[Lisias]

LGPL has no linking restrictions at all, but LGPL is GPL-incompatible. You cannot use GPL software in a LGPL project. (You can do the reverse. GPL projects can use LGPL software.)

I had forgot that on my arguing in the beginning of time... i mean, this Thread!

Thanks!

 

[dseagrav]

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?

 

[Urwumpe]

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?

Possibly yes. But if you GPL that solution, I would also include it into SSU.

 

[Face]

Doesn't matter. The license doesn't say so. They can't sue you unless they're the copyright holder you do something the license says you can't do it. The combining is being done by your users, and the combined result isn't being distributed. FSF has no standing to sue either party.

(emphasis mine)

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I did not understand that sentence. Can you please clarify? Does it now mean that as per the GPL itself, I can distribute my addon (alone) with a GPL (without exceptions), even if I use FSF code? And that kamaz statement (of it being a problem) is "just" due to the stubbornness in how FSF views the GPL, but not really founded in the GPL's content?

When we talk about FSF code, do we talk about GNU? Or could anyone please give me a rough list of what FSF code is? Emacs? Unix GNU tools?

 

[estar]

My software BaseSyncMFD is a MFD plugin for the Orbiter and it doesn't link to any other non-free software. How ever, it does contain math and functionalities those could be useful in a vessel development which may require linking to an additional non-free libraries like the OrbiterSound. If I have understood correctly that would require a linking exception in my code.

The linking exception is only for when people want to use your code in a project linked to non-free software. For example if I want to use your BaseSyncMFD math code in Project Mercury (for this discussion let's say it under the GPL) while I link to OrbiterSound then I need the exception as OrbiterSound is not free.

If I didn't link to Orbitersound then my opinion is that I could use your Math code as we both are writing code that explicitly link to closed source Orbiter API.

A case could even be made made that if both are linked to Orbiter and both are linked to Orbitersound that no exception is needed. But I am not comfortable with that. For anything outside of orbiter itself I rather specific exceptions be found in the license if it is going to used under the GPL. There are some developers who really want their own code to used only in completely free add-on where the only closed source part is the link to Orbiter.

Of course if you added a specific exception for Orbiter like Virtual AGC that will make the situation crystal clear to the benefit of all.

And for record the FSF won't like this but remember it your code and you, not they, get to the set the condition under which it can be distributed.

Also, I don't really want to be bothered by request to link my software to UMMU or some other modules, so, would it be practical to add a statement: "or any other free/non-free Orbiter module(s) by your choice".

That would make it crystal clear in my opinion. I would go with "or any other free/non-free software that uses the Orbiter API to interact with the Orbiter Space Simulator." That should cover all the permutations without opening it up to somebody else's space simulator or software

Also, should those exceptions have a copy-left requirement ? (i.e. Any Orbiter work that builds upon this software would need to forward the exceptions)

You know if you want to use the GPL then you pretty much saying "Anything that uses my code has to be free as well." If you want closed source add-on to use your stuff then release under the BSD license or something similar. That what I did with Project Mercury and my add-ons. My goal is to encourage reuse of my code regardless how the author feels about sharing his code so I opted to use the BSD license as that fit my goal. So a GPL, non-commercial, and closed can plunder my projects for whatever code they want to use to see fit.

 

[dseagrav]

This time with FOUR-PART HARMONY and feelin':

If you take FSF code and put it into your GPL'd Orbiter Addon
FSF can't sue you
because you didn't violate the GPL.
The linking that FSF objects to
doesn't happen until the end-user installs your addon into Orbiter
and the end-user doesn't distribute the installed result
so no GPL infringement happens.

 

[kamaz]

And that kamaz statement (of it being a problem) is "just" due to the stubbornness in how FSF views the GPL, but not really founded in the GPL's content?

Basically, yes. The license itself says nothing about linking.

When we talk about FSF code, do we talk about GNU? Or could anyone please give me a rough list of what FSF code is? Emacs? Unix GNU tools?

Whatever has "Copyright (C) Free Software Foundation" on it.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

This time with FOUR-PART HARMONY and feelin':

If you take FSF code and put it into your GPL'd Orbiter Addon
FSF can't sue you
because you didn't violate the GPL.

The bold is problematic. 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. That's why I'm telling people to stay away from FSF's code (or any GPL'd third-party code for the matter) when writing Orbiter addons. Putting GPL on your own stuff, OTOH, is perfectly fine.

Now that

The linking that FSF objects to
doesn't happen until the end-user installs your addon into Orbiter
and the end-user doesn't distribute the installed result
so no GPL infringement happens.

is why they would probably lose the lawsuit.

 

[dseagrav]

Well, if that's your criteria for danger, in the US at least anyone can sue you at any time for just about any reason. It doesn't mean they'll -win-, but they can still sue you. Avoiding GPL'd or FSF code because someone might file a lawsuit they're almost certain to lose is pointless. It's more likely that someone will roll through here with some kind of generic patent on systems simulation and sue all of us.

 

[meson800]

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

What happened? :lol: