Reactions about 'Official stance on how [...] AIs'

[Tobi]

Reactions to this can go in this thread...

[Chamrin]

It should be noted, that even if you release a section of code under gpl, you as the author (and still owner) can reuse the code however you wish in whatever future projects you may work on, proprietary or not as you are still the owner. If someone else contributes to your code though, you can not take their contributions with you for whatever reuse without each of their express permission.

The GPL grants anyone rights to reuse code in a certain way. To use code outside the GPL requires the authors permission, which may become hard or extremely difficult if there have been a lot of contributors.

I'm mentioning this because I think to a lot of people, they see writing GPL code as throwing the code away, when it's not necessarily the case. I am not a lawyer, but the above is the way that copyright works as I know it.

[hoijui]

Therefore, it may be advisable to release under multiple licenses. say, GPL and BSD, for example. this way, it is quite clear that it is GPL when the code is used with spring, but can be used under BSD terms for other projects (say, for example, there is a universal algorithm that can be used in all RTS games). and then, all contributions to the AI are required to be released under these two licenses (in case that is not implicitly the case anyway.. i don't know that). You would also make sure, that you can use the whole AIs sources for later projects, somewhere else, with this strategy.
Of course you can also just release under modified BSD alone, but it is simply not as clear/verbose then, that it is practically GPL in spring terms.

[Argh]

So, it's like, July.

Where's Shard?

Ah, I see. It's kinda available, via LGPL. Good 'nuff.

[AF]

Shard was released a month ago, and in the shard thread, quit shit stirring argh

[Petah]

And if I don't what are you going to do about it, punk?

[Petah]

I'm joking BTW, as I already released BAI under GPL

[==Troy==]

It should be noted, that even if you release a section of code under gpl, you as the author (and still owner) can reuse the code however you wish in whatever future projects you may work on, proprietary or not as you are still the owner. If someone else contributes to your code though, you can not take their contributions with you for whatever reuse without each of their express permission.

The GPL grants anyone rights to reuse code in a certain way. To use code outside the GPL requires the authors permission, which may become hard or extremely difficult if there have been a lot of contributors.

I'm mentioning this because I think to a lot of people, they see writing GPL code as throwing the code away, when it's not necessarily the case. I am not a lawyer, but the above is the way that copyright works as I know it.

This is a good point actually... But the problem here is that AS LONG AS your code is using/linked with spring engine, even if you are the owner of the copyright, you cannot release it under non-GPL compatible license, or use it in other projects assuming that the code is non-GPL compatible.

[aegis]

but if you're using it in other projects it's possibly not linked with the spring engine?

[Tobi]

It should be noted, that even if you release a section of code under gpl, you as the author (and still owner) can reuse the code however you wish in whatever future projects you may work on, proprietary or not as you are still the owner. If someone else contributes to your code though, you can not take their contributions with you for whatever reuse without each of their express permission.

The GPL grants anyone rights to reuse code in a certain way. To use code outside the GPL requires the authors permission, which may become hard or extremely difficult if there have been a lot of contributors.

I'm mentioning this because I think to a lot of people, they see writing GPL code as throwing the code away, when it's not necessarily the case. I am not a lawyer, but the above is the way that copyright works as I know it.

This is a good point actually... But the problem here is that AS LONG AS your code is using/linked with spring engine, even if you are the owner of the copyright, you cannot release it under non-GPL compatible license, or use it in other projects assuming that the code is non-GPL compatible.

No, Chamrin was right.

It is fine to use your (AI) code that you release under the terms of the GPL here in another project that you sell commercially, for example.

As Chamrin said you just need to make sure that either 1) you make a contract with all contributors asking them to sign away their copyright to you so that you can use their contributions in the commercial project, or 2) you keep two branches, one with community contributions that can not be used except under the terms of the GPL, and one with the pristine code on which only you have worked, that you can use however you want. The latter might easily get troublesome though.

[Pako]

GPL is merely a copyright license which doesn't go above international copyright law nor local laws and GPL doesn't need to be accepted to use the content. Any individual can use any content to private, non-profit, research and educational use with very large rights.
For example the US Fair use law has a wide rights for non-profit use.

If the AI interface could be easily reverse engineered I dont think it really has any copyright protection. Also if the distributed binary doesn't contain a huge distinctive partion from Spring code it shouldn't break the copyrights.

Bundling non-GPL content with GPL'd content can be more difficult like AI inside a mod.

Lua code may be more tied to GPL because big portion is Spring calls but the calls are in public wiki without any copyright notice.

So what spring community can do is just urge their policy or ban from using Spring servers.
What spring moderators can't do is publicly disgrace or state untruths, it would be highly illegal. Like if an AI developer would refuse to release his codes and a mod bans him saying he didn't contribute and is a bad person. Thad would be a defamation crime. It should be written like "we felt like his actions were destructive for Spring project".

[lurker]

It is highly legal for me to say untruths.

[aegis]

you can be banned from the forum for literally "no reason" without the staff breaking the law.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

[Pako]

It is highly legal for me to say untruths.

I don't know what are you referring to?

DefamationÔÇöalso called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)ÔÇöis the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed.

Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.

you can be banned from the forum for literally "no reason" without the staff breaking the law.

Of course but don't publish any hate message with it.

[Tobi]

GPL is merely a copyright license which doesn't go above international copyright law nor local laws and GPL doesn't need to be accepted to use the content.

GPL needs to be accepted to make use of the rights it gives you (creating derivative works, redistributing the work, etc.), that would otherwise be exclusive rights of the copyright holder.

Any individual can use any content to private, non-profit, research and educational use with very large rights.
For example the US Fair use law has a wide rights for non-profit use.

Reality doesn't agree with you here. People download music for private, non-profit use and get sued for it. People upload mixes of videos and music (fair use, non-profit I'd say) and they get removed for copyright infringement.

If the AI interface could be easily reverse engineered I dont think it really has any copyright protection. Also if the distributed binary doesn't contain a huge distinctive partion from Spring code it shouldn't break the copyrights.

Nearly everything has copyright protection, that doesn't suddenly fall away because something could -in theory- easily be reverse engineered. It's just that once it has been reverse engineered (clean room) the reverse engineered copy is probably copyright to the reverse engineer, or maybe not copyright at all because there is no creative component. The original interface's copyright status doesn't change however.

Lua code may be more tied to GPL because big portion is Spring calls but the calls are in public wiki without any copyright notice.

Copyright applies automatically to anything creative anyone makes (in US law for works created since 1989), copyright notices are just a little clarification and take away the excuse of `oh, I didn't know there was copyright on this'.

Anyway, just release source of your AI under some GPL compatible license and everyone will be happy.

Disclaimer: IANAL

[zwzsg]

Pako: You're a moron. Now sue me, I dare you.

People upload mixes of videos and music (fair use, non-profit I'd say) and they get removed for copyright infringement.

It's a bit more complex: When you create a youtube account, you probably tick a box that reads "Yes, I have read and agree to your term and condition". And those term and condition say something like: We, youtube, have every rights, you, user, have none. Oh and we can changes the rules without notice any time.

When you upload a mix of video and music with copyrighted music or video, youtube doesn't care. But if anyone ever says to youtube "hey a think some company is owning the right of that music or vid", then youtube disable it at once. Not because they are legally forced to. But because they'd rather not have the law be checked in a cout, for fear of a dumb judge saying youtube (not the user) is guilty of hosting content without paying anything to the big company who ripped the original author.

You can try to say to youtube "but it's only fair use", it'll fail on a deaf bot ear. And they have no obligation to host your video anyway. They can refuse you for whatever they want, even for no reason.

Nothing against youtube specifically btw. Everything works like that. And I kinda like it when youtube adds an advert banner "this song is X by Y, click here to buy", much clever and better for everyone than plain removing the vid.

What I mean is that it's rarely the law that force websites to remove copyrighted content. It's more a combination of:
- "I own the server, I rule it however I want"
and:
- "I'm so afraid I'd rather remove anything suspect than risk the court"

This is kinda failure of the legal system, because it means that on upload websites, there's no law, you're at the mercy of the owner, who will do everything possible to avoid the legalities being discussed where they belong, in court.

[Tobi]

For youtube that is true yeah, I simplified that

However, people also got sued for downloading some music for private, non-profit and/or educational use from file sharing networks. Which suggests those private/fair/educational/research use laws aren't as strong as Pako would like.

[AF]

Congratulations, you have written enough words in this thread to produce the first 5 versions of NTai, JCAI, and half of the original SAI.

Please continue your discussion in a code editor of your choice

[Tobi]

First 5 versions of NTAI must have been tiny then

[AF]

There wasnt much too them really, most of NTais complexity came after XE1/0.3