Screenshots of GPL software

sanderbakkes · Post by **sanderbakkes** » 28 Jun 2007, 16:09

The fourth edition of the AI Game Programming Wisdom 4 book will feature research performed in the Spring game. This serves as a big boost in awareness of Spring.

As author of one of the articles in the book, it however is necessary to know if there are any issues in the GPL licence that would make it difficult to publish a screenshot of Spring. I searched wikipedia, found this and this, but did not find a conclusive answer yet. Anyone here who is familiar with the topic?

Post by **jcnossen** » 28 Jun 2007, 17:50

According to the second link:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. [GPLv2 ├é┬º0]

In case of a game like, it seems normal that a screenshot would not be infected by GPL license.
Similarly, this board runs PHPBB licensed under GPL, so that would mean that what I write here is GPL too?

AF · Post by AF » 28 Jun 2007, 18:30

woo I have those 3 books! Does this mean me(NTai) submarine(AAI) veylon(OTAI) jelmer(JCAI) krogoth firenu kloot and tournesol(KAI) are going to have our names in a little sidenote?

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 28 Jun 2007, 18:56

@sanderbakkes
If you like to do it "right" you should just ask permission from the content (mod & map) authors.
Or use small low res screenshots that would be considered "fair use" under U.S. law as I understand it.

Also for the new site I'm trying to get screenshots that are released in the "public domain" so you and other print media (magazine's) can just nick those. Problem with the last is that you might need your book before I get the screenshots for the new site up.

Screenshots of a copyrighted work is a bit of a border case I don't think you can get away with it as "an independent work". (from a legal point of view)
If a screenshot of GPL game content could "infect" a dead tree book is a bit far fetched but I would suggest you just keep away from the problem and do it the "right"way as I explained above.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 28 Jun 2007, 20:31

The screenshot is the output of the program, nothing on it is part of the program, it generates the image from the datafiles that are distributed separately.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 28 Jun 2007, 22:14

I am confused tim, does that mean a shot of gundam cannot be show because it is not my IP? Or what?

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 28 Jun 2007, 22:21

Wasn't there a case sometime ago against a photographer because he made & published a picture of a bridge and didn't pay royalties to the architect?

Seems about the same situation here

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 28 Jun 2007, 22:53

I suppose the relevant question to ask is "Where is this book being published.

Hoenstly, just go ahead and take the screenies. Its an educational prupose and itll fall under fair use if it goes to court.

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 28 Jun 2007, 23:02

Tobi wrote:Wasn't there a case sometime ago against a photographer because he made & published a picture of a bridge and didn't pay royalties to the architect?

Seems about the same situation here

So the architect is the modder, and the engine is the camera, I would think?

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 29 Jun 2007, 00:58

KDR_11k wrote:The screenshot is the output of the program, nothing on it is part of the program, it generates the image from the datafiles that are distributed separately.

And quite right you are

but I was talking about the data files that are GPL not the engine.

smoth wrote:I am confused tim, does that mean a shot of gundam cannot be show because it is not my IP? Or what?

You are the copyright holder for the work you did, the Gundam franchise is not yours so in the case of Gundam sanderbakkes would in theory have to get permission from you and the owner of the Gundam franchise. As the screenshot has both work from you and the IP owner in it.
But the owner of the IP and you have not released your work under the GPL (as far as I know) so there is no viral problem, it's more or less a "normal" copyright problem.

Still it's all up to debate as you have fair use, journalistic freedom and a lot of other stuff and IANAL... also every country has its own laws. The basics are not that hard to get "what you make is yours" and "you can decide the terms for the work you own". But a screenshot printed in a book that has stuff in it that is made by some guy (you) that's heavily based on the rights of another party. I don't know, I guess everybody would agree the book would be an independent work, but if you need to do it "right" then I would advice sanderbakkes to ask permission and be done with it. Maybe the book publisher has some information on this?

Do note that I'm not talking about the GPL here.
I would have to read the GPL again but from memory the viral part was limited to *very* specific usages.
And it can only be an issue if any visuals (textures or maps) would actually be released under the GPL, I don't think there are any, only Xect vs Mynn is GPL from top to bottom. NanoBlobs has its scripts released under the GPL but the rest is some CC license I thought. So 99,9% of all Spring screenshots would have nothing to do with the GPL.
Still those 99,9% have copyright owners that might have to give permission for publication in a book, so ask. Only stuff in the pubic domain or stuff released under a few specific open source licenses can be used without any restriction.

Moral of the story:
Ask permission from the copyright owners before publishing.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 29 Jun 2007, 05:23

This is where things get interesting, several gundam mods(gundam universe, gundam century) were published in magazines with large articles, and those mods were incomplete and/or unreleased at the time. Both of which have credit's to bandai, sotsu etc as the owners. In fact gundam century was a reverse engineering of starcraft(AGAINST the eula btw) and the guy tried to work a deal with bandai/blizzard to sell it but there was not interest or reply about his hackish work.

Now gundam rts does have the same credits on it's site and has been printed(albeit a small 1-2 inch spot) in pcgamer and has been around for around 3 years now. The project has been the only one to make a fully functional release and it is also the only gundam project still under successful development. So of all of them I bear the lone distinction and pride of that.

As far as xect an mynn are concerned, I looked at fixing the scripts at one point in time only to stop after my disgust that many of the scripts are ripped off from ota units. However, since it's legality has yet to be challenged and wasn't at the time it was GPLed no one cares. Atari has no money to make for a suit and frankly cannot afford it.

so as much as nanoblobs was incomplete(argh has yet to address the balance issues he himself brought up) I must insist that NANOBLOBS is the only fully gpl project

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 29 Jun 2007, 05:41

How about KP/Corruption? 1944? Spring Racing?

Honestly I would say that out of the giant screenies gallery we have assembled across the threads in this forum, the ones of Argh's NanoBlobz mod on Lathan's Swamp map are better than anything I have seen for an RTS, ever. Including pro RTS.

Yes I know im repeating myself but theyre just that damn good!

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 29 Jun 2007, 05:42

I was unaware of kp BEING gpl.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 29 Jun 2007, 08:05

It's PD AFAIK.

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 29 Jun 2007, 12:05

smoth wrote:This is where things get interesting, several gundam mods(gundam universe, gundam century) were published in magazines with large articles, and those mods were incomplete and/or unreleased at the time. Both of which have credit's to bandai, sotsu etc as the owners. In fact gundam century was a reverse engineering of starcraft(AGAINST the eula btw) and the guy tried to work a deal with bandai/blizzard to sell it but there was not interest or reply about his hackish work. ..

That's real nice of them but Blizzard did kill Freecraft.

smoth wrote:.. As far as xect an mynn are concerned, I looked at fixing the scripts at one point in time only to stop after my disgust that many of the scripts are ripped off from ota units. However, since it's legality has yet to be challenged and wasn't at the time it was GPLed no one cares. Atari has no money to make for a suit and frankly cannot afford it.

XvM is a bit special in that it was *sold* at some point and the TA owners did not act against it at that time. From a legal perspective it's an interesting twist.

smoth wrote:so as much as nanoblobs was incomplete(argh has yet to address the balance issues he himself brought up) I must insist that NANOBLOBS is the only fully gpl project

No, NanoBlobs 6 (in svn) is not fully gpl, only the bos files are gpl'd the rest is released as creative commons public domain.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 29 Jun 2007, 13:32

Tim Blokdijk wrote:so as much as nanoblobs was incomplete(argh has yet to address the balance issues he himself brought up) I must insist that NANOBLOBS is the only fully gpl project

No, NanoBlobs 6 (in svn) is not fully gpl, only the bos files are gpl'd the rest is released as creative commons public domain.[/quote]

Either way, it is full open-licensed. CCPD is even more permissive than GPL, and is probably considered a relicensable subset, allowing it to be treated as entirely GPLd.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 29 Jun 2007, 14:31

I'm studying to be an architect. We don't do bridges

I am always a little wary with SWS, as we are effectively treading on the lucasarts IP; but they have shown the be really very lenient towards Star Wars mods, which pop up for pretty much every game under the sun. Even those which are direct competitors for their games; there were a number of instances of RTS and FPS mods being released in the same timeframe of Galactic Battlegrounds, Empire at War, etc, and Lucasarts really gave them no harm. So long as you're not loading up John William's music. Nicking their voice acks is a pretty blurry line to be crossing though...

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 29 Jun 2007, 15:18

Dragon45 wrote:How about KP/Corruption? 1944? Spring Racing?

Honestly I would say that out of the giant screenies gallery we have assembled across the threads in this forum, the ones of Argh's NanoBlobz mod on Lathan's Swamp map are better than anything I have seen for an RTS, ever. Including pro RTS.

Yes I know im repeating myself but theyre just that damn good!

1944 isn't anything yet. The current plan is CC by-nc-sa or by-nc.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 29 Jun 2007, 15:45

Dragon45 wrote:How about KP/Corruption? 1944? Spring Racing?

Err, if you talk about my Spring Racers mods, it's one of the most horrible looking ever done. About no effort was done in its graphics, and it shows.

the ones of Argh's NanoBlobz mod on Lathan's Swamp map are better than anything I have seen for an RTS, ever. Including pro RTS.

I disagree. The new, unreleased, 1944 mod screenshots I saw are the most flabbergasting ever so far. With the mysterious Operation Polaris as a close second.

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 29 Jun 2007, 16:42

Gear Commander looks awesome, but unfortunately also quite dead...

Spring RTS Engine

Screenshots of GPL software

Screenshots of GPL software