Argh wrote:If I accepted your entire argument as true, which I don't, because I think you're overstating your case a bit (n 0.76b1, we have documented cases of Widgets and Gadgets causing desync, due to a number of things that have been addressed in SVN)...
The primary causes are unsynced writing to synced code (either through a badly planned explicit call in spring's code, or because of memory corruption, writing/reading past an array bound, utilizing a pointer to a location that has been reallocated, etc)
Uhm...reread what I said? You pretty much restated it as an example.
it pretty much demonstrates that desync is an engine-side problem, and doesn't establish anything about the "whole game" argument.
Desyncs generally are engine-side problems, unless you're explicitly writing to synced code from unsynced lua (which might actually be prohibited engine-side? I'm not sure...), in which case you need to be beaten with a stick. I wasn't intending to be involved with the desync+"whole game" argument (which I think is silly, as it does deal with arbitrary engine behaviour - a content package should be subject to the same licensing no matter where it is used, unless the license explicitly limits that), just correcting your erroneous statements about sync.
No offense, but you obviously don't understand what I've been saying.
I'm saying that your code is entitled to GPL, is copyrighted, and does not copyleft other people's work- people may use your GPL code, under the GPL, they may not take it private. You are allowed to use any GPL code they changed, but you're not at all entitled to use their work otherwise.
Is that clear? If I improve a GPL Gadget or Widget and include it in a game, you can have that Gadget or Widget code. You may not have any of the other code, unless I say so. Simple.
If you want to apply copyleft to other people's games, though, I think that is not supported by the available arguments.
Moreover, it's a profoundly disturbing idea, at this late date.
If you want that, then you should be working on an all-GPL project. Otherwise, frankly, the FSF would consider you a violator of the very license you say you want applied. Is that what you want? I don't.
I think Spring games can be considered "mere aggregation", and I've explained why. If you want to explain technical reasons why that isn't valid, I'm perfectly willing to listen to that. Or tear into the entire aggregate argument, if you really want to.
Just be aware, what I stated above is my intended goal- and I don't think it's possible to get that result if we don't accept an aggregate argument. Either Spring games are whole "works" and are entirely GPL or not... or they're aggregates, and parts of them may be under separate licenses.
What do you want? If you want whole-games, fine, argue my points, but realize that means you're in violation of the GPL, as well as being a copyright infringer.
If you want aggregates, find supporting evidence. Be helpful, instead of spazzing out.
There is no other way out of this situation. CA created a mess, by being an infringing project, yet trying to apply for GPL protection- and then, to top things off, getting very muddy about enforcement when you knew that the GPL was being violated.
Now I'm going to get it cleaned up and get a final definition of how licenses apply, barring major structural changes to Spring, so that this is all well-defined and very, very clear.
There isn't some third way, that leaves the status quo intact. Get over it. Pick an outcome, and argue for it. That quote from FSF is, I agree, key to our understanding- I'm arguing for "mere aggregation", and I've said why. If you want to argue against, go for it, but now you know what the consequences are likely to be.
I agree with both, but with this reasoning, I don't see the point in these walls of text and endless license discussions.
The point is that many projects aren't using CA's source precisely because the boundaries of the licensing issues aren't well-understood.
There really isn't a fast way to get that settled, without exploring the fundamentals about license, people.
If it was up to me, I'd say that people should license any way they feel like it, for any part of their games, and everybody should use the code appropriate to the license of that bit.
Like, say, NanoBlobs was licensed. Originally. Before everybody pitched a fit, and told me that it was copylefting games, and I felt that it was necessary to enforce it because of that assertion.
However, that's what I'd like... not necessarily the reality. When we have people asking to use stuff, but afraid they're breaking the GPL by doing so, it's very important that it's clear where the GPL starts and ends.
That's how one prevents lawsuits in the first place- by clearly engaging in a good-faith effort to adhere to a license. It'd be very hard to bring a lawsuit against, say, Fanger, for using GPL'd code in E&E, if the arguments about aggregation were accepted, and he made it into a commercial game. If they aren't, his project's violating the license.
Moreover, we have various "dark" projects out there, people. There are projects that I've seen hints of in various off-site areas, whose teams never show up here.
We don't know how many of them are groups with the intent to sell games made with Spring, or a variant of Spring. We don't know how much stuff they're taking from other games. We don't know how many of them will be completed, and when, and whether we'll be told about them.
Nor do we know to what extent Spring's being bundled in game-pack CDs or other issues. And this is very likely to accelerate, as the engine matures past what's in SVN, which is a considerable leap forward in terms of capabilities.
Settling the license stuff for once and all is in everybody's long-term interests here. I don't intend for this discussion to be endless. I want it to get it thrashed out, let the dust settle, and post something definitive in the Wiki, so that it's clear to all. That requires a lot more work than just declaring a fiat and hoping it sticks.
That's why I recommend a custom licence... If you want people to open source their entire project just because they used a snippit of your open sourced code, or a single model, or a single widget, write a licence that says that. If you want certain people to use your project a certain way, write a licence that says that (you are free under copyright to licence specific people individually). Basically, just use normal copyright and issue special permissions when people want to use your stuff within the community, then you will be protected from magic violations you don't expect.
If you legitimately don't care, then stop playing grand council and just license under CC-NC, CC-SA, or CC-PD. The CC licences are designed to work with art assets, and as such don't explode under abstract circumstances. They are logical, and sane and work really well for things like games. They provide sufficient protection without poisoning others works or creating hoops others must jump through. Understandable documentation exists for them in a format all of 4 sentences long.
GPL is a great code licence, and I'm glad spring uses it as it does some really cool things for the project, but it just doesn't make sense for a full scale game because it just doesn't work right when applied to art resources.
[edit] On CA: You're always allowed to hold a license but not enforce it. In some countries if the license goes unenforced for a certain period of time it basically gives whoever is using it wrongfully rights to it, but generally, not enforcing a license just means that at any point in time if you choose to you can level the enforcement at any time. Basically... People who are using CA stuff don't really have to worry about it because realistically, it's very very unlikely someone will ever actually try to enforce legal action against them. Many people have received special licensing permissions as well... and there's a plethora of cases where the content in question is licensed under a less restrictive open license which CA is implementing under the umbrella of thier larger GPL project (Mr.D's models he has stated anyone may use, effectively making them PD. CA implements them, which is fine, but they don't own them any more then anyone else does under PD, so their GPL status doesn't effect any project using Mr. D's models since they aren't the owner of the license for that resource)
I think the point is CA ppl don't want to use copyleft to change your licence. If your licence isn't compatible then you get a "gtfo" sign, and you should look elsewhere.
Y'know, I just realized... AF, KDR, and jK all have (or at the very least, have had a link sent) to see P.U.R.E. alphas / betas, including World Builder and the World Builder tech demo.
All three files- P.U.R.E.'s main files, World Builder and the demo map- have Gadgets in them. The Gadgets in World Builder and the demo map (yeah, there are Gadgets in there) are GPL, and definitely create a specific game state. I can always un-GPL that stuff (although certain S3Os would have to get axed, unless aGorm gave me permission to change the license).
Y'know, that's probably the easiest and clearest test case for "mere aggregation". Should have considered it earlier, tbh, but I never really even thought about it, because I assumed that any idiot can see they're separate objects. However, it appears that I'm a little over-optimistic about what people see- I assume that people who get a game demo will open it up and look around, like I do, so maybe none of you bothered. Heck, in the case of KDR and jK, I dunno whether you guys even ran the game to see what it's about, frankly.
So, check their internals out, you three, maybe this will help us arrive at a consensus, or at least move this last bit of the argument beyond people getting grumpy at each other.
There are some "links" between them- World Builder is called as a "addon module" type dependency, the demo map's code (the most important stuff) expects certain Units to be defined in UnitDef. However, that's it- the connections, such as they are, are very, very non-dependent, because I wanted them to all be separate files from the beginning.
So, is this a "whole game"? World Builder does absolutely nothing- it's just a content repository, pretty much, other than one Gadget that has a very specific use (changing non-hostile Neutrals to hostile), which, IIRC, I don't even have a Unit to demonstrate with right this minute, as my grander plans for World Builder have taken a backseat to getting the main game done.
The demo map puts most of the objects into the gameworld, but is very specific to the map- P.U.R.E. doesn't put cities and forests on every map, of course.
And P.U.R.E. has no code that is acting on anything done by World Builder.
Yet, all three SDZs, together, create a novel game state. Personally, I think it's a perfect demonstration of how Spring games are an aggregate. Does this materially effect my arguments in favor, or is there a catch I missed?
the ambiguity of gpl makes it hard to nail down what is aggregate in favor of trying to call it part of a library... While I feel it is fairly clear and would argue to that point I do not feel there is a clear example to illustrate and if someone is creative enough they can destroy any argument given enough time for example 1 != 1 can be argued if you take it out of context or are creative enough.
A GPLed model can't poison a game/program that uses it. Art resources basically should never be GPL because it just doesn't work that way, but the way GPL is worded basically unless you are modifying that art resource specifically, you don't need to release your whole project under GPL, you just have to provide the GPL licence for that specific piece of art (and the source if you have it, which is one of the reasons why art works so poorly under GPL because it's usually released without any source)
