FSF stance on GPL issues.

[El Capitano]

clericvash, the main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the LGPL allows you to write a program that (dynamically) links to a library licensed under it and not have to release your code under the GPL. In the case of Spring, this would mean that a mod, which basically requires Spring to run, can be under whatever license it wants if Spring itself is LGPL. What you can't do is compile the two into one giant binary (statically link them, so they can't be separated) and release that under your own license. Since that's not how Spring works, you don't need to worry about that part.

TL;DR GPL is (potentially) infectious, LGPL is not (except under very specific circumstances).

[KDR_11k]

Well, the infection of Lua would happen through the dynamic linking rule so with LGPL it would stop.

[Radtoo]

I see why the conditions of the GPL needed to be confirmed and explained.

I however do not (so far) see why it'd even be remotely desirable to offer a significantly different license, such as the LGPL.


Is it the intent of this project to create and share something cool as community?
Or is it to allow some individuals to have a cool platform from where they can most efficiently make profit / stroke their egos, and which could only be held together by what essentially would be a bunch of "strategic alliances"?

[Forboding Angel]

Is it the intent of this project to create and share something cool as community?
Or is it to allow some individuals to have a cool platform from where they can most efficiently make profit / stroke their egos, and which could only be held together by what essentially would be a bunch of "strategic alliances"?

Way to completely miss the point

[Pressure Line]

I see why the conditions of the GPL needed to be confirmed and explained.

I however do not (so far) see why it'd even be remotely desirable to offer a significantly different license, such as the LGPL.

Example 1: i make some models and textures for my spring mod. i decide that i do not want to share these (for whatever reason, its not important) with other mod makers. i do not want them edited in any way, or used in any mod other than my own. The IP of these models and textures is mine to share (or not) as i see fit. The GPL licence of the ENGINE i choose to run MY content on should not affect MY rights to restrict use of MY IP.

Example 2: I obtain the rights to use copyrighted content from 'Commercial Game XYZ' in my mod/game for Spring. The IP is not mine to apply a licence to, so i certainly cannot release someone elses IP under a GPL licence.

The idea that because the game ENGINE is GPL means that anything that uses the engine must be GPL is (imo) ridiculous.

[KDR_11k]

I see why the conditions of the GPL needed to be confirmed and explained.

I however do not (so far) see why it'd even be remotely desirable to offer a significantly different license, such as the LGPL.


Is it the intent of this project to create and share something cool as community?
Or is it to allow some individuals to have a cool platform from where they can most efficiently make profit / stroke their egos, and which could only be held together by what essentially would be a bunch of "strategic alliances"?

The point is to let modders have thre freedom of choosing their own license rather than forcing one on them (and pretty belated I might add, this wasn't known when most of the mods were made and they might have chosen another engine had they known it).

[Radtoo]

Example 1: i make some models and textures for my spring mod. i decide that i do not want to share these (for whatever reason, its not important) with other mod makers. i do not want them edited in any way, or used in any mod other than my own. The IP of these models and textures is mine to share (or not) as i see fit. The GPL licence of the ENGINE i choose to run MY content on should not affect MY rights to restrict use of MY IP.

Actually, you can license textures models etc. under different licenses.

All you need to open source license is what you tied directly up to the engine (as in program code, like the lua scripting and linked C++ code), or what you modified in the original work. Even more, you only need to do so when you distribute it.
Note how that doesn't directly affect your IP, but is merely the a condition for you to able to use SOMEONE ELSES IP.

That being said, you know, there's just as much work involved in writing the engine, and more people (and perhaps more skill), as with your mod + textures.
Happens that the community here is relying on and built around sharing. Even if you aren't required to share artwork by license conditions, there's probably a good chance that not reciprocating in similar spirit and proportions will not be considered to be friendly.

Example 2: I obtain the rights to use copyrighted content from 'Commercial Game XYZ' in my mod/game for Spring. The IP is not mine to apply a licence to, so i certainly cannot release someone elses IP under a GPL licence.

Well I honestly doubt you can get a XYZ license license to link program code against / incorporate into spring and to redistribute this, and yet not be allowed to use the GPL or compatible...

And as I said, artwork isn't affected anyways...

[KDR_11k]

People like sharing out of generosity, they do NOT like sharing out of legal requirements.

[smokingwreckage]

If someone wants to make a solo project and retain rights to their materials, they should be able to; more to the point they will simply avoid Spring to do so... and that is not desirable.

[Radtoo]

People like sharing out of generosity, they do NOT like sharing out of legal requirements.

Of course its good to allow them to have arbitrary legal requirements (AKA "proprietary" licenses), because it is much more something generous people will like, and that helps us!

We however can't have them good people feel uncomfortable with legal requirements that would have them share any works based on others' similarly licensed things; it would make them much less generous!

Likewise, we don't need any anti-slavery laws anymore, it will make everyone that much more free!


... look, I believe in the GPL because it does kinda do "sharing-as-trade", not "generosity-at-will". Sort of like you lend people you know tools (for a short time and for free), but expect them to do the same for you - whether you lent first, or are the first to lend.

If someone wants to make a solo project and retain rights to their materials, they should be able to; more to the point they will simply avoid Spring to do so... and that is not desirable.

See my post before. They can, but probably shouldn't.

[KingRaptor]

Wow, just wow. I could say more, but this one is like a stick in the eyeball:

Likewise, we don't need any anti-slavery laws anymore, it will make everyone that much more free!

Comparing sharealike licensing to anti-slavery laws. You been taking AF lessons or something?


Also:

... look, I believe in the GPL because it does kinda do "sharing-as-trade", not "generosity-at-will". Sort of like you lend people you know tools (for a short time and for free), but expect them to do the same for you - whether you lent first, or are the first to lend.

Unless you sign a contract legally binding the lendee to reciprocate in kind at a later date every time you want to lend someone your tools, "expect(ing) them to do the same for you" is generosity-at-will, not sharing-as-trade.

Of course, in the FSF doublethink, being forced to share is much more likely to create a friendly and trusting community than genuine altruism. Out of interest, have you ever tried this with your RL neighbours?

[smoth]

People like sharing out of generosity, they do NOT like sharing out of legal requirements.

Of course its good to allow them to have arbitrary legal requirements (AKA "proprietary" licenses), because it is much more something generous people will like, and that helps us!

We however can't have them good people feel uncomfortable with legal requirements that would have them share any works based on others' similarly licensed things; it would make them much less generous!

......

... look, I believe in the GPL because it does kinda do "sharing-as-trade", not "generosity-at-will". Sort of like you lend people you know tools (for a short time and for free), but expect them to do the same for you - whether you lent first, or are the first to lend.

I like how you talk about strategic alliances when I always give ample to to community asking nothing in return. I am not the only one who does this.

The reason generous people do not like the idea of GPL is that it does restrict what license you use. For example: I like the attribution license and most specifically all I ever want is to make sure people tell others where the resource is so they can use it. It goes against my nature to have a license forced on me and in general I would rather not give anything at all.

So what choice do I get for giving content away? I have to use PD if I want to give stuff to people. PD is dangerous as it pretty much means that people do NOT have to tell people where the got the content. I will use PD though because I want people to be able to use my stuff. This is the only way I can give stuff away without adding a bunch of baggage.

*edits* people do not NEED licenses. Sure some people are assholes and will take but they will not get further help. Most people reciprocate.

[Evil4Zerggin]

KDR didn't say it was right. He just said that's the way it was.

Rightly or wrongly, once legal shit starts getting into the picture, the feeling I get--and I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this--is "if you don't share exactly the way I tell you to, through this legal document that a hundred lawyers couldn't tell you what it means exactly, not that you have the money to consult even a single lawyer nor the time or expertise to really understand it yourself, we could possibly sue the shit out of you, even though all you wanted was to make pretty things for people to enjoy." Is that a fair assessment of the GPL? Probably not. But is that the vibe that I keep getting every time licensing drama flares up? Damn straight it is. I'm beginning to feel threatened, and when I'm in places in which I feel threatened, I tend to want to leave.

[Radtoo]

Comparing sharealike licensing to anti-slavery laws. You been taking AF lessons or something?

Yes, I'm overdramatizing intentionally...

*edits* people do not NEED licenses. Sure some people are assholes and will take but they will not get further help. Most people reciprocate.

I wish. But they in reality generally prefer to reciprocate under conditions only, and the conditions tend to be different every time.

Is that a fair assessment of the GPL? Probably not. But is that the vibe that I keep getting every time licensing drama flares up? Damn straight it is.

Yet, not talking about it is no good. By default, only a copyright holder can redistribute, sublicense, modify. Giving people a license actually guarantees them that they're out of trouble, so it has to be done.

[KDR_11k]

GPL won't reign in the assholes anyway, the assholes are willing to just rip stuff from commercial games so no license would stop them.

[smoth]

true, after all a license is only a request until you enforce it.

[smokingwreckage]

Radtoo, if you can't understand the problem with your argument I'm not sure I can explain it. Let me try though, with a little roleplay

I hold a gun to your head and yell "SHARE!" Is it sharing? How do you feel? If you know that's my attitude, will you want to hang out with me and share work/ideas, or will you stay the fuck away? If you stay away, what have I gained? I ask specifically because this attitude "share everything without exception or caveat or be damned to legal action hell" is the kind of doctrinaire, absolutist, moralising-at-gunpoint that will see people who would otherwise share out of goodwill leave for friendlier climes. You can argue that they SHOULDN'T... but they will, to their loss and ours, because frankly our attitude as encoded in our liscensing, sucks balls.

[Radtoo]

GPL won't reign in the assholes anyway, the assholes are willing to just rip stuff from commercial games so no license would stop them.

true, after all a license is only a request until you enforce it.

Both of you at least expressed this the wrong way around.

The license isn't what "stops", copyright is.
By default you can't do anything with someone else's work! The license is the "whitelist" that fixes the terms on which and what you can do, and the only thing you have that gives you such rights.

Now, the point here would be to not go to any enforcement, or give people a chance to, while still sharing?

I hold a gun to your head and yell "SHARE!" Is it sharing?

No, of course not.

Yet, it's not this type of a story. No guns involved. Simply, you apparently want to take this work, modify it, and get full control over the combination created (meaning including the original work), and you think you're justified to demand this.

If that were up for consideration, I say we'd actually have to ask ourselves the question why it would not be YOU who has to cede all the rights to the combined work to the original work's creators. Becuase, they will very, very likely have done a much larger part on it, plus only they "made it possible".

So... how does that swing with you? Probably not well, eh? ...and that's why the GPL is a good middle ground; everyone to share the thing that actually is a combined work - the code.

[smoth]

The license is the "whitelist" that fixes the terms on which and what you can do, and the only thing you have that gives you such rights.

except that GPL is hard to follow it is one of the worst legal documents that I have ever read. The fact that rather then using one of these piss poor excuses for writing I am effectively forced into using GPL. I liked the creative commons license because I did not find it legally ambiguous.

NOW, the fact that there have been several threads about GPL tells me that the license IS ambigous. Fact of the matter is that GPL is used by spring and in order to use GPL we are forced to spend time reading through countless licenses and since after reading several wasting many hours of time. I am then supposed to expect some poor schmuck to read all that bullshit so he doesn't violate my rights? FUCK, that is too much bullshit.

I want to share my shit, unfortunately the licenses are so filled with ambiguous generalizations that I am virtually forced to PD all things that I have done in order to make my shared items gpl compatible while still allowing people to use the stuff without having to pursue law degrees to utilize the content in question?

[Radtoo]

except that GPL is hard to follow it is one of the worst legal documents that I have ever read.

I disagree. Compare to the Win XP one (with annotations), or the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.

The GPL really is one of the most readable licenses, and one of the most well-known. It even features actual non-legalese that explains things. (Admittedly, MIT / BSD are actually even easier and just as well-known, but they don't do share-alike).

NOW, the fact that there have been several threads about GPL tells me that the license IS ambigous.

It isn't. It is very, very unambiguous, both the legalese and the "simple human-readable" explanations.
People can be wrong and/or not have read the license.

I do know that the detail the GPL goes into makes it a long bunch of text, though. But that goes with the next response:

Iam then supposed to expect some poor schmuck to read all that bullshit so he doesn't violate my rights?

The only schmucks who do that are the ones that alter / redistribute your work.
Yes, people can be expected that they don't alter and redistribute your work without permission, by default. That much is common sense!
So, normally, poor schmucks who don't know the GPL will contact the author(s) and ask for such permission, at which point you can throw the GPL at them...