GPL License discussion

[Pxtl]

Didn't the engine devs eventually decree that, because Spring is GPL, all widget/gadget/COB code is also GPL? Obviously, permission is still required - the author has the option to withdraw their contribution from the engine. But can't it be expected that COB/Lua will be GPL, or will be under a license that could be re-licensed as GPL?

[FLOZi]

Didn't the engine devs eventually decree that, because Spring is GPL, all widget/gadget/COB code is also GPL? Obviously, permission is still required - the author has the option to withdraw their contribution from the engine. But can't it be expected that COB/Lua will be GPL, or will be under a license that could be re-licensed as GPL?

That is exactly why I said that all S44 code is GPL. We have some gadgets from the SWIW team which are licensed as CC, that's the main problem I was reffering to.

Of course S44 doesn't care what Zsinj thinks so we should just do it.

[zwzsg]

But going CC -> GPL is no problem, is it?

[Pxtl]

But going CC -> GPL is no problem, is it?

Any cases where it is a problem are in violation of the GPL.

Tehnically, the Spring Dev's interpretation means that all code _must_ be GPL. Not just "GPL Compatible license". GPL, full stop. Even KDR licensing under more permissive rules is in violation of the GPL, unless they are ported to another engine. You can't make a library based on GPL code and then license that library under a more permissive license, because that's a run-around the GPL. Everything based on GPL code must be GPL.

So, technically, every Lua/Bos script is either GPL or in violation (not that the Spring community is totally adherent to copyright law, obviously).

And thus ends my GPL threadjack. So FLOZi, while technically he probably should confirm the GPL-ness of all the code, is quite fair in saying "you contributed to a Spring project. Your options are (1) GPL or (2) don't contribute. I'm going to assume (1), since you obviously didn't do (2)".

[zwzsg]

Cob is not exclusive to Spring, it can also be run by the commercial engine of Total Annhilation. I made units whose cob run as well under Spring as under TotalA, I even made some before Spring was born. Why should my old bos created long before Spring release suddendly be forced to be GPL'ed by a Tobi decree?

[AF]

Content is compatible with GPL if it imposes the same restrictions as GPL or imposes fewer (aka more open than GPL, e.g. LGPL or some CC licences)

Reminder: Creative Commons is not a licence, its an umbrella for a collection of licences which all mean very different things. Not all CC licences are GPL compatible.

[Pxtl]

The problem is that the restriction imposed by the gpl is that derivatives must be GPL. So "gpl compatible" is irrelevant here. If you're making something derived from GPL work (which they say Spring mods are), then they must be GPL. Not "GPL Compatible". GPL. Full stop.

"GPL Compatible" only is relevant when you are re-licensing work that you are contributing to a GPL-only repository. Say, you had a dozen people contribute to an BSD-license-based project, and you want to put that project into Debian or some similar GPL-only repository. Well, the BSD license is more permissive than GPL, so converting the project to GPL does not require getting permission from every single contributor - you can just plonk it into the repository and convert it to GPL automatically. That's where "GPL Compatible" comes in. However, in that project, all the code was contributed with the intent for it to be BSD.

In Spring projects, the use of the Spring engine means that BSD license is not an option. If you made a game for Spring, you're making a derivative work of Spring. This means your game must adhere to the license, or you can't use Spring. The license says your code must be GPL.

[AF]

A mod is not a derivative work of the sprign engine. If we're talking about a fork of the spring engine then yes you would be right.

Game content must be GPL or GPL compatible. Since game content can be created from scratch without using sprign source code, it is not a derivative work, anymore than a plugin library is a derivative work of a program that uses that plugin. They must have compatible licences yes but they are not derivative unless the plugin takes on code from the parent program. At which point the code taken must be GPL, though you can mix GPL code with nonGPL if they are compatible.

You should re-read or risk confusing yourself and in the process everyone else in the thread and spark a confusion flamewar

[Pxtl]

I agree that a mod is not a derivative work of the engine. However, my opinion is irrelevant. The opinion of the Spring developers and the EFF is that yes, the mod is a derivative work of the engine.

If it were not, the GPL would have no legal applicability, since GPL only applies when copyright does. The opinion of the EFF and the Spring developers is that linking to a library makes your project a derivative work. Thus, your Lua and BOS code (barring OTA compatibility) is derivative, and thus covered under the GPL. If it were not, then the GPL does not apply to your work and you would be free to take whatever licensing approach you choose.

/ianal

[Argh]

Hi there.

Most of what needed to be said has been said. Long story short- Spring is an engine, not a game per se. If you want to ship a given game with a Linux distribution, you either need the permission of the author(s) or you need it to be licensed in a way that permits redistribution without permission.

With permission, you can redistribute anything you want to.

If you'd like to redistribute the P.U.R.E. Demo for Linux, I have no objections to that, provided that the License notices on the non-GPL portions remain clear. I certainly don't have any problems with people giving that away for free (as in "free beer"), when I am giving it away myself.

Moreover, the Demo contains a wealth of GPL content and source code that may be useful to others. However, the AppLauncher's conversion to Mono has not been (to my knowledge, at any rate) completed at this time, and I haven't had time to develop any alternative ways to launch Missions, so it's not really feature-complete yet.

[AF]

What you are saying pxtl would make most linux distributions illegal.

GPL and nonGPL code can be mixed as long as the nonGPL code uses a GPL compatible licence. For cases where nonGPL compatible code needs to use GPL code, LGPL is available. GPL is not an infectious licence, it does not infect everything it touches with enforcement of a GPL and only a GPL licence. Its only requirement is that its as strict or less strict than GPL itself. If the license places restrictions that are not in the GPL then it is deemed incompatible. Its in the FAQ for the GPL.

[Pxtl]

@AF - here's the problem. Given Spring is GPL. Let's say I make a game for spring on the BSD license (GPL-compatible), which says I can do whatever I want with it. Then somebody else takes that BSD licensed game and releases it as a closed-source version (which is allowed under the BSD license). Thus, the GPL is circumvented - person X has released a closed-source Spring game.

This is why the GPL requires that all derivative works use the GPL and _only_ the GPL. "GPL-Compatible" is only relevant when re-licensing an existing work without the authors' permission.

[Auswaschbar]

I split the topic, you can continue discussing here.

PS.: pxtl, you are wrong (my personal opinion)

[jK]

@AF - here's the problem. Given Spring is GPL. Let's say I make a game for spring on the BSD license (GPL-compatible), which says I can do whatever I want with it. Then somebody else takes that BSD licensed game and releases it as a closed-source version (which is allowed under the BSD license). Thus, the GPL is circumvented - person X has released a closed-source Spring game.

This is why the GPL requires that all derivative works use the GPL and _only_ the GPL. "GPL-Compatible" is only relevant when re-licensing an existing work without the authors' permission.

seems you don't understand anything ...
The "GPL-compatible" means you can combine non- but still GPL-compatible work with existing GPL content.
Relicensing w/o the author's permission is impossible (with any license!).
Nobody can make changes to the spring engine and then release it as BSD. He just can make HIS stuff BSD, the rest of the spring engine is and will be forever under GPL!

[Pxtl]

By "relicensing without the author's permission", I meant "converting from license X to GPL"

That is, I have an app (written by a 3rd-party) that is BSD licensed (ie, do whatever you want with this code). I make some modifications, I can re-license the whole app (including all the old BSD-licensed code) as GPL. That's what "GPL-compatible" means.

[Regret]

By "relicensing without the author's permission", I meant "converting from license X to GPL"

That is, I have an app (written by a 3rd-party) that is BSD licensed (ie, do whatever you want with this code). I make some modifications, I can re-license the whole app (including all the old BSD-licensed code) as GPL. That's what "GPL-compatible" means.

But you can't make GPL into BSD. /thread

[Pxtl]

Right. Which is exactly why all spring game must be GPL. The GPL states that all linking code must be GPL. That means all spring mods and games must be GPL.

And you can't convert from GPL into BSD. The "GPL-compatible" thing is a one-way trip. By using the Spring engine, you're _starting_ with GPL.

[jK]

By "relicensing without the author's permission", I meant "converting from license X to GPL"

That is, I have an app (written by a 3rd-party) that is BSD licensed (ie, do whatever you want with this code). I make some modifications, I can re-license the whole app (including all the old BSD-licensed code) as GPL. That's what "GPL-compatible" means.

no, you can't. The old code is and will be forever BSD. Just your code is under GPL and cuz GPL is more restrictive than BSD it means that any further releases with your code included have to be GPL-compatible, but anyone can remove your code and voila! it doesn't have to be GPL-compatible anymore.

[Regret]

The GPL states that all linking code must be GPL. That means all spring mods and games must be GPL.

Models do not link to the game engine, textures do not link to the game engine etc. Only Lua and Bos/Cob.

[Pxtl]

The GPL states that all linking code must be GPL. That means all spring mods and games must be GPL.

Models do not link to the game engine, textures do not link to the game engine etc. Only Lua and Bos/Cob.

Aware of that. I'm specifically referring to Lua and Bos/Cob. My point is that others are saying "GPL or a compatible license", and I'm saying "technically no - GPL only".

It's a minor stickling point, but I'm a pedant.