Scope of the GPL for mods

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 27 Sep 2007, 19:28

AF, please. There are compatible licenses such as BSD and LGPL which are less restrictive and will protect Trepan's work.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 27 Sep 2007, 20:30

For what I know the plan is that gadgethandler will go into springcontent.sdz, then the problem wrt the gadgethandler suddenly dissolves into thin air.

EDIT:

Trepans code is GPL, he can't just change its licence as he wishes, that's one of the reasons the GPL licence was created to begin with. Trepan could only change to a GPL compatible licence.

Wrong, relicensing GPL code is very well possible as long as you can trace down all copyright holders and come in agreement (this is obviously trivial for anything written by a single person like the gadgethandler, and near impossible for anything like Spring itself). The GPL limits your own freedom in no way whatsoever.

Note however that this relicense of course does not apply to earlier release. Once something is released as GPL, that version will stay GPL, but any future versions can be under any other (non GPL compatible) license, as long as all copyright holders agree with that.

AF · Post by AF » 27 Sep 2007, 20:40

The GPL site explicitly says that the BSD site is incompatible due to an advertising clause that violates a GPL clause about no further restrictions.

And brain damage, do not edit your posts after people have replied, to take out typos or the odd bit but not to triple the length of your post...

However you do not seem to have bothered to address my issue and have totally misinterpreted me. Distributing a gadget with a mod requires that the mod be GPL compliant either by being GPL or using a GPL compatible licence.

It is the act of distribution here that matters.The issue of the gadget handler is solved as tobi said but the gadgets themselves are still derivative works fo the Gadget and Widget classes in trepans code and make active use of trepans code to function, passing data, sharing data structures and making function calls, and as such should have a GPL compliant licence unless formally exempted by trepan.

Of course if you can somehow decouple the entire gadget from your distribution entirely then the problem is solved, however that means a more complex installation procedure and it means the gadgets and lua content have to be in a separate archive at which point it comes under the 'mere aggregation' clauses.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 27 Sep 2007, 20:44

Modified BSD (ie. BSD without advertising clause) is GPL compatible.

If there is class inheritance then that is clearly derived work yeah, if I remember I'll chat with trepan about it sometime.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 27 Sep 2007, 21:19

yay I get to sleep...

First creative commons exists af:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
That is it so no, it is a real license. end of arguement, it is not some part of GPL, GPL and creative commons are not one in the same.

These points are from GPL 3, even though spring is NOT USING GPL 3 we will presume it is...

I am replacing convey with distribute as it means the same and is less confusing. Silly lawyers

GPL ver 3 wrote: 5. Distributing Modified Source Versions.

You may Distribute a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) The work(based on the Program) must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
it, and giving a relevant date.

b) The work( based on the Program) must carry prominent notices stating that it is
released under this License and any conditions added under section
7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
"keep intact all notices".

c) You must license the entire work( based on the Program), as a whole, under this
License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

d) If the work( based on the Program) has interactive user interfaces, each must display
Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
work need not make them do so.

so if I BASe SOMETHING on a GPLED piece of code yeah, that CODE is gpled, sure

Replace program with: GPLED WORK(because that is what the terms of gple define it as for the license, someone needs a dictionary)
Replace agregatte with: collection of things

gpl v3 wrote: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger GPLED WORK,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate"(combination of mixed things) if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate(collection of things) does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate(collection of things).

a combination of gpled stuff and other license stuff which are not extensions as in, they are not building on the files and in the gpled code files those are covered and are not part of a larger gpled(as in spring bundle) that is altogether under a gpl license and is sitting somewhere as a pile of stuff getting distro-ed also long as the source code available for view and open to reading and modification. then the agregate pile of shit doesn't need to be gpled.

so yeah, as long as I have some files and they are open for people to view the code and modify it then no the project needs no gpl. Being that the specific creative commons license I prefer puts no restrictions or locks that mean my aggregate piles are gpl free no matter if they include a gpl part or not.

All the aggregate section states is that if you are using gpled code and have modified it, the gpled code is not unlicensed. It also adds the provision that:

GPL v 3 wrote:Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

so I can include gpled work in anything but it does not mean that I have to gpl the lot. The models and textures are not an extension of the lua work or spring project. The bos scripts are not an extension and only the peices of code that use the lua and then create new extensions but not say make use of it as it's own module are safe. compiled executables, source code that requires the lua to run require gpl.

The ony GREY area is the lua<->cob which may require gpling that script with the lua in it.

TOBI, if you include the file include it as springlua not in springcontent as spring content would include other files that may conflict with graphical assets.

AF · Post by AF » 27 Sep 2007, 23:11

Actually no, you did nto post the link to a CC licence.

Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

Look here:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

You'll see the share alike licence is what youve linked to.

Heres a non legalese version:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

As I said, Creative Commons is not a licence it's a non profit organisation. Its like sayign that spring uses the Free Software Foundation Licence, or the Microsoft Licence, or the Linus Torvalds Licence.

And no i didnt say GPL == CC. I said GPL is one of the licences advocated by the creative commons organisation, along with other licences such as public domain, LGPL, foundrs copyright, BCD, etc..

Having said that there are 6 licences the creative commons group have laid out but they're not called CC, and are collectively the 'attribution' licence. When they reference the term 'creative commons licence' they mean a creative commons licence not the creative commons licence. See here for the list: http://creativecommons.org/about/licens ... e-licenses

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 27 Sep 2007, 23:18

af, so what it if it is called the attribution license... jesus man.

in america people call soda pop drinks "a coke" or "soda" that doesn't mean that mountain dew doesn't count.

/me bashes head against a wall.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 28 Sep 2007, 00:07

smoth wrote:TOBI, if you include the file include it as springlua not in springcontent as spring content would include other files that may conflict with graphical assets.

springcontent.sdz is actually forcefully loaded by Spring for a few versions now. It's on the end of the override chain though so you can override anything in it.

bitmaps.sdz however still has to be explicitly depended upon by the mod IIRC.

clericvash · Post by **clericvash** » 28 Sep 2007, 00:12

An author always has direct control of his work, the copyright always remains his, and it is his decision to license it how he wishes.

I can create something, put under gpl, then decide a new version on a new license (but i cannot change license of the versions before), it is my work and the gpl does not stop original authors making new versions under a new license.

GPL also allows selling the code in a way, like i can charge people for receiving loads of GPL content on a CD, that is also allowed.

If i make something with a random license, and use GPL content, that does not make me have to release my wares in GPL, it means i cannot re-license that GPL code, and i must include the source of it + any modifications to it i make, but i don't have to provide source in GPL format of my code. For instance http://www.skyos.org uses a different license, distributes GPL code with it, but doesn't release it's own code, it releases the GPL code it modifies for free, which is allowed.

(This is all from reading up before, if you are going to tell me i am wrong, please show proof from the gpl itself.).

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 28 Sep 2007, 00:26

clericvash wrote: If i make something with a random license, and use GPL content, that does not make me have to release my wares in GPL, it means i cannot re-license that GPL code, and i must include the source of it + any modifications to it i make, but i don't have to provide source in GPL format of my code. For instance http://www.skyos.org uses a different license, distributes GPL code with it, but doesn't release it's own code, it releases the GPL code it modifies for free, which is allowed.

IANAL, but from what I know that is not true, unless you're talking about mere aggregation (see smoths post for GPL text). If you are talking about cherry picking some classes from e.g. Spring and putting those in your closed source application, then you aren't adhering to the GPL's terms, even if you distribute the source of these classes with your [further closed source] program.

GPL v3 section 5 wrote: c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

GPL v2 section 2 wrote: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

clericvash · Post by **clericvash** » 28 Sep 2007, 00:28

Well then i move for a "GPL is a crap license discussion", seriously i feel now that the GPL is way too demanding.

Post by jK » 28 Sep 2007, 01:01

clericvash wrote:For instance http://www.skyos.org uses a different license, distributes GPL code with it, but doesn't release it's own code, it releases the GPL code it modifies for free, which is allowed.

That is an os, with many programs and not all have GPL code in it. So only those which have GPL code in it have to be under GPL (kernel, etc.).

clericvash wrote:Well then i move for a "GPL is a crap license discussion", seriously i feel now that the GPL is way too demanding.

It makes much things easier. For example you see a feature or any content (images,sounds,models,...) which you really like and now you want to use it in your own project -> you can simple do it. No searching for the license, no searching for the email address of the author (which really isn't easy), no emailing and waiting for a response (if you get one), no limitation like you can only use it "if ...".
No, you can simple include it in your GPL project without ifs and buts.

Also you get much more response if your project is under GPL, because ppl only look in your code if they learn something, use it by themselves or if they want to improve your project. (spring would already be dead with any other license)

Note: This post is not a "discussion about the morality of sharing". It is a listing of the benefits/attributes of GPL.
Note2: CC-SA is not GPL compatible.

Tobi · Post by **Tobi** » 28 Sep 2007, 01:03

If it worked the way you (clericvash) describe it it wouldn't work at all.

Consider the following example:

Someone makes a class, licensed under the GPL:

Code: Select all

GPL.cs:
  class A {
    public virtual void DoSomethingCool() {
       /* cool implementation here */
    }
  };

Someone else makes a bigger program, using part of the above program

Code: Select all

GPL.cs:
  abstract class A {
    public abstract void MyClosedSourceCode();
    public virtual void DoSomethingCool() {
       /* cool implementation here,
       now modified so that part of
       the code depend heavily on
       MyClosedSourceCode(). */
    }
  };
ClosedSource.cs:
  class B : A {
    public override void MyClosedSourceCode() {
       /* part of the code that should
       have been released under GPL */
    }
  };

This would be legal in your case, and it shows that anyone could rip any GPL code by introducing an extra level of indirection, if the GPL only applied to single files/classes.

smoth · Post by **smoth** » 28 Sep 2007, 01:14

check your pms tobi.

Argh · Post by **Argh** » 28 Sep 2007, 04:01

Um, the only thing I wish to add to this discussion is that I am very happy to hear that the core LUA handler code will be moved to where it should be- as the core of the Spring engine, and away from something that must be explicitly included within a game's body.

That allows us to continue to have freedom of license, whilst taking advantage of Trepan's work, and I appreciate that you folks have taken the time and put in the work that must have been necessary to make that happen!

Felix the Cat · Post by **Felix the Cat** » 28 Sep 2007, 04:51

Remember, when choosing a license, choose one that agrees with your aims and goals. Don't just say "ok imma gpl this" without considering what purpose you want your license to serve.

The goal behind the GPL is for a) your source code to be free, open, and freely usable by everyone, and b) to make everyone else's source code be free, open, and freely usable by everyone. The Free Software Foundation, publisher of the GPL, explicitly states that software should not have owners.

If your objective is to share your code AND to force others to share their code, the GPL is for you. If your objective is simply to make your code available to others without forcing anything on them, the GPL is not for you.

I think that lots of things that use the GPL really shouldn't be using it. For whatever reason, "GPL" has gained publicity and is now read as a synonym for "open source", when in fact they are two different concepts. It would be better for everyone if this "open source = GPL" correlation were to end, but that's not really something we can do.

Finally - GPL was originally made for source code for computer applications, and maintains that as its primary purpose today. Things that are not source code for computer applications are very poor candidates for the GPL, because the GPL was not designed to address licensing of things that are not source code for computer applications. Using GPL elsewhere is likely to create ambiguities, as we have found out the hard way. Mods are not source code for computer applications and thus are not particularly good candidates for GPL licensing. I'd bet that there's a GPL-compatible license out there that better deals with things that are not source code.

It's good that the gadget handler will be moved to Spring's core files rather than being a mod component.

AF · Post by AF » 28 Sep 2007, 12:03

Smoth, your summary of CC does not stand.

Those 6 licenses are not identical. Some have very different attributes to them.

For example Attribution (by) simply states that credit must be given, Attribution Share Alike (by-sa) is a strong copyleft licence, Attribution No Derivatives (by-nd) explicitly states that the content cannot be modified and credit must be given, Attribution Non-commercial (by-nc) explicitly states no commercial usage and give you credit, and Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike (by-nc-sa) is a strong copy left license that states no commercial usage and credit must be given.

SO to say the above 6 licenses are all identical but just different names for the same thing is utter nonsense.

http://creativecommons.org/about/licens ... e-licenses

You can argue all you want but in a court of law the judge would side with me. Simply put, saying your content is CC and not stating which of the 6 licenses gives you no legal rights under law, defeating the whole point of saying you have a license to begin with. (Just to be sure I asked a few people nearby in the legal proffession as of writing this and they all agreed).

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 28 Sep 2007, 12:22

AF, that's completely offtopic.

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 28 Sep 2007, 15:31

I'm curious as to whether, if an element of my mod is GPL'ed, does that instantly mean my artwork is suddenly GPL'ed, and anyone can take it and repackage/do what they please with it, or does that remain my intellectual property, as it is specifically an artwork, rather then a section of code, etc?

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 28 Sep 2007, 16:03

If anything it means you're infringing. The license does not spread automatically, that still requires you to license the other material under the GPL by yourself. You can be infringing if you don't license other material under the GPL but that does not grant anyone permission to take that other material as if it was GPLed.

Of course, judging by how much this community cares about copyright the GPL is probably meaningless anyway.

Spring RTS Engine

Scope of the GPL for mods