Why P.U.R.E. will not be GPL or CC-PD. Very long.

[Saktoth]

When I started Evolution, I took funta, deleted all the Copyrighted stuff and only kept stuff that I had been working on, which left me with basically nothing.

This is what we are doing with CA. Only slower and a bit at a time (We wont be left with basically nothing).

Evolution RTS is a Game
BA and CA are Mods.

Thats smug and insulting.

[Argh]

Meh. I've only read some of this, but here's my response, which I shall keep short.

1. None of CA's coders have posted a public answer to Smoth's public question, which, along with several other events over the last year, lead to my decisions here.

Personally, I think you guys should either defend your policy in regards to license a bit better, in light of how many projects wish to use your work, but are legally limited by the GPL's copyleft provisions, or use a looser license, as AF has repeatedly and reasonably suggested. I think that if your real goal is to just make fun stuff for people to use, CC-PD or CC-SA is the most appropriate license.

2. In light of all of the arguments of various kinds about my specific analysis of CA's legal status... here's my response:

If I'm completely wrong, and I've mis-read that blunt statement from the FSF's own website, and you can apply the GPL to code in CA, without being in violation of the license:

Does that make things better, or worse, in regards to my more serious philosophical arguments about what we're doing here, in terms of releasing source code, and whether any given license strategy will help, or hurt, the goals of the overall project?

IOW, does a copyleft license, on gamecode intended for wide usage, help or hurt people making games, especially games that they want to keep private? If that answer is mixed, who's it hurting and helping? Does this matter? And if it matters, should it be examined and changed to achieve other policy goals?

Quit chasing your tails, or trying frantically to find a way to stab me for pointing out some things that have become increasingly obvious to the more thoughtful people around here. Most of the arguments, past the early back-and-forth tennis match with Det and KDR, just looked like a bunch of people wanting to avoid the serious issues here.

I certainly never said CA's a bad project. I respect most of the people working on it, even though I don't know them terribly well. I would like to think that the grownups among them understand that this isn't some stupid plot to destroy them, because to be honest, I don't think there's any point in destroying them, and if they weren't using OTA content, I would happily help them.

So, personally... I think it's completely irrelevant whether we talk about whether it's a "game" or a "mod", etc. All of that is totally beside the point.

I made some very specific, narrow arguments about law. Not about the project's members, intentions, goals or the merits of their game design. KDR's been releasing giant reams of seriously-interesting gamecode for months, under PD, and I suspect that's in large part because of these issues. Anybody who hasn't fired up THIS is an idiot. Full of good stuff. And it can all get used by anybody, for any reason.

But, alas, KDR hasn't written complete code that duplicates or improves upon the key gamecode functions in CA.

So... I've gotten multiple PMs about this issue over the last 6 months, including one that was a carbon-copy of Smoth's public statement, from various parties wanting to know what was up. This is my attempt to try and clarify things a bit, and frankly, I don't think that self-denial of the facts will help anybody at all here- clarity would be good. Nobody thinks that CA has bad intentions. But people can change, and stuff can happen.

At the very least, if CA wants to allow for non-GPL uses of their source, they should at least read the GPL, which it's obvious most of the devs have not bothered doing... and provide a formal Exemption form, properly filled out... which, btw, is a requirement, if you want to let people out of GPL.

You can't just say, "it's all right, we swear we won't sue you", like you did with Fanger, in some Forum post which may get lost, edited or deleted. Oh, and btw... if you want to provide an Exemption, all parties must give their consent. Not just the last guy who touched it. You all have copyrights to that work now.

Go read it... if you're going to use it, do it properly Don't just tell us that you're all hippy idealists who think ideas should be free. If you're serious about using a copyleft license, hey, that's fine with me... but that means, among other things, that you should be making a game that can have it applied... telling violators they cannot do that... and otherwise upholding the license. Because a license that isn't upheld and defended when you're notified of violations is probably not defensible, either, at least here in the US.

[Peet]

On a moderately related note, I'm really partial to the zlib license...preserves your ownership over the content, lets other people use it, does not interfere with any users' own licenses.

[aegis]

On a moderately related note, I'm really partial to the zlib license...preserves your ownership over the content, lets other people use it, does not interfere with any users' own licenses.

as long as you pack every release with zlib

[AF]

When you think of using GPL, always pause for a moment and think about LGPL. I would say all the confusion and arguements over GPL in this community could have been avoided by simply using LGPL or the share alike CC licences.

[det]

Please stop refering to the effects of using the GPL as a "problem". You have to be aware of the authors intentions in order to make that call. Have you spoken to jK/trepan/evilzergin/carrepairer/licho/quantum/etc? It is perfectly plausible that they might be using the GPL precisely _because_ they don't want to share their code with people who don't want to share their own. If this is the case, then the "problem" is only for people like you who want to put restrictions on their code. As for the rest of your posts, I find that you output a whole lot of words without really communicating anything except insults and condescension. So I really don't know how to respond to you.

[tombom]

Evolution RTS is a Game
BA and CA are Mods.

Thats smug and insulting.

Yeah, I hate this. Shitty made up division in order to promote elitism. Completely ridiculous and spouted like fact.

[Neddie]

The division is a matter of language for the purposes of legal status and advertising; a mod modifies core or prior content, a game does not. It does not immediately qualify games above mods to those within the community, but it is designed to trigger better reactions outside with content packages that are original. People are more interested in games than they are in modifications.

[AF]

det who was that post directed at?

[Warlord Zsinj]

People are more interested in games than they are in modifications.

Well, theoretically anyway, neddie

[smoth]

Yeah, I hate this. Shitty made up division in order to promote elitism. Completely ridiculous and spouted like fact.

The division is a matter of language for the purposes of legal status and advertising; a mod modifies core or prior content, a game does not. It does not immediately qualify games above mods to those within the community, but it is designed to trigger better reactions outside with content packages that are original. People are more interested in games than they are in modifications.

If people thought gundam was just a mod they would assume that it was at base just TA with some new weapons or models. The title gives a description of the game and what it is made of. Gundam is not even a TC as many engine specific patches were required for it to be. All of it's content is origonal content containing NO ta content.


Argh, the entirety of CA doesn't have to be GPL CA is aggregate which is a clause in gpl. Since it is agregate it's individual components all do not have to be gpl. Just whatever code links to a GPL library IE. Linking is an important distinction as it refers to a library like a dll which is linked at compile. Since lua is nor linked, there is no compile all lua does not have to be GPLed. If a piece of code you used in your script was copy pastaed or the script you are using is GPL then you do have to gpl that.

This isn't rocket science.

[Pxtl]

Obviously, the solution is to add SpireRooks and Sheep to CA.

[bwansy]

Protip: argh does not speak for the world.

I was not saying his post can do such and such. I was saying the *discussion* can do such and such. This thread is potentially a trigger, and the power comes from the community, not argh himself alone. Who can be sure it wouldn't turn into a revolution or a devastating flame war?

Please read and think carefully before you even say anything. Thank you.

[smoth]

Please read and think carefully before you even say anything. Thank you.

HUR HUR..

like all the discussions that I have started in the past about the fact that the ta content is illegal? You have been here, a member of this site for their posting. you just didn't read them. Hell we had a joke from IAMACUP that was a C&D from atari.... NOTHING HAPPENED. So either you do not read or you need to lurk more. I am not sure which. This thread has happened, it is nothing new. It is as stale as Core VS arm discussions, just old and stale. In fact it is near forced meme status or even MTR..

This thread also needs to be in game/mod discussion.

[Argh]

I don't think it'd be appropriate for Mod/Game, Smoth. I really think that this stuff effects the whole project. I want us all to be more careful about using licenses.

As for Det's point... until those people explain their intentions, one must assume that their intention was to use a strict, copyleft license because they want to make sure that certain projects cannot use it.

And if they didn't... well, they could re-license their work, now that they understand the stakes a bit better, assuming all parties agree.

As for Smoth's point... I'm not sure aggregates and the GPL really interact that way, and we've had various arguements about whether or not a Spring game can be viewed as an aggregate, or not. But to be perfectly honest, I haven't really read that part of it thoroughly, so you may very well be right. I am perfectly willing to drop those arguments, though, as I think they may be obscuring the more important things here.

Nobody's publicly said you can use their GPL gamecode in Gundam; I am writing a license very specifically to let you, Fanger, and everybody else who is worried about me causing a ruckus know that I can't and won't, and if you guys have specific gamecode requests, or want me to send you a PM you can keep as a record or whatever, I'm perfectly willing.

I don't expect that will make you guys like me or whatever, we've had too many fights, too many things have been said. But at least you can quit stressing out, and get the gamecode you want from my game- without drama.

CA's guys, if they want to exempt people or re-license, need to do it right- the GPL's extremely nasty about exemptions though, and I'm really not sure that Trepan would be willing to exempt the core gamecode that various chunks of CA are using. As he's an engine developer, I'm totally comfortable with the fact that when I get serious about writing a new UI, I'm going to have to keep it GPL, because the chances of me doing it without depending on Trepan's work is practically zero. That's OK, I will just put it into World Builder and then it'll be one more part of that project that's GPL, but designed to be used in an obvious non-dependent fashion...

[smoth]

Nobody's publicly said you can use their GPL gamecode in Gundam...

I request it and if the author complies the widget gets a special license for gundam use kind of deal. If the author says no, this will stay GPL I do not include it simply to avoid the issue all together. Not so much that I am worried about you policing it as much as I would hate to deal with it from anyone.

Like 1944, I do not see pure as competition. In a way pure is a middle ground between animu gundam and serious wwII. You have a generic sci-fi world that has some highly derivative designs. many things from the alien plasma cannon of halo to the ship from starfox. Pure has never been a worry for me and I know I am not even in the same audience as it so I know I am not competition.

Again, I may not like you but that doesn't mean I won't respect what you are doing. It just isn't my style, I may even chuckle at things. I still think you panel/rust shit too much... but that is another thread and players seem to like that crap. Don't worry about it.

[Aztek]

Well I think we can all agree that if you are writing a license Argh (as you said in your posts) it should come out pretty well since things like that generally contain a large number of confusing words

[Saktoth]

Its ironic that the same guy who started the 'GPL scare' by shouting at fang for including his walk scripts and giving everyone the impression that the GPL is an infectious, evil copyright eating monster, is now criticising us for using it.

As for Det's point... until those people explain their intentions, one must assume that their intention was to use a strict, copyleft license because they want to make sure that certain projects cannot use it.

Those certain projects being 'Ones who want to take the work, then not share it back'. Share and share alike, thats the whole point of the GPL. Its their choice to not want to share that work back with us.

The real problem comes from the 'If i include a single line of GPL'd lua, does that make my whole program GPL?'. To that, i can only say i really dont know.

Read This, This and This.

That would sort of seem to indicate to me that everything released with the spring engine is GPL since the spring engine is GPL, but again, i dont know and people have said that isnt the case, so...

Honestly, this is the reason id rather not be using the GPL for CA. It is jK, Trepan and Quant who are doing all the GPL content for CA.

Still, anyone is free to go GPL at any time and use our content and not have to worry about a thing. Other than its harsh incompatibilities with other licences (Which if we were all using the GPL wouldnt be a problem) the GPL is pretty good.

[quantum]

I'm fine with the GPL. I switched from PD to GPL after the first round of anti-GPL threads, and reading this thread reinforces my conviction that the GPL is the best license for my work.

Thirdly, their project is ample demonstration of the legal perils involved with such a restrictive copyleft license. They'd have been far better off to just license it all CC-PD and be done with it, frankly.

This thread demonstrates the perils of going PD. Imagine you used and improved the chickens script. You state that you will forbid CA from using your work in PURE, so CA players would be unable to benefit from the improvements. That is a situation I'd like to avoid.

As for Det's point... until those people explain their intentions, one must assume that their intention was to use a strict, copyleft license because they want to make sure that certain projects cannot use it.

Any project can use my scripts. They just can't stop anybody from exercising the rights the GPL gives them.

[Evil4Zerggin]

A few things:

1. What is CC-PD?

2. In the end I fear all this debate about licensing is a futile exercise, because there does not exist a feasible way for one to get one's intent into words, and then back out again exactly the same way they went in. (Getting someone whom we would all agree is an authority on legal matters is not really feasible, and even if it were feasible to do so, I'm not convinced that even a lawyer would be able to craft something approaching unambiguous, intelligible, and acceptable for us.)

3. Regarding CA: Currently the work I have contributed to CA is licensed under GPL, mostly because everything else in CA. If someone comes to me and wants to use something specific of mine, but demonstrates that GPL restricts them from doing so in the way that they wanted to, then I will probably look into an alternate license. So basically I'll build that bridge when someone comes to it. I can't speak for any of the other devs, though.

I'm not too familiar with copyright law, but I would find it bizzare (and extremely worrying) if I did not have sole authority on the copyright status on things that I create on my own time, from scratch, including models and Lua scripts, whether they are part of a mod or not.