GPL DISCUSSION

GPL DISCUSSION

Discuss game development here, from a distinct game project to an accessible third-party mutator, down to the interaction and design of individual units if you like.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Snipawolf
Posts: 4357
Joined: 12 Dec 2005, 01:49

GPL DISCUSSION

Post by Snipawolf »

Rant it up like the noobs you are...


Edit: Just incase you don't know where to get some texts from:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

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.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

NO WARRANTY

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:

Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

<signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989
Ty Coon, President of Vice

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

AF, he is abstracting the discussion out of the other thread so we can resolve the technical feature request and this little debate. It is not, necessarily, a flame thread. Have a little faith in your peers.
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

Arghs stated clearly he doesnt want to discuss GPL. Without arghs input the whole thing is pointless.
User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Post by Argh »

No. Tell ya what... you want to get somebody to talk about this... ask the devs. All of their hard work and beautiful code is clearly GPL. Go on, ask 'em. I dare ya.

'Specially SJ. Whose boots we're all standing in now.

Because I was one of the people who successfully begged him to release Spring via GPL in the first place, in case you weren't around then. I'd love to hear his take on all this, frankly.
User avatar
Neuralize
Posts: 876
Joined: 17 Aug 2004, 23:15

Post by Neuralize »

For those confused! Party in this thread: http://spring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=10680
Last edited by Neuralize on 08 Jun 2007, 06:27, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg »

This wasn't about the GPLitself! This was about the wrongness of taking some simple .h files, removing Cavedog Copyright and replacing them with GPL copyleft.

You are trying to making it sound like I am contesting the GPL itself. I am not. I'm contesting Argh misuses of it:
  • Reason 1: a page of lines such as "#define PIECE_XZ 7" really should be considered out of the scope of copyrights. There's no algorithm, no code, just naming a few constants.
  • Reason 2: his file is copied straight from Cavedog. Heck, even the comments are the same characters by characters. Adding a couple lines doesn't make it an original work.
My rant was on topic, since he was about to apply the same scheme to default smoke. I'd rather have the issue exposure been limited to threads with only devs and modders, than on an area with more general public.

Also, by trying to split the thread whithout even exposing the real issue, you're forcing me to repeat myself. And makes me look more like an evil flamer than I am.

zwzsg wrote:
    • Download NanoBlobs 0.64 GPL, either from: While doing so, please notice the importance already given to words such as "GPL-compliant" or "licensed under GPL"
    • Get 7-zip, or even a plain winzip.
    • With 7-zip, open NanoBlobs064.sdz
    • Count the number of files in the root of that zip whose filename end with license.txt
    • Go into /scripts/, and open STANDARD_COMMANDS_GPL.h, notice the first two lines.
    • Install Total Annihilation
    • Get HPIView
    • Run HPIView, file->open, and open totala1.hpi
    • Go into /scripts/, and open sfxtype.h as well as sfxtype.h
  • Compare
tombom
Posts: 1933
Joined: 18 Dec 2005, 20:21

Post by tombom »

Argh wrote:Because I was one of the people who successfully begged him to release Spring via GPL in the first place, in case you weren't around then. I'd love to hear his take on all this, frankly.
Link. This sounds pretty weird.
User avatar
Guessmyname
Posts: 3301
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07

Post by Guessmyname »

Stuff GPL should be applied to:

*models
*textures
*shaders
*complicated code (ie game engines, a lua squad system etc)
*complicated script (most zwzsg stuff, complex explosions, ie nuke etc)

Stuff GPL shouldn't be applied to:

*fbi files (You shouldn't be able to GPL a tag...)
*defines (see zwzsg's example)
*tdfs (gamedata, feature tdf files etc)
*simple explosion scripts (ie smoke, ground flashes etc)
*basic scripts (ie an aiming script)
*weapon files (unless something stupendously fancy, like that laser storm weapon for TA)
User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7052
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: GPL DISCUSSION

Post by zwzsg »

I entirely agree with you Guessmyname.

Oh, and don't forget to add "minor edit of files that were not GPL" in the list of non "Stuff GPL shouldn't be applied to", since it was the main reason of my complaint.


Well, since I've been told to continue my rant here:

neddiedrow wrote:Argh, zwzsg's attack upon your character is incidental. It is not the focus of this discussion, it is simply the result of compounded frustration, which is something most people understand acutely. He is deeply frustrated with what seems to be a mixture of your pressure for the legal status of GPL and the perceived illegality of licensing certain scripts under GPL.
Yeah, that sums it up quite well. So, Argh stop pretending it's personal, stop saying "I won't answer lalala", and please adress the point discussed here, that is, how you can't GPL stuff that are exceedingly simple, and how you can't GPL stuff you didn't wrote. Once you'll start to realise that, I'll have no more issues with you.

Argh wrote:No. Tell ya what... you want to get somebody to talk about this... ask the devs. All of their hard work and beautiful code is clearly GPL. Go on, ask 'em. I dare ya.

'Specially SJ. Whose boots we're all standing in now.
I have not yet found evidence SJ code is based upon Cavedog source code. This is why I'm not complaining about them as I am about you.

Also, the Spring source is now being edited by alot of people, while mods are often a one man work.

Also, Spring source is pretty advanced real programming, script's .h and explosions'tdf are neither programming nor advanced.

You are just trying to muddle the issue here.

Argh wrote:If, that is, Spring is kept a place where people like me can safely share their stuff and help people use the new features and grow
Which was happening fine, until you put that virtous cycle into a halt without your licensings.
Argh wrote:Spring can be used to make commercial-quality games now.
Yes, Spring can be used to make commercial quality games now. Howevern GPLing every brick used to build a "game package" goes in the very opposite direction of encouraging such.
Argh wrote:People who want to use NanoBlobs GPL scripts for some minor, twinkie project, or whatever, have zero to fear from me- I don't care and don't have time to chase them down anyhow, frankly.
In the past, you said nanoblobs should be considered as a teaching tool people could draw from, then you chased down people using your so called GPL scripts. This is enough reason to be concerned, and to feel threathened.

Argh wrote:we have this vicious cycle of llamas attacking my motives and trying to convince everybody that the GPL is evil
GPL is fine, it has its uses and scope. For instance, I'm happy with the source code of Spring being GPLed. That doesn't mean it is the ultimate answer to everything. That doesn't mean that adding "GPL" tags where you cannot is so cool you can get away with breaking the very I.P. rights.
Argh wrote:Steal the sounds, the artwork- everything in NanoBlobs is free to use for whatever you want, and the only limitations are on COB scripts
The models and the artwork of Nanoblobs are your own, produced by yourself only, as far as I can tell. So you are free to license them under whatever license you wish, that was never put under discussion.

However, the BOS and COB scripts are based on Cavedog's script and the pool of scripts from TA third part unit makers of the old times. So, even if you edited them a bit, it is wrong to claim you made them all alone, and to add restrictive license to them.

Argh wrote:You just have zero idea how much work I do, behind the scenes, collecting every possible thing that I can about How Things Work. Really. You just don't know. [...] you have no idea...
Stop implying your plans are to grand for us lower forms to grasp.



Argh wrote:And AF, I can, and will, be proving my statements to be completely honest.
I have proved your statments to be dishonest.

Look, the STANDARD_COMMANDS_GPL is kind've a work-in-progress, guys.

Just because I haven't released my latest version, does not mean it quit evolving.
I took it from your lastest public release, the one that is included with Spring official download package. So:
a) What you kept secret on your hard drive is irrelevant.
b) That you are editing it a bit more doesn't allow you to deny the fact that what you did was terribly wrong.


Argh wrote:and all you've gotta do is either include my sourcecode, or include ONE FUCKING TEXTFILE THAT READS: This game contains sourcecode that was previously released under the GPL. You may download it from http://www.wolfegames.com

THAT IS ALL
You kept complaining we don't understand the GPL license and should research more about it, but have you? Here in france we have a major Internet Service Provider getting sued because he doesn't want to release the source code of software of routers based on GPL linux. Whenever your code use a bit of GPL, you have are forced to release all your code under GPL. Not just the small portion of GPL you used. Forcing every derivative work to be be also released under GPL is the purpose of GPL.

I'm no lawyer, so maybe not and this would need clarification, but it seems arguable that since the scripts are so intimely embedded with the rest of the mods, you'd have to GPL a whole mod if it contains one line of GPL. This link took only ten seconds to find, comes from the FSF, and support that view: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope So yeah, you saying we don't understand the GPL is keetle calling the pot back.

If anyone want to discuss the GPL license (which was not the reason for my rant), then please help clarify whether or not the inclusion of GPL code into a Spring mod force the whole mod to be GPL.

Whether or not the linking to a GPL'ed archive force the mod to be GPL (and I said GPL, not LGPL). Which what was about to happen to every single Spring mod if no one raised concerns about Arg's initial post here.
User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20687
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Post by AF »

If you GPL a part of a mod, the entire mod has to be GPLed. All mods depending on your mod in turn have to be GPL'ed or they violate the license, and all mods that depend on them.

GPL is a copyleft license. You cant GPL this that and those, but not these, you have to GPL them all or you violate the GPL license, it all needs to eb under a GPL compatible license.

If you want specific components GPL'ed but not the rest then use the LGPL license instead.
el_matarife
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 02:04

Post by el_matarife »

Guessmyname wrote:Stuff GPL should be applied to:
*models
*textures
I'd argue Creative Commons is a much better license than the GPL for art assets, but apparently a lot of GPL projects put their art under the GPL too. Personally, I say you should dual license it under some CC license and (L)GPL. The LGPL suggestion is only because I am not sure if using an art asset counts as linking, and I don't want to screw anyone in the FOSS community who makes stuff under non-GPL licenses since the GPL isn't compatible with every license people use. A combination of LGPL + CC would cover 99% of everyone.
User avatar
Boirunner
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 811
Joined: 05 Feb 2007, 14:24

Post by Boirunner »

Argh wrote:Steal the sounds, the artwork- everything in NanoBlobs is free to use for whatever you want, and the only limitations are on COB scripts, and all you've gotta do is either include my sourcecode, or include ONE FUCKING TEXTFILE THAT READS:

This game contains sourcecode that was previously released under the GPL. You may download it from http://www.wolfegames.com

THAT IS ALL. Apparently, this is too much to ask for! I find the whole thing completely, totally LAUGHABLE. That is all you need to do and the only restriction it puts on your work is that people can take your COBs, or whatever of my work you chose to use, and further modify them!
Wow. Argh, you don't have the slightest idea how GPL works.

Zwzsg makes excellent points, and is remarkably restraintful in his personal attacks, yet you cannot seem to answer to the actual arguments and treat the posts as random baseless insults.

I actually used to think that Argh was a cool guy... Oh well.

edit: Since no real money is involved here, it might seem petty to some to dispute licenses like this. Maybe it is, but what Argh is doing is still wrong. I can't really say any more than what zwzsg said: Argh is trying to GPL stuff that cannot be GPLed, and even if it could be it would not be in his rights to do so. Also, Argh doesn't even seem to know what the GPL license actually does.

And oh:
Argh wrote: I did not "steal Cavedog's .h". I rebuilt it, added documentation, cut things that don't work in Spring, and generally made it worth referring to for Spring, as opposed to OTA. Whether this qualifies as "original work" is not debatable, frankly.
Indeed that is not debatable. It obviously does not make it your original work. I can't even begin to fathom how you would think taking a file and removing some parts would make it your original work.
User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Post by Pxtl »

el_matarife wrote:
Guessmyname wrote:Stuff GPL should be applied to:
*models
*textures
I'd argue Creative Commons is a much better license than the GPL for art assets, but apparently a lot of GPL projects put their art under the GPL too. Personally, I say you should dual license it under some CC license and (L)GPL. The LGPL suggestion is only because I am not sure if using an art asset counts as linking, and I don't want to screw anyone in the FOSS community who makes stuff under non-GPL licenses since the GPL isn't compatible with every license people use. A combination of LGPL + CC would cover 99% of everyone.

Agreed. The GPL simply doesn't make sense when discussing things that aren't compilable code. The GPL _specifically_ mentions code. GPLing your models is like copywriting your cat - it's a meaningless concept.

Even for mod-script, the GPL is confusing. The GPL was meant to cover interlinking code modules, where the GPL covers the whole system, and the LGPL covers individual modules... however, it becomes bizarre when the connection between the modules _isn't_ a direct library call - at that point, the GPL magically no longer "infects" the other code. This ambiguity makes the GPL really freaking confusing for scripts.
User avatar
jcnossen
Former Engine Dev
Posts: 2440
Joined: 05 Jun 2005, 19:13

Post by jcnossen »

Would be cool though, put one of those cat necklaceses on him with "You are not allowed to clone this cat without clear permission of the owner" And people be like wtf :shock:

zwzsg: you have made your point against argh about 10 times with really long posts now... I don't really think it's going to change anything especially not with the way you target him. You turned the other thread into flames ffs. Just stop bitching about a few #defines with a GPL header. Anyone would put the #defines in the order of the defined numbers, making the code the same as cavedogs..

IIRC It is actually legal to rewrite something that way while preventing that you actually copy the code. Not sure if that applies here, but if you create the code based on free information on the internet (say some TA site) instead of cavedog's copyrighted code, I don't think copyright still applies to it if it looks the same.

Argh: I do think GPL is really unsuitable for mods though. What is you motivation for using it over CC or something like that?
User avatar
Zpock
Posts: 1218
Joined: 16 Sep 2004, 23:20

Post by Zpock »

jcnossen wrote:Would be cool though, put one of those cat necklaceses on him with "You are not allowed to clone this cat without clear permission of the owner" And people be like wtf :shock:
And you could sue the cat food company for not using GPLV, since the cat is interacting with their stuff without them being GPLV'd!

Funny with people spending time on legal crap when they could be doing useful stuff. Are you paranoid that some evil corporate scum will steal your shoddy homebrewn stuff and use it to make millions of $$, then sue you for using "their" things? I can't blame you...
CautionToTheWind
Posts: 272
Joined: 30 May 2006, 17:06

Post by CautionToTheWind »

I'd just like to point out that Argh and all others can dual-license their work. For example, MySQL ppl license under GPL, which is the ideal choice for other gpl projects, and if you don't want to share your code you can pay MySQL and they give you a commercial license.
Argh can release his stuff under the GPL, and then because you're all such a nice bunch, he could say that he additionally licenses his stuff to the forum members under CC or BSD or LGPL or whatever.

MySQL License: http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/

I am making no statement towards GPL relicensing of old datafiles.
User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Post by Argh »

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=331#more-331 :roll:

Now, when you've gotten a chance to read through that 1000-word discussion of how things actually work, as opposed to the various flavors of bullshit in this thread, here are some facts:

1. BOS code for a particular animation sequence can be GPL'd separately of any other GPL or non-GPL source in your games.

2. ExplosionGenerator scripts are no different than BOS code- they are merely scripts that are compiled at runtime. Either way, they are sourcecode, and can be released under the GPL.

3. LUA scripts certainly go into the same category. While the base LUA license itself is entirely without limitations, that does not mean that individual LUA scripts cannot be restricted. For example, we do not have the automatic rights to do whatever we want with the LUA in Dawn of War.

4. It is legally murky ground to release any binary files under the GPL, but many projects do so. I personally prefer the CC license for such things, when I don't care if people are going to modify my models or skins, reuse my sound work, etc. If you need to restrict access to your work, for whatever reasons, however, use a dual-license schema, and specifically exclude all binary content from your GPL-licensed sourcecode.

In short, quit talking crap, people. Either cite reputable legal sources and real documentation of your claims, or shut up!

I am not putting code that I write under GPL in order to deny anybody anything. In fact, I am making sure that any use of it can be used by others later, ad infinitum, even if a commercial game were to be made with Spring. Just follow the rules.

I have already explained, multiple, multiple times, what the rules are:

1. You must include a notice within your project, stating what GPL source you are using.

2. You must include either the original sourcecode in your project, or a textfile pointing to a location where users can obtain it.

3. You may not bitch, whine or moan, if others use your modifications of my sourcecode for their projects!

... and those are all the rules.
Last edited by Argh on 08 Jun 2007, 18:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

A blog is not a valid source of much, you do realize that. I am glad to hear that GPL v3 should take care of most of the issues which we are faced with now.

Until the license is taken to court in a major lawsuit, "experts" on either side can say what they will within logical constraints, there is no sure result of position. GPL is a relatively untested license in many ways, on a relatively untested medium, with relatively nebulous sides.
User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Post by Argh »

Not true. GPL has been challenged many, many times. I am not going to waste time on this issue by finding court cases, just to prove my points.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

I never said it wasn't tested, I said it was relatively untested in some ways. You can be wrong without "losing" - this is a discussion, not a competition. However, if you are going to make a point, either back it up, or save it for later when you can. I'm at work, I can only voice so much with my resources here.

Yes, GPL has been challenged, but these challenges have not brought about definitive interpretations in enough aspects of the license. This is what I perceive, given all the relevant factors.
Locked

Return to “Game Development”