In another thread there was an argument about what the GPL means for mods so I'd like some clarification:
If a mod contains GPL code, isn't the whole mod automatically forced under the GPL?
Is it really necessary for standard Lua code like the gadget handler and the various gadgets to be licensed under the GPL? As far as I understand the GPL should only be used on standalone applications if it's not supposed to act as a trap, for partial programs like e.g. plugins the LGPL should be used so using a plugin will not automatically force the rest of the work into the GPL.
I say this because IMO the gadgethandler and the gadgets are modules that are pretty much unrelated to each other yet with the GPL they will force a license upon each other. Additionally, since the GPL was not designed to deal with non-program content, the effect on the rest of the mod is pretty much unknown.
Please use at least the LGPL to get a clearly defined limit to the competency of the license.
License clarification for "standard" lua code
Moderator: Moderators
I still do not accept that argument, except for clear cases where removal of said code would destroy functionality of the game (i.e., cause a crash, not just remove a feature).If a mod contains GPL code, isn't the whole mod automatically forced under the GPL?
IOW, build a Gadget that the entire game relies on, and the game won't work if people do not have the LuaUI on (this is another major area that's coming up, in PURE) ... and I'd argue that yes, your game is GPL'd.
Build the game so that it still works (if maybe not as intended, or with shortcomings, but it does not cause a crash) without the code, and I would argue that your entire game is not GPL. Merely that the scripts are.
Needless to say, my development of PURE is somewhat anticipating this issue, however, Tower Defense is actually a more important "case".
Erm, Argh, you remember that gadgets are LuaRules and LuaUI is a separate feature, yes?
Still, I consider that distinction to be stupid, at what point does it break? Does it become broken if you could make T4 units right from the start? Does it become broken if you couldn't tech up? Would it be broken if some units lose special abilities and thus unbalance the whole mod?
Still, I consider that distinction to be stupid, at what point does it break? Does it become broken if you could make T4 units right from the start? Does it become broken if you couldn't tech up? Would it be broken if some units lose special abilities and thus unbalance the whole mod?
correct, TD is to be CC-ed.... and that means that most of the content will have few strings attached if any but the question still remains. However TD is all independent content generated from scratch and thus can be whatever license.
While I understand YOUR projects are safe from it argh, most of us who have other projects... for me gundam are more concerned. Obviously the games can work without lua but when you start using lua<->cob it becomes a pain in the ass. Although most people aren't as straight laced as I am on these things and frankly probably do not care.. I personally try to do things the "right way" and am finding very few answers to my questions. Outside of speculation or people who think they understand legal matters and the licenses, I need a solid answer. Maybe the TA:S moders don't care about doing things the right way but I care.
While I understand YOUR projects are safe from it argh, most of us who have other projects... for me gundam are more concerned. Obviously the games can work without lua but when you start using lua<->cob it becomes a pain in the ass. Although most people aren't as straight laced as I am on these things and frankly probably do not care.. I personally try to do things the "right way" and am finding very few answers to my questions. Outside of speculation or people who think they understand legal matters and the licenses, I need a solid answer. Maybe the TA:S moders don't care about doing things the right way but I care.
@KDR:
Seperating where LuaUI really "ends" and where LuaRules "start" is another major mess. They are highly reliant on each other, and I would argue that, as things stand, they are all GPL.
Now, as to your specific argument... I believe that the game would be considered "broken" if it causes a crash that halts the game code. No other situation would qualify.
Whether it still works as required by the game design is irrelevant. I'm drawing a distinction here, between "required code" and "ancillary code".
For example, a game that requires LUA to have any objects get built, ever, would fall under the GPL, in my opinion, at this time. You do not have a "game" in any real sense, if the LUA cannot run.
PURE, on the other hand, works just fine as a game, if I remove all of the LUA. Sure, the LUA's nice, but at this present time, it's not necessary.
So, it's not a stupid distinction at all, frankly.
However, it does point out the obvious limitations of the License- PURE has to keep quite close to an OTA model of gameplay and overall structure to qualify. And if the insta-build code is cleaned up and debugged to the point where I'm using it in PURE, then it still won't cross the line, because it uses the regular build-menus, instead of custom buttons, and I can rip it out, or users can disable it, and the game still works. However, the further along the dependence gets (i.e., let's say that I start adding new Units to PURE and I totally disregard FBI declarations to create them, because I'm doing it in LUA)... the less reasonable this argument gets.
Basically, I think that GPL'ing the LuaUI LUA code, as opposed to the C++ code it requires to run properly, was probably a mistake, if Trepan wanted to avoid this particular worry. I'm not worried or threatened by this, but I can totally understand Smoth's worries on this topic, and I sympathize with the argument that the LGPL would have been more appropriate, but that's Trepan's choice.
Seperating where LuaUI really "ends" and where LuaRules "start" is another major mess. They are highly reliant on each other, and I would argue that, as things stand, they are all GPL.
Now, as to your specific argument... I believe that the game would be considered "broken" if it causes a crash that halts the game code. No other situation would qualify.
Whether it still works as required by the game design is irrelevant. I'm drawing a distinction here, between "required code" and "ancillary code".
For example, a game that requires LUA to have any objects get built, ever, would fall under the GPL, in my opinion, at this time. You do not have a "game" in any real sense, if the LUA cannot run.
PURE, on the other hand, works just fine as a game, if I remove all of the LUA. Sure, the LUA's nice, but at this present time, it's not necessary.
So, it's not a stupid distinction at all, frankly.
However, it does point out the obvious limitations of the License- PURE has to keep quite close to an OTA model of gameplay and overall structure to qualify. And if the insta-build code is cleaned up and debugged to the point where I'm using it in PURE, then it still won't cross the line, because it uses the regular build-menus, instead of custom buttons, and I can rip it out, or users can disable it, and the game still works. However, the further along the dependence gets (i.e., let's say that I start adding new Units to PURE and I totally disregard FBI declarations to create them, because I'm doing it in LUA)... the less reasonable this argument gets.
Basically, I think that GPL'ing the LuaUI LUA code, as opposed to the C++ code it requires to run properly, was probably a mistake, if Trepan wanted to avoid this particular worry. I'm not worried or threatened by this, but I can totally understand Smoth's worries on this topic, and I sympathize with the argument that the LGPL would have been more appropriate, but that's Trepan's choice.
Last edited by Argh on 04 Sep 2007, 22:30, edited 1 time in total.
Since things are trending that way, then don't you think a relicense is a good idea? More freedom for the modders.Argh wrote: However, the further along the dependence gets (i.e., let's say that I start adding new Units to PURE and I totally disregard FBI declarations to create them, because I'm doing it in LUA)... the less reasonable this argument gets.
Did Trepan ever say he specifically chose GPL, or is it just that way by default of being included with spring?Argh wrote:LGPL would have been more appropriate, but that's Trepan's choice.
It can't take that much effort to contact all involved in this relatively new code, can it?
Does anyone have a single reason that it shouldn't be LGPL?
GPL is copy left.
GPL code can only be used with GPL compatible code, aka code under a license compatible with GPL.
If you want to use GPL code or write a closed source plugin for a GPL program then your violating that programs license.
Trepans lua code falls under this as his Lua Rules and Lua UI widget management systems are GPL and they're written using lua.
So unless trepan declares his code as LGPL, all widgets and gadgets are required to use a GPL compatible licence.
And since trepans lua stuff is written for spring which is a GPL program, it automatically acquires GPL status, and has to follow those rules or its breaking springs GPL license.
So there's no point arguing over it. Argh if you were right and the GPL was not copy left then why do the people who created it say it is? Why did your arguements not hold in the US courts on the multiple occasions that the GPL license has entered the legal system and a judge has ruled that they be enforced despite your arguement being used by the defendant? Why does wikipedia contradict you in multiple articles? How do you explain the existence of LGPL? If you were right then that license is obsolete!
The GPL license is copyleft.
GPL code can only be used with GPL compatible code, aka code under a license compatible with GPL.
If you want to use GPL code or write a closed source plugin for a GPL program then your violating that programs license.
Trepans lua code falls under this as his Lua Rules and Lua UI widget management systems are GPL and they're written using lua.
So unless trepan declares his code as LGPL, all widgets and gadgets are required to use a GPL compatible licence.
And since trepans lua stuff is written for spring which is a GPL program, it automatically acquires GPL status, and has to follow those rules or its breaking springs GPL license.
So there's no point arguing over it. Argh if you were right and the GPL was not copy left then why do the people who created it say it is? Why did your arguements not hold in the US courts on the multiple occasions that the GPL license has entered the legal system and a judge has ruled that they be enforced despite your arguement being used by the defendant? Why does wikipedia contradict you in multiple articles? How do you explain the existence of LGPL? If you were right then that license is obsolete!
The GPL license is copyleft.
Truth.AF wrote:So unless trepan declares his code as LGPL, all widgets and gadgets are required to use a GPL compatible licence.
But this is FUD in it's purest form. Not true.And since trepans lua stuff is written for spring which is a GPL program, it automatically acquires GPL status, and has to follow those rules or its breaking springs GPL license.
Very much no. That's what APIs are for. You wouldn't say any program written to use the linux kernal userspace API is GPL, would you?AF wrote:And since trepans lua stuff is written for spring which is a GPL program, it automatically acquires GPL status, and has to follow those rules or its breaking springs GPL license.
Ok, but what happens to all of the users who turn off, for whatever reasons, the LuaUI?Argh, gadgets can do synced stuff. If everyone runs PURE with gadgets, and you try to run it without gadgets, it can be argued your game does not work [since you can't play online with it, or desyncs when you try].
You're saying that it's only legal if everybody does, or nobody does, because if it's a mix, then the game-state is broken? I admit, I didn't really consider that problem
At any rate... I guess that the IANAL consensus here is that if we use Widget or Gadget code, it must be GPL at this time.
But what happens when a user decides to use a seperately-packaged Widget, then? What if it's the accepted standard?
Better yet, what if developers put out a package of Widgets / Gadgets on the side, and declare that their game can run without them, but that <wink wink, nudge nudge> "most users will strongly prefer playing Game X with these Gadgets, which we made and released seperately to avoid the GPL".
Does anybody but me see that it makes for some ridiculous problems, and would greatly complicate a legal release? Not to mention that NanoBlobs must be considered 100% GPL, and that every mod that has borrowed FX code from it is now GPL in its entirety? That was not my intention.
I can go the <wink, nudge> approach with PURE, if we're agreed that that is the only really legal way to go. But I'd rather just put it out with multiple Licenses to cover various bits, like I did NanoBlobs, and just hope that it's legal, and that people will treat it like it is. My only real concern is the art, frankly- I already intend to give away the BOS / FX stuff under CC as a separate release, to avoid the controversy from last time.
They only disable their widgets. Gadgets are mandatory, and do not depend on LuaUI. They are part of LuaRules, LuaCob or LuaGaia.Argh wrote:Ok, but what happens to all of the users who turn off, for whatever reasons, the LuaUI?
The only way to disable gadgets without .cheat is to change the mod, which, of course, would make you unable to play with others.
or deactivate it in .springrc/win-reg, with same consequences.
and:
and:
- this forum is the wrong place for such discussions imo
- why the hell, are guys such selfish? A lot of ppl spend hundreds of hours into the spring engine code and you don't want to make your <12h content public (or only limited) available?
I don't want to ask each time the author, if I can use his model or if I want to modify the texture a bit etc.
Not to forget, how much code you used/read to write/make 'your' gadget/content.
And it isn't that you want to earn money with your work, you only don't want to that other ppl use 'your' work as they want. Imo this is greedy ...
O_OjK wrote:[*] why the hell, are guys such selfish? A lot of ppl spend hundreds of hours into the spring engine code and you don't want to make your <12h content public (or only limited) available?
I don't want to ask each time the author, if I can use his model or if I want to modify the texture a bit etc.
Not to forget, how much code you used/read to write/make 'your' gadget/content.
And it isn't that you want to earn money with your work, you only don't want to that other ppl use 'your' work as they want. Imo this is greedy ...
* Don't you know what CC-SA is? Or are you complaining about something that has never happened and is not planned to happen?
* Why do you have such a problem with closed mods?
* Don't kid yourself into thinking that CA is actually GPL.
* Who here has been selfish at all?
This is a discussion about GPL and LUA... it is the place for it..1. this forum is the wrong place for such discussions imo
FUCK YOU I HAVE SPENT 3 YEARS ON GUNDAM! Oh just the s3os are weeks of work asshole.2. why the hell, are guys such selfish? A lot of ppl spend hundreds of hours into the spring engine code and you don't want to make your <12h content public (or only limited) available?
too bad it is called respecting other people's work.I don't want to ask each time the author, if I can use his model or if I want to modify the texture a bit etc.
Or how much code I write and give away... but you forget that little fact asshole.. like the software I wrote for my university received no money for it and they are going to pay someone else to keep it up after I leave... but you just assume I am greedy..Not to forget, how much code you used/read to write/make 'your' gadget/content.
It is my right considering the time and effort I have spent.. that isn't counting the hundreds of dollars of reference art models etc.And it isn't that you want to earn money with your work, you only don't want to that other ppl use 'your' work as they want.
yeah greedy, like all the features, resources and models I have made. Like the map I made for spring which was gpled? Or perhaps the getting started guide? Or the effects? or the countless hours I have spent in this hell hole with assholes like you who think I do not give enough? How about the patch I wrote that I received nothing but flak, was never credited for and oh forgotten even though it was added!?! What about the forum I set up and maintain for the content developers of this community? Or the skyboxes I spent days making and gave away WITH NOTHING asked in return? What about the MORTY I did?Imo this is greedy ...
NO FUCK YOU... what little work I keep for myself belongs to me. I am giving away EVERYTHING I am doing in towerdefense! EVERYTHING! do you understand this!?! And I am not doing GP FUCKING L because I don't want them to have to bother with a license! I want to put it under creative commons... do you know the license I choose for that? It states only three things:
they give me at least a credit for work done
they tell others where they got it from if others want to use it
and they can modify it all they fucking want!
No, I do not like GPL I feel it is invasive and forces people into a license they do not want. I prefer CC because it is more a polite request to be remembered which IMO isn't asking much...
Felony 1 - mod
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Yeah, that's pretty unfair to dismiss our work like that. It takes me a full day (usually 6-8 hours) to complete a texture for my mod. That is just a blip of a unit production process that includes design, modelling, wrapping, animating, scripting, and then finally balancing.
That's one unit, and we have 130 planned in our mod, and 70+ completed.
I've been working on SWS with all of the very little free time I have between uni, for over 24 months.
That's one unit, and we have 130 planned in our mod, and 70+ completed.
I've been working on SWS with all of the very little free time I have between uni, for over 24 months.
- Signed, SWS Team.FUCK YOU2. why the hell, are guys such selfish? A lot of ppl spend hundreds of hours into the spring engine code and you don't want to make your <12h content public (or only limited) available?
@JK:
I agree with the statements by Smoth and Warlord Zsinj, minus the swearing. And I look happily forward to you delivering an all-new, GPL-friendly set of art for CA in 12 hours- don't forget, anything given freely to you via CC doesn't count, either, so I hope you can make textured cubes really fast
I agree with the statements by Smoth and Warlord Zsinj, minus the swearing. And I look happily forward to you delivering an all-new, GPL-friendly set of art for CA in 12 hours- don't forget, anything given freely to you via CC doesn't count, either, so I hope you can make textured cubes really fast
