So in other words: it is not clear. Thanks for the analysis!
Yes, its not clear - but please note that isn't clear towards GPL per se, but because the rules are not explicit in details.
I don't see this as a problem - Forum rules are not law abiding, so there's no point in detailing every possible violation, we already have the Government doing that.
---------- Post added at 04:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 AM ----------
The general consensus seems to be this:
- Publishing a GPL addon without an Orbiter exception is probably a violation, unless there's an implied exception.
- Only copyright holders can take down the addon. As long as no other GPL software is used, this is the addon developers
Is that correct?
It's my understanding of the status quo, and I don't know of anyone that can state the inverse.
Question to face:
- Is it even legit to publish GPL w/ exception code, derived from some other GPL code? Does the Orbiter exception make the GPL w/ exception non-compatible with vanilla GPL?
Excellent questions. I wish I could answer it with the same excellence!
It's my understanding that you need the permission from *ALL* copyright holders in order to add an exception to the given codetree (it appears to fall in the same case of double licensing).
If you are the only holder, no problem.
If you are using someone else's code that is also GPL, It' my understanding that you need the permission from the guy(s). But I can be wrong here, I will see what I can find on FSF site.
If you are using someone else's code that is not GPL, but GPL compatible, your mileage will vary. BSD is always a green light on this matter, by the way.
---------- Post added at 05:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 AM ----------
I have to admit that this discussion is making my head hurt. No wonder lawyers charge so much.
It hurted a little to learn all that stuff, you are not alone.
(and I still make mistakes, by the way...)
Anyway, on my set of addons I put a light-hearted blurb in there along the lines of; Hey, I did all this work for free. If you want to use it fine, just credit me.
Would that be in the realms of a fire-and-forget type license?
Yes, it's a fire-and-forget license - if you says so explicitly. I downloaded one of your addon (EnergiaM), and I didn't found anything stating that, however.
So the traditional copyright laws applies (at least in my country), and nobody can (re)use your work without your permission (even the permission to use by end users are implicit in your case).
I really only concerned myself with someone taking my mesh as their own. Even then drawings and dimensions are pretty easy to find. I'd have a hard time saying "That mesh is MINE!!!" if someone else used the same drawings to develop the same rocket. Maybe I could score on the textures? But even then I had one of the guys make a logo for me and I credited him in the documentation. I also made it super simple for others to add their own nose art/graphics.
As far as I understand, Copyright laws entitles you to a set of rights when you develop a work, and you must explicitly wave each one of them that someone else will need in order to be able to use it somehow. Without explicit consent, it would be wrong even to download and use it on my computer (that consent is implicitly given by Forum Hangar rules). So as far as I know, your work is already protected - if you are willing to make the claims in case of infringement.
Things get complicated when you are willing to allow others to reuse your work on some ways, but not in another ones. This is the hard part - how to give the needed permissions without unwillingly waiving other rights by accident.
Using your add on as example, you don't want other people to copy and distribute your meshes in their add ons, that is clear. But would you allow someone to write an addon that depends of yours?
May I write and distribute a DLL that loads one of your meshes as far as I state that the user should download your add on first?
May I write and use only in my computer a DLL that loads one of your meshes?
Without your explicit consent (or Orbit Hangar implicit ones, that you are obliged in order to upload your add on there), I can, legally, do nothing!
---------- Post added at 05:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 AM ----------
[*]Is it even legit to publish GPL w/ exception code, derived from some other GPL code?
I was right - you must get permission from *ALL* copyright holders in order to make an exception.
From Gnu
site:
Only the copyright holders for the program can legally release their software under these terms {the GPL incompatible code linking}. If you wrote the whole program yourself, then assuming your employer or school does not claim the copyright, you are the copyright holder—so you can authorize the exception. But if you want to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of the copyright holders of those programs.
Does the Orbiter exception make the GPL w/ exception non-compatible with vanilla GPL?
No. Other GPL projects can still use your GPL with exception code (it's still GPL!). What's not clear is if they are obliged to keep the exception.
What I understood by reading the GCC system library exception rationale (these guys have a huge headache to deal on, they compile the world!) is that you don't have to keep the Exception in your codetree if you don't want. A GPL with exception appears to be something like double licensing, you choose the license that suits you best.
So if you use code from someone else that is GPL'ed with an exception, and don't mind the exception, it appears to me that you can keep it in your codetree (but you don't have to if you don't want).
If you don't keep the exception, and someone else wants to use your code under another GPL project that needs that exception back, it's my understanding that the guy should ask your permission to do that - but the permission from the original project's copyright holders is already granted.
---------- Post added at 06:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 AM ----------
The only thing that I would like to protect are:
Man, I'm sorry! I missed your post! :embarrassed:
- do not circulate the dll without permission, but just provide the link
Under the GPL, I'm afraid you are not entitled to do so. You are not entitled to prevent your customers from further redistribute any GPL work no matter it's yours or not.
You should use another license, and add a explicit statement that you and Orbit Hangar are the sole authorized distributors of the binary package (the license you use should allows such restriction, by the way).
- do not take all the files, press "compile" and then say that you have a new multistage file made by yourself
How can I protect this but allowing the correct free circulation of the open source code?
That is easy. You keep the copyright of the project name, and forbids its use by anyone except with explicit authorization. The BSD guys did that.
Another option is forbidding the use of the code in ways that would compete with you. Microsoft does that, IIRC (it's a "non compete" clause). But again, you must choose (or write from scratch) a license that allows such restriction.
But as far as I know you can't prevent one to write another DLL with the same filename and distribute it saying it's yet another implementation to solve the same problem.
Such a license I described here would not be
OSI approved - but this would be hardly a problem to you.
