License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Face]

The general consensus seems to be this:

1. Publishing a GPL addon without an Orbiter exception is probably a violation, unless there's an implied exception.
2. Only copyright holders can take down the addon. As long as no other GPL software is used, this is the addon developers

At 1 I agree. I always thought that the fact that they are Orbiter addons already implies that, but as it seems, people see it stricter.

For 2, I think practically everybody can take it down. Just change a line and redistribute it (which you are allowed to do), and you are a copyright holder. If Lisias' and jarmonik's opinion (I still think it is just that) is the consensus here, this would mean everybody can complain about the addon violating copyright, and therefore put pressure on O-F and/or OHM crew to put it down.

1. 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?

As the FSF itself states that an exception would solve that legal problem (which it also itself stipulated!), I'd say it does not make it non-compatible. You can only change the license of a project if all copyright owners agree, though. See the OVP license change thread for details.

What are we even arguing about? Multistage? Face, I assume you put an Orbiter exception in, is the issue some addon that uses some vanilla GPL code?

Not only Multistage, all addons with GPL in general. If this stays as unclear as it is to me, I'll just throw in the towel and stop Orbiter development all together. Releasing closed source does not make sense to me, and those "take all and give nothing back" licenses do neither. Plus I also realized that the mentality in the community is strongly biased towards closed source, and that I find rather saddening. Just my opinion, of course.

Sure I can gather Artlav and Donamy together to get the permission to change the license for genericvessel, and get WHAP for permission to change the license for AU, and all of the contributers for OMP. And I'm certain they will understand and agree.

But where will this stop? Next time a GPL hater shows up, another "loophole" will be found, forcing me to do the dance again? Nah, don't have time for that.

I don't get it. If listed on O-H, then the addon developer can already take it down at any time for any reason, regardless of licensing (assuming that the uploader is the developer). If other GPL software is involved, wouldn't it be quite against the spirit of the GPL for them to throw a hissy to force the add-on to be removed?

GPL isn't just about hosting. Once a GPL software is released, the genie is out of the bottle. But the consensus seems to be that modifying and re-distributing a GPL'ed addon for Orbiter is "illegal" to a point of causing troubles for the hoster.

You may call it throwing a hissy, but I for one have taken down my GPL'ed repos already. I don't need a discussion with BB or OHM admins, just because some license troll might find it funny to bitch. Not that I think anyone here is such a creature, mind you. The internet is just full of s. And this thread here is sure giving some nice ideas .

This of course doesn't mean that nobody can pick up the torch. The whole source is always inside the repos/copies (well, at least in the projects I've started), and everybody with a copy can build upon it. After this discussion here, I just doubt that anybody will risk it.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 ----------

I think the original argument was Face lamenting about the restrictive multistage 2015 license, and then people started lawyering :lol:

Indeed. The first multistage2015 license restricted distribution to a point where the whole idea of doing a community replacement of the abandoned vinka tool was reduced to absurdity. Not being familiar with open source in general, fred18 asked what he could use to see his requirements fulfilled.

I suggested GPL, fred18 made it GPLv3, and BOOM :lol:.

 

[Artlav]

and BOOM :lol:.

Having had a good night's sleep, i can see that my yesterday's attempt at defusing this was kind of pointless.

I wonder if the whole "legalese" situation would get better or worse when we automate lawyers. At least now it is severely limited in size by what trained humans can comprehend.

 

[Lisias]

The whole source is always inside the repos/copies (well, at least in the projects I've started), and everybody with a copy can build upon it. After this discussion here, I just doubt that anybody will risk it.

Just relicense it to LGPL, or add that exception to Orbiter (*and* its successor, in the case someone forces Martin to change the project's name) and we are all set.

You can, also, write to EFF to seek advice. They will inform you gladly. Even FSF would correctly advise you (after some lectures about the ethical superiority of the Free Software :lol: ).

Unfortunately, there's no such things as safety nowadays. Did you heard of the Pixels 2010 short film being taking down by Copyright Infringement by Columbia Pictures lawyers due the Pixels 2015 feature film? We are all susceptible to this , this is not a GPL privilege.

 

[Face]

Just relicense it to LGPL, or add that exception to Orbiter (*and* its successor, in the case someone forces Martin to change the project's name) and we are all set.

All are set. Except for me, because as I already stated, I don't like those "take all and give nothing back" licenses. I don't want my code to be run by anything else but what I made it for (Orbiter) without also making the code free.

Example: somebody writes a non-free Orbiter replacement you have to pay for, with stunning graphics. To boost popularity, the Orbiter API gets replicated, and all Orbiter addons can be loaded. LGPL addons would allow that, right? I don't want that to happen.

But what about the exception in the GPL, not the LGPL? Do you mean that would not be enough?
Scratch that, misread "or" for "and". Seems like the exception is the only thing needed. Does everybody agree? Would that settle the matter once and for the foreseeable future?

 

[boogabooga]

Au contraire, it's totally in the spirit of the GPL to issue a Copyright infringement claim against any code that violates the GPL.

The guys from the Free Software Foundation advocates that every software would be free (as in freedom), and they don't have any interest in promoting any kind of software that is not Free Software.

So if someone makes a non free software that makes unlawful use of a free software, it's their best interest to take it down as it is against what they defends!

Isn't the situation reverse- free software making use of non free software?

I mean, in practice if you upload a GPL addon that uses something else GPL, the owner of something else shouldn't really have a reason to have a problem,since you are also using GPL, should they? Are you saying the holder of something else could be so annoyed that the addon makes use of non-free Orbiter that they could cause a problem.

Wouldn't 99% of what something else would be come from the Orbiter community anyway?

No that there is talking of pulling add-ons and talented people quitting Orbiter add-on development, I kind of feel that this is all starting t get out of hand. It seems to me that all of these "problems" are still hypothetical...

 

[Face]

No that there is talking of pulling add-ons and talented people quitting Orbiter add-on development, I kind of feel that this is all starting t get out of hand. It seems to me that all of these "problems" are still hypothetical...

Nah, no need to exaggerate it. "People" is just me . Besides, the add-ons are not pulled, it is just that I took the repos down, so the hosters can't get into trouble. You can't really take down GPL software as soon as it is released.

 

[Lisias]

For 2, I think practically everybody can take it down. Just change a line and redistribute it (which you are allowed to do), and you are a copyright holder.

There's something that perhaps should be clarified: no change can retroactively affects already distributed code!

If X creates a GPL code, you use it on your GPL project and publish it, and then Z use your project on his own GPL project, Z *IS NOT* entitled to make claims about X's or yours previous works.

If I use X's or yours code in GPL violation, Z is not automagically entitled to make the claim. I must misuse the Z's code (or Z must prove that I took the code from his project) in order to Z be able to issue me a Cease and Desist letter...

Such a loophole would be explored decades ago by Microsoft (and SCO), and we would not have a single Linux distro alive nowadays.

 

[boogabooga]

it is just that I took the repos down, so the hosters can't get into trouble.

I don't even know what that means....

 

[Face]

There's something that perhaps should be clarified: no change can retroactively affects already distributed code!

If X creates a GPL code, you use it on your GPL project and publish it, and then Z use your project on his own GPL project, Z *IS NOT* entitled to make claims about X's or yours previous works.

If I use X's or yours code in GPL violation, Z is not automagically entitled to make the claim. I must misuse the Z's code (or Z must prove that I took the code from his project) in order to Z be able to issue me a Cease and Desist letter...

Such a loophole would be explored decades ago by Microsoft (and SCO), and we would not have a single Linux distro alive nowadays.

Oh boy, now you've got me puzzled again. So where the hell is the problem with the GPL again? Why do we need the exception? Who do we want to protect with the exception and from whom?

Please don't tell me you started all this just to state that we have to save the add-on author from himself :rofl:.

 

[boogabooga]

Unfortunately, there's no such things as safety nowadays. Did you heard of the Pixels 2010 short film being taking down by Copyright Infringement by Columbia Pictures lawyers due the Pixels 2015 feature film?

I can find Pixels 2010 easily and in the open on both Youtube and Vimeo right now. Everything I have seen says that the 2015 movie is BASED on the 2010 short.

Is it still being contested?

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't even know what that means....

Oh, its quite simple actually. But Face can explain this way better than I could, probably, since this would be me talking about what Face did in the past.

What you need to know: Repos = repositories of a version control system.
Hosters = The company that provided the version control system server.

 

[Face]

I don't even know what that means....

The repo (repository) is the place where I have publicly displayed the complete code (and artifacts) of the project. The hoster is the cloud institution that puts up a server that serves the appropriate pages and/or services.

As I have understood it, the ones effectively re-distributing the code (the hoster is doing so IMHO) are in trouble due to the missing exception for Orbiter.

 

[Lisias]

All are set. Except for me, because as I already stated, I don't like those "take all and give nothing back" licenses. I don't want my code to be run by anything else but what I made it for (Orbiter) without also making the code free.

So this is your reason to avoid LGPL? You don't want the code being used for anything but Orbiter?

Example: somebody writes a non-free Orbiter replacement you have to pay for, with stunning graphics. To boost popularity, the Orbiter API gets replicated, and all Orbiter addons can be loaded. LGPL addons would allow that, right? I don't want that to happen.

Now I see.

Seems like the exception is the only thing needed. Does everybody agree? Would that settle the matter once and for the foreseeable future?

Now that I understand all the requirements, I think that the GPL with Exception is the only thing that will work for you. Make sure to exempt just Orbiter (and its direct successors blessed by Martin - so you don't have to relicense everything if Martin is forced to rename the project), and I think the matter is settled.

---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------

Oh boy, now you've got me puzzled again. So where the hell is the problem with the GPL again? Why do we need the exception? Who do we want to protect with the exception and from whom?

Please don't tell me you started all this just to state that we have to save the add-on author from himself :rofl:.

When I quoted that GPL "infects" code, I was meaning that you, as a direct GPL'ed code client, will deal with every copyright holder from that code distribution you used (and not just the one you see at the top of the author's file).

And to make an exception for Orbiter, you must manage to get permission from every guy in that AUTHOR's file to do so.

But if someone (not in that AUTHOR's file) proves that that exact distribution you used uses some of his code, this guy became a copyright holder for that distribution too. But you didn't got his permission for the exception.

Now *your* code is in GPL violation, and *YOU* can be liable to be prosecuted by that guy that you failed to get the permission for the exception.

As I said before, Orbiter is not (neither will ever be) liable to anything. But you, as a GPL licensee, can be.

---------- Post added at 09:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 AM ----------

I can find Pixels 2010 easily and in the open on both Youtube and Vimeo right now. Everything I have seen says that the 2015 movie is BASED on the 2010 short.

Is it still being contested?

Yes.

In fact, so complete was the carpet-bombing that Entura even served a takedown request for the official Pixels trailer, which was included on the complaint as “Pixels Official Trailer (2015) – Adam Sandler, Peter Dinklage.”

(emphasis is mine).

Things are crazy out there.

 

[Urwumpe]

Everything regarding copyright laws is crazy and thanks to the USA and Hollywood, the international norm for copyright is so crazy now, that it is getting impossible to create your own content without risking getting hit by a big and poorly done multi-million blockbuster who simply has the more expensive lawyers.

If you ask me, we need less copyright. Nobody should take it for granted that people should still pay your children 70 years after your death, because you once created a popular piece of art.

 

[Face]

So this is your reason to avoid LGPL? You don't want the code being used for anything but Orbiter?

Almost. I don't want anything else to use it EXCEPT if it is also open source.

Now that I understand all the requirements, I think that the GPL with Exception is the only thing that will work for you. Make sure to exempt just Orbiter (and its direct successors blessed by Martin - so you don't have to relicense everything if Martin is forced to rename the project), and I think the matter is settled.

For you. But what about all the other GPL critics? Will they insist on the GPL being "illegal", like they did in the past? I think not. You brought up doubts about it yourself, about the exception not being enough, because what about the other addons Orbiter links to while running with the addon.

If they complain, will admins/mods take my addon down? I just can't be sure anymore. As I said before, I realize that the community is biased towards closed source.

If you so want, I've lost my trust in this regards.

 

[Urwumpe]

As I said before, I realize that the community is biased towards closed source.

The majority of the one-person add-ons, yes.

But I am very sure, SSU would never have worked without the open-source approach. It sparked it and it keeps it alive.

Would one of us have done SSU as closed-source single person project, it would be long dead by now.

Thus, it is important for me that SSU is on a stable foundation, license-wise as well as technology-wise.

 

[Loru]

If they complain, will admins/mods take my addon down? I just can't be sure anymore.

Any copyright / license violation claim will be reviewed on the individual basis. No need to panic.

 

[Urwumpe]

One other question: How does linking to OrbiterSound or UCGO/UMMU fit to a GPL with exception?

 

[Lisias]

Isn't the situation reverse- free software making use of non free software?

What's also forbidden by the GPL, with some pontual exceptions.

I mean, in practice if you upload a GPL addon that uses something else GPL, the owner of something else shouldn't really have a reason to have a problem,since you are also using GPL, should they?

If the code I upload are in GPL violation, my claim about my code being GPL is false, and that guy has all the right (and, by FSF ethics, the duty) to prosecute me.

Are you saying the holder of something else could be so annoyed that the addon makes use of non-free Orbiter that they could cause a problem.

No... I'm saying that he will be annoyed by not being consulted before I distribute the add on, as it is demanded by the GPL.

Wouldn't 99% of what something else would be come from the Orbiter community anyway?

Yes. But if *ANYONE* of the Community makes a mistake, *everybody* that uses the mistaken code will be in GPL violation.

No that there is talking of pulling add-ons and talented people quitting Orbiter add-on development, I kind of feel that this is all starting t get out of hand. It seems to me that all of these "problems" are still hypothetical...

Dude, everything is hypothetical until it happens.

SCO wasted TEN YEARS of tax payer's money on patent troll lawsuits until someone finally managed to shut it down for good - I didn't pulled anything from my hat on this discussion, all of that has already happened before to someone else.

Why taking risks on happening to you?

 

[Face]

When I quoted that GPL "infects" code, I was meaning that you, as a direct GPL'ed code client, will deal with every copyright holder from that code distribution you used (and not just the one you see at the top of the author's file). I

And to make an exception for Orbiter, you must manage to get permission from every guy in that AUTHOR's file to do so.

But if someone (not in that AUTHOR's file) proves that that exact distribution you used uses some of his code, this guy became a copyright holder for that distribution too. But you didn't got his permission for the exception.

Now *your* code is in GPL violation, and *YOU* can be liable to be prosecuted by that guy that you failed to get the permission for the exception.

As I said before, Orbiter is not (neither will ever be) liable to anything. But you, as a GPL licensse, can be.

Erm. That is already one step too far for me. Let's make it practical by means of a real-world example: genericvessel.

Copyright holders for this project are Artlav, Donamy, and me. Let's assume we never had this discussion, nobody is aware of problems and the GPL license stays as it is in genericvessel.

For the sake of the argument, let's also say you are an evil lawyer :lol:. So you want to take down the project, because... of reasons. And yes, I know you could do it in a myriad of different ways not related to licensing, let's not go that philosophical route, please.

Could you write an innocent looking contribution to the project, get listed in the AUTHORS file, then come back a month later and declare that the project should be shut down, because its license is clearly violated, because there is a missing exception for Orbiter, so it was invalid in the first place?

Or would it be even simpler? Could you just say - without doing anything at all to the project - "hey, that thing has no exception for Orbiter, so the GPL is violated, dear BitBucket admins, please take that violation down"? And probably succeed, of course.

And to give a nice topping, could you report the appropriate development thread here in O-F, explaining that due to copyright violation this is illegal software, and therefore should be removed from O-F, essentially causing infraction points for Artlav, Donamy and me?

This are the things that really concern me, not hypothetical criss-cross violations.

If these above points are a problem NOW, the only option is to either cease to work on the project anymore, or add the exception by means of appropriate mechanism (getting permission of all copyright holders, document the process, rewrite, re-distribute). So if not all holders agree, the work is dead in the water IMHO. Unless the above points are no problem at all NOW, then I don't understand the whole discussion, anyway.

---------- Post added at 11:56 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

Any copyright / license violation claim will be reviewed on the individual basis. No need to panic.

Sure.

I agree with Lisias. The GPL isn't compatible with the Orbiter due to linking restrictions. It would make the Orbiter community dependent on a code that we can't modify, compile and redistribute legally.

Wouldn't call it panic, but such statements are for sure a reason to step back a bit and think about consequences. Jarmo made a strong point IMHO, and nobody countered that so far, so I think it is what we have to deal with when we GPL Orbiter software: the notion that it is illegal to modify, compile and redistribute it.

---------- Post added at 11:56 ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 ----------

Why taking risks on happening to you?

Totally agree here.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 ----------

One other question: How does linking to OrbiterSound or UCGO/UMMU fit to a GPL with exception?

Excellent question! I guess we'd have to include exceptions for those libs, too, if we follow Lisias' reasoning.