License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[dseagrav]

Furthermore, there is no license you are going to find that addresses 100% of all possible potential legal offenses worldwide. There is always going to be some risk of violation somewhere under someone's jurisdiction. This is irrelevant.

The only jurisdictions that matter are those of the copyright holders and OHM. Even if something my project does is a violation of CRIMINAL law in Cobrastan it does not mean I have to worry about being dragged to Cobrastan to face trial. Cobrastan does not have jurisdiction here, and doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

On top of that, copyright law is CIVIL law and not CRIMINAL law. The Cobrastani government can't prosecute me, a citizen who is a rightsholder has to sue me in Cobrastani court. Even if a rightsholder sues you in Cobrastani court and wins, they can't collect from you unless you own assets in Cobrastan that can be seized.

Let's say for the sake of argument there IS a magical license called the Fairy Land Unicorn License that does absolve me of 100% of copyright risk. There's still plenty of other things I could potentially be sued for:
1) Patent infringement - Using a patented technique or method somewhere in my project
2) Trademark infringement - Using a trademarked property somewhere in my project
3) Copyright violation - If my code is similar enough to someone else's code they can allege I copied it when i didn't and sue me anyway
4) I'm sure there's more. There's always some jurisdiction somewhere that has something that can be used to sue me for the sufficiently motivated.

There is nothing you can do that will absolutely protect you from legal risk other than simply never create your addon in the first place. Even if you create and never distribute an addon, just keep it privately on your computer, you can still be sued for these things.

---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

The MIT license explicitly grants sublicensing rights

And that's an explicit assignment of the right as I described. Not every license does this. The GPL is not the only license that doesn't. It has to be done as a separate and explicitly stated action, as the MIT license does it.

 

[Lisias]

On a second thought, and assuming that such Standard OHM Minimal License will be ever adopted by OHM, adding a clause demanding that the uploader should had secured all the sublicensing rights in order to relicense the work will do.

He is already expected to do so, but don't hurt to remind him.

---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 AM ----------

Furthermore, there is no license you are going to find that addresses 100% of all possible potential legal offenses worldwide. There is always going to be some risk of violation somewhere under someone's jurisdiction. This is irrelevant.

Being the reason that by doing our best to comply with WIPO rules will be the best interest of Orbiter Users around the World.

Different countries are going to issue different rules about what to do with copyright infringement material.

But every single country where there're Orbiter Users that i'm aware of are signing to WIPO. (Look, even Afghanistan is there).

So, if you manage to create something WIPO friendly, you manage to virtually eliminate any liability to virtually any Orbiter User in the World.

This is not irrelevant.

(But granted, it is not necessarily a problem to OHM).

---------- Post added at 04:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 AM ----------

There is nothing you can do that will absolutely protect you from legal risk other than simply never create your addon in the first place. Even if you create and never distribute an addon, just keep it privately on your computer, you can still be sued for these things.

These guys doesn't agree with you.

 

[dseagrav]

virtually eliminate any liability to virtually any Orbiter User in the World

But this isn't good enough for you, you already said so! You said until we absolutely address 100% of your concerns our license is not acceptable, and you would keep arguing against it until you were absolved of risk.

---------- Post added at 11:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

There have been GPLed Orbiter addons for more than 10 years now. In that time, there has not been one single incident of legal action as a result of this. There has not been one single COMPLAINT about any of them, nor has there been even a THREAT of legal action. To me this represents a good demonstration of the suitability of the GPL for Orbiter addons.

 

[Lisias]

On top of that, copyright law is CIVIL law and not CRIMINAL law. The Cobrastani government can't prosecute me, a citizen who is a rightsholder has to sue me in Cobrastani court. Even if a rightsholder sues you in Cobrastani court and wins, they can't collect from you unless you own assets in Cobrastan that can be seized.

Copyright infringement *can be* a criminal offense. Be happy it is not where you live. (do you are aware that a lot of Orbiters are british, right?)

I don't know about Cobrastan, but as far as I know, a british can happily sues me if I use some copyright material of him.

But granted, he will not be able to sue you.

Countries can conveniently be split into one or more of four categories which, in descending order of ease and convenience, are:

* countries to which the European Enforcement Order (EEO) Regulation applies;

* countries which have signed the Brussels Regulation or the Lugano Convention;

* countries with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement in place;

* countries for which none of the above apply - notably the USA, Japan and China.

So I understand your mindset of not being concerned about.

---------- Post added at 04:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 AM ----------

There have been GPLed Orbiter addons for more than 10 years now. In that time, there has not been one single incident of legal action as a result of this. There has not been one single COMPLAINT about any of them, nor has there been even a THREAT of legal action. To me this represents a good demonstration of the suitability of the GPL for Orbiter addons.

To me, this is a clear statement of why GPL is not needed here (something completely different of being undesired - what it is not).

You want it? Nice. Use it. You know what you are doing. You will not hurt yourself, much less hurt GPL.

But please don't state neither implies that GPL will do fine on any Add On and that every Add On Developer can adopt it without a lot of (educated) considerations.

 

[dseagrav]

as far as I know, a british can happily sues me if I use some copyright material of him

From your own link:

In cases where relevant intellectual property rights are registered in England and the defendants not domiciled in a member state of the European Union, it is likely that a court would find that a claim for infringement of foreign intellectual property rights in an overseas jurisdiction is not justiciable in English courts. This is because the foreign court is more than likely to be the more appropriate jurisdiction, and English court forum non conveniens.

They'd have to sue you in your court, under your laws.

---------- Post added 08-15-15 at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-14-15 at 11:42 PM ----------

every Add On Developer can adopt it without a lot of (educated) considerations.

For the nth time: There is NO legal document, NONE, that is safe to enter into without a lot of educated considerations.

The GPL is not special or unique in this regard.

Your proposed solution does not solve what you claim is your problem. Your true goal is clearly to ensure that as few people use the GPL as possible, and to eradicate it from the community if possible. You have a personal grudge against the GPL, you will never change your mind, you will never stop attacking it, and you will never stop attacking anyone who expresses anything other than hate or fear of it.

---------- Post added at 12:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 AM ----------

And if there IS a large amount of community feeling against it, as you claim, how come you're the only one posting here?

 

[Lisias]

But this isn't good enough for you, you already said so! You said until we absolutely address 100% of your concerns our license is not acceptable, and you would keep arguing against it until you were absolved of risk.

I have to protest against such statements. This is not absolutely what I stated in any of my arguments.

I quote myself:

I will continue to argue until proven wrong.

I will compromise with any solution that doesn't add "damages" to OHM's eco system. What includes doing nothing. :dry:

(where damages should be understood as "injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness")

Given that there're all over the World what would gladly accuses anyone from copyright infringement for personal issues with the guy, I think that some arguing about the how such situations could be easier handled can be a good idea, no?

 

[dseagrav]

I will continue to argue until proven wrong

... meaning we must address 100% of your concerns or you won't stop.

I will compromise with any solution that doesn't add "damages" to OHM's eco system. What includes doing nothing.

and then

(where damages should be understood as "injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness")

You interpret the mere risk of a lawsuit as "damages", so until you are absolved of risk you won't stop.

Nothing I said is untrue.

 

[Lisias]

From your own link:


They'd have to sue you in your court, under your laws.

No doubt. So I can rest assured that I'm not *required* to respect any licensing terms, as it will not be consequences as the other guy will have to expend some serious money on it.

So I beg for your permission to try my best on respecting (and ask for respect) that guy's best interests about his Orbiter's work based only on ethics and moral basis.

There is NO legal document, NONE, that is safe to enter into without a lot of educated considerations.

The GPL is not special or unique in this regard.

Agreed. Being this the reason I'm arguing against that statement "GPL is totally fine to Orbiter Add Ons".

So I counter argument it as "GPL is fine to Orbiter Add Ons as long every single artifact on the bundle is GPL, and the developer is willing to grant almost unrestricted distribution and unrestricted usage rights".

And that's my only argument about GPL on Orbiter's Add Ons.

[...]Your true goal is clearly[...] a personal grudge [...] never change your mind, you will never stop attacking it, and you will never stop attacking anyone [...]

You made some personal and harsh accusations here. I will not argue with you on such terms.

 

[dseagrav]

And that's my only argument about GPL on Orbiter's Add Ons.

Then why do you keep trying to insinuate that GPLed orbiter addons present some kind of existential risk to OHM or Orbiter or the community as a whole?

You keep trying to add caveats to things, to keep the window open for fear and doubt. You keep trying to convince people that the GPL presents additional liability or risk, or that it somehow takes away rights from the owners. This isn't the case and we've shot your arguments down time and time again but you just keep bringing them back. Nothing is good enough. Just because there's a case in which one person may not want to use the GPL that means the GPL is unsuitable for Orbiter add-ons and should be discouraged. The GPL is too hard for "amateur" add-on developers, they should be discouraged. Instead they should be pressured to accept a license you wrote, for their own "protection", so they can remain ignorant of their rights and risks. This is what you keep repeating.

How am I expected to interpret this as arguing in good faith, when you directly admitted to trolling in this very thread?

You made some personal and harsh accusations here. I will not argue with you on such terms.

You're the one who admitted to trolling. Don't get mad at me because the reaction you got isn't the one you wanted. A spade is a spade.

 

[Loru]

As I said few dozen posts above:

If there is copyright or licensing complaint for any add-on, staff will evaluate complaint and take down said add-on if it infringes of someone's copyright

It's that simple.

 

[Face]

If there is copyright or licensing complaint for any add-on, staff will evaluate complaint and take down said add-on if it infringes of someone's copyright

I think the majority trusts the staff on being level-headed and not taking down an addon willy-nilly just on the call of some copyright troll.

However, it is also clear that the decision whether or not something is infringing copyright is already hard for judges in courts, and you will certainly agree that the staff does not consist of judges (nor should it!). Therefore, whatever your decision on such a matter would be, it would only be the opinion of you, not a legally binding judgement. It will have consequences inside the community, sure, but this won't necessarily mean it is illegal.

And the other way around will also be possible: something might be illegal in some country, but you would decide it doesn't matter here, e.g. because O-F is based on US law.

To me it looks like I will have to wait until some troll is trying to get my addons taken down (and succeed) to get a definite answer to the question "is GPL OK for Orbiter addons". In the meantime, I would have to assume that there is a positive answer.

Unless Martin speaks up one or the other way, of course. To me, this would be as definite as it can get.

I rest my case here, and will be off to reflect on what that means to me now. Thank you to ALL participants in the thread to share their opinions, it was really very insightful!

cheers,
Face

 

[dseagrav]

Since my post didn't get deleted, I'll continue.

argument...

Do you have any idea how much your FUD cost me? Do have the slightest idea what I went through?

When I first read this thread I agreed with you and your interpretation. The GPL seemed a clear danger, we had violated it, and we needed to relicense immediately. I made plans to relicense; I sent emails to everyone I could find an email address for begging permission to relicense to LGPL. I knew they weren't all going to answer. I searched for a means by which I could relicense the work I had. There was none. It was all going to have to go. I forked the git repository and began destroying YEARS of work. I picked the people I knew I would never get a response from, starting with Moonwalker, and started backing out their contributions. I made the procedure for wiping the CVS and git repositories of the infringing material. A few more commands was all it would have taken.

I was about to set NASSP back over 6 years, if not kill it, because of you. (I bet you would have been overjoyed. What a grand trophy for your wall!)

Thankfully, the kind people at stackexchange explained why there was no violation and that I had fallen for decade-old FUD, hook line and sinker.

To say I was upset would be the understatement of the century. I made a fool of myself before my fellow contributors and nearly decimated a project I've poured almost ten years of my life into just to find out your motivation was just to get a rise out of people.

If anything here is the existential threat to the community that you claim the GPL is, it is YOU.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, about the Orbit Hangar Standard License issue....

 

[kamaz]

As I said few dozen posts above:

If there is copyright or licensing complaint for any add-on, staff will evaluate complaint and take down said add-on if it infringes of someone's copyright

It's that simple.

And, since O-H is hosted in US, it is exempted from copyright infringement liability simply if it honores such takedown requests, per 17 USC 512 (c)(1)(A)(iii).

Also note that the only person entitled to file a takedown request is a copyright holder or a duly authorized agent thereof -- 17 USC 512 (c)(3)(A)(i).

Questioned material can be reinstanted by O-H after receiving a notice from the original uploader that the content is non-infringing, per 17 USC 512 (g).

Writeup on wikipedia.

 

[dseagrav]

To further put this whole mess to bed, how about this:

I will write a web application, an Orbiter Add-On License Selector. It will work like a checklist; The user will be asked for information used to make a license determination, the criteria for several open and closed source licenses will be programmed in, and the program will select the strongest license that matches the information the user provided. If the information the user provides indicates a release would not be legal, the user will be warned before they expose themselves to liability. If the license selected is not the one the user had in mind, they can indicate which they wanted and the program will evaluate it and report if the license can be used (or if not, why not).

I will GPL the application so that the logic may be inspected for flaws and corrected where necessary, and the application can then be integrated into OHM at their option.

This will take a little bit of time, but I will proceed with all haste. The interface will suck because I am terrible at designing interfaces, but since it's GPLed anyone who wants to improve it can.

Comments?

 

[Urwumpe]

To further put this whole mess to bed, how about this:

I will write a web application, an Orbiter Add-On License Selector. It will work like a checklist;

There is a tool called "Wahl-o-Mat" (about "Electiomatic") In Germany, which asks you questions about your political goals and then compares this to the official party programs of the parties in the next election. Its pretty good and easy to use, it also allows you to compare your answers to multiple party programs in the final review.

Something like that for licenses would be cool, since it also allows you to see, what you would need to trade for a license.

 

[dseagrav]

allows you to compare your answers to multiple party programs in the final review

I like that idea; I'll see what I can pull off.

 

[Xyon]

To further put this whole mess to bed, how about this:

I will write a web application, an Orbiter Add-On License Selector. It will work like a checklist; The user will be asked for information used to make a license determination, the criteria for several open and closed source licenses will be programmed in, and the program will select the strongest license that matches the information the user provided. If the information the user provides indicates a release would not be legal, the user will be warned before they expose themselves to liability. If the license selected is not the one the user had in mind, they can indicate which they wanted and the program will evaluate it and report if the license can be used (or if not, why not).

I will GPL the application so that the logic may be inspected for flaws and corrected where necessary, and the application can then be integrated into OHM at their option.

This will take a little bit of time, but I will proceed with all haste. The interface will suck because I am terrible at designing interfaces, but since it's GPLed anyone who wants to improve it can.

Comments?

If you create such a thing, I will incorporate it into the new OHM (and take care of the UI in that interaction). Ideally for that purpose, I should be able to pass your app a JSON packet RESTfully, and receive a response which I can plug into an AJAX callback for response parsing.

 

[jedidia]

I will write a web application, an Orbiter Add-On License Selector. It will work like a checklist;

Now that would be something I was looking for my entire life without even realising it :lol:

 

[Xyon]

If you create such a thing, I will incorporate it into the new OHM (and take care of the UI in that interaction). Ideally for that purpose, I should be able to pass your app a JSON packet RESTfully, and receive a response which I can plug into an AJAX callback for response parsing.

I just realised this will mean GPLing the new version of OHM, too. Which should be OK, I think - my concern would be around where it interacts with the forum, but I think it just inserts into the OF database currently. I'll need to have a think about the libraries I'm using, though.