Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-10-2015, 12:13 PM   #91
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisias View Post
 It would be my second (or third?) suggestion (that Orbiter End User License - OEUL) in my first posts of this thread.

And since double licensing is possible, you can also GPL your code to be usable in GPL projects from other GPL softwares (a situation you stated being comfortable with).

You want to use the code in an Orbiter addon? Here, take this OPL licensed distribution.

This code would be useful to a GPL project you maintain? No problem, take this GPL licensed distribution.

As long all copyright holders agrees, this is doable: you guarantee the usefulness to Orbiter users, and to GPL users (GPL users can't compile your code to be used on Orbiter, but who cares? The OPL distribution already covered Orbiter).
Hm. Besides strongly doubting that adding ANOTHER pile of legalese to the stack will make that situation any better, I don't understand how the Orbiter Public License will be different to the GPL. Will it allow others to modify, compile and re-distribute the code? Will it forbid closed-source software (other than Orbiter) to make use of it?

And what does it mean regarding using software components that are GPL'ed? It would be interesting to see a proposal for this OEUL you mentioned.
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2015, 12:20 PM   #92
Lisias
Space Traveller Wanna-be
 
Lisias's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 There is also no such way as indirect linking (In C11/C++). If you use a library that depends on another library, you are responsible for including that dependency as well into the product.
What I will propose below is almost (or effectively is) a fallacy, but... Are you sure?

If I wrap my library in a RPC style mechanism, that would be not an indirect dependency?

What about code injection? That catch-ctd example was superb - by using an wrapper, it's feasible to even replace the wrapped DLL in runtime to another one. What can be said of this? (please, let keep my mom out of the subject )

This is not an argument - just genuine curiosity.
Lisias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2015, 12:51 PM   #93
jangofett287
Heat shield 'tester'
 
jangofett287's Avatar
Default

I'm confused. Can someone consistently explain exactly what the issue we're tying to solve here is?
jangofett287 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2015, 01:03 PM   #94
Lisias
Space Traveller Wanna-be
 
Lisias's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 Hm. Besides strongly doubting that adding ANOTHER pile of legalese to the stack will make that situation any better,
It will not make the situation any better - but it would make the situation bearable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 I don't understand how the Orbiter Public License will be different to the GPL. Will it allow others to modify, compile and re-distribute the code? Will it forbid closed-source software (other than Orbiter) to make use of it?
Double licensing is basically releasing TWO versions of the same codetree, one obliged to one license terms, other to another license terms - and the receiver chooses what license suits him best.

Take by example QT. It is released under the GPL, but also under some other licenses that imposes some restrictions but waives others. If you need a commercial license to a close source application, you need to pay for a closed source version of the QT. Don't wanna pay, or intents to use it on a GPL software? No problem, you take the GPL version of QT - and obeys to GPL terms.

What I propose here is that every add on be released under an Orbiter Public License that guarantees that:

1) Every Orbiter end user will be able to use the addon on any compatible version of Orbiter, in combination with any other OPL licensed add on.

2) Every Orbiter developer will be able to reuse the addon (or components of it) in any add on for Orbiter if some conditions are fulfilled (such crediting the original creator).

3) If the source code of the add on is released:

3.1) Any Orbiter developer can recompile it to be used in any Orbiter version if some conditions are fulfilled (as not pretending to be the original author of the add on).

3.2) Any Orbiter developer can adapt and reuse the code in his/her own add ons, if some conditions are fulfilled (what ones?)

4) Meshes, sounds, textures can be reused in new Orbiter addons, if some conditions are fulfilled (what ones? this can be optional?)

5) No artifact should be included in a add on that could impose further restrictions or violate third party licenses. Common Creations appears to be a good way to such licensing, but it' just my suggestion.

The community should agree on a minimum set of rules that give us the guarantees we need in order to keep Orbiter advancing without losing content by add ons obsolescence. But we should, too, prevent that some developers flee by trying to force them to release the source code (and other artifacts) if they don't want to. At least the interfacing should be OPL protected, so one can in theory replicate the module himself.

(this is already happening with generic vessel, but I think this should be explicitly stated in the license).

Such a license should be mandatory to Hangar publishing. But such a license will not be GPL compatible - so others, non Orbit related, GPL projects will not be able to take benefit from these addons!

But, at the developers solely discretion, the addon could be double licensed into GPL (or anything else!), and so the GPL projects could use the GPL code under GPL conditions (the OPL will not apply, and the derivatives would be GPL only).

To bring alien code to OPL would be a problem - GPL forbids that, unless you get explicit permission from the code's copyright holders. But this already happens anyway.

Other Open Source licenses (as BSD) will impose no problems (and this already happens too).

This would meet both your demands: being usable by GPL projects "out there", but not by any other commercial or close source project - unless they pay the copyright holders to be issued an third, commercial and proprietary, license to use the code (what's perfectly possible - it's what QT does).

---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 And what does it mean regarding using software components that are GPL'ed?
They should be double licensed into that OPL/OEUL/??? license. This would prevent all that exception hassle - as it will be needed just once.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 It would be interesting to see a proposal for this OEUL you mentioned.
OPL sounds better to my ears - when I proposed OEUL I was thinking mainly about the End Users. Perhaps we can see developers as a special case of End Users?

Orbiter Public License, on the other hand, could be not the best option, as Orbiter itself is not Open Source, and such a name can lead to misinterpretations (because of Moziila Public License).

Anyway, I diverged. The name of the license is absolutely the less important issue to be discussed!

Last edited by Lisias; 08-10-2015 at 06:51 PM.
Lisias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2015, 01:05 PM   #95
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisias View Post
 If I wrap my library in a RPC style mechanism, that would be not an indirect dependency?
That would be just a runtime dependency on the surface, but still: if you would need WSDL-files or .x files from another project to bind your client to the remote function server, you are again responsible that this does not violate your license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisias View Post
 What about code injection? That catch-ctd example was superb - by using an wrapper, it's feasible to even replace the wrapped DLL in runtime to another one. What can be said of this? (please, let keep my mom out of the subject )
Where do the header files come from, that define the abstraction layer? in case of catch-ctd, its Windows SDK and Orbiter SDK again.

Or think about reverse engineering an API: Is that legal and conform to the GPL? After all, you easily violate the license of the reverse-engineered product that way ( = There had to be a reason, as hostile as this reason is, that there is open API for you to use).

The main problem is quite simple: Late-binding in C++ is possible, but not always free of dependencies and not always in legal territory.
Urwumpe is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-10-2015, 01:09 PM   #96
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jangofett287 View Post
 I'm confused. Can someone consistently explain exactly what the issue we're tying to solve here is?
Orbiter addons with GPL license are arguably violating the license itself, therefore distributors are in danger of receiving a cease and desist letter from the FSF if it gets reported and if they even care. In addition, if the FSF contacts the O-F forum due to this, the OHM addon and/or appropriate links must be taken down.
Also, because the license is violated, the notion is that it might get invalid completely, and as such the default copyright is in effect, making it practically impossible for people to modify, compile and redistribute the software "legally".

At least this is what I decoded.
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-10-2015, 01:19 PM   #97
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 Also, because the license is violated, the notion is that it might get invalid completely, and as such the default copyright is in effect, making it practically impossible for people to modify, compile and redistribute the software "legally".
That is what is important for me. Legal security for contributors, that their contributions are neither futile, nor stolen.

I don't really give a damn about what the FSF says there, despite all their authority on the GPL, Richard Stallman would need to defeat me in a Trial of Grievance with his Katana first before I let him take down my add-on. *



* Disclaimer: I do know that Richard Stallman has the right to select the location of the Trial as he was challenged.
Urwumpe is online now   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-10-2015, 01:24 PM   #98
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

How jerkish has FSF been historically?

Have they ever aggressively litigated someone that acted in good faith because of the fine print?

Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softwa...dom_Law_Center

They seem pretty reasonable to me. Seem to go after corporations that profit from GPL, and flagrantly. When your legal team works pro-bono, I suppose that you have to prioritize...

Last edited by boogabooga; 08-10-2015 at 01:34 PM.
boogabooga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2015, 01:26 PM   #99
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 Richard Stallman would need to defeat me in a Trial of Grievance with his Katana first before I let him take down my add-on.
I'm sure he will just send his crazy 88 lawyers first. Each one with 2 Katanas. Do you have a yellow jumpsuit?

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:25 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga View Post
 Have they ever aggressively litigated someone that acted in good faith because of the fine print?
I think not. But after all that discussion, are we really still in good faith? I am not anymore...
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-10-2015, 01:28 PM   #100
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 I'm sure he will just send his crazy 88 lawyers first. Each one with 2 Katanas. Do you have a yellow jumpsuit?
Not yet. But I would even battle them wearing only a Borat swim suit.

88 with two Katanas you say? Maybe I should also take a lunch box with me.
Urwumpe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2015, 02:02 PM   #101
kamaz
Unicorn hunter
 
kamaz's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 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?
But you have contributed knowing that the code will be linked to Orbiter, so you have de facto accepted a license exception even if one was not explicitly specified (Volenti non fit iniuria).

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 Orbiter addons with GPL license are arguably violating the license itself, therefore distributors are in danger of receiving a cease and desist letter from the FSF if it gets reported and if they even care.
No, unless the add-on in question contains code copyrighted by FSF. Only copyright holder can file copyright claims.

If I write an add-on from scratch and put it under GPL, then technically I have violated my own copyright. I can then go and sue myself :D

The problem only arises if I took code written by X, and put that in an add-on. Then X would have ground to sue me, however I am not entirely sure that they would prevail in court, for several reasons.
kamaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-10-2015, 02:08 PM   #102
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
 But you have contributed knowing that the code will be linked to Orbiter, so you have de facto accepted a license exception even if one was not explicitly specified (Volenti non fit iniuria).


Aha. So you see it as fact that contributing to the code-base would make the exception implicit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
 No, unless the add-on in question contains code copyrighted by FSF. Only copyright holder can file copyright claims.
Interesting. So in your opinion the license itself is not copyrighted material by the FSF?

That is quite contrary to what Lisias states as I see it. It gets better by the minute .
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-10-2015, 02:27 PM   #103
jangofett287
Heat shield 'tester'
 
jangofett287's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
 But you have contributed knowing that the code will be linked to Orbiter, so you have de facto accepted a license exception even if one was not explicitly specified (Volenti non fit iniuria).

While that might hold in a court of law, until you got precedent set it would be very shaky, and I suspect the FSF would do everything in their power to prevent said precedent from being set.

Quote:
No, unless the add-on in question contains code copyrighted by FSF. Only copyright holder can file copyright claims.

If I write an add-on from scratch and put it under GPL, then technically I have violated my own copyright. I can then go and sue myself :D

The problem only arises if I took code written by X, and put that in an add-on. Then X would have ground to sue me, however I am not entirely sure that they would prevail in court, for several reasons.
The problem, is that the incompatibility might render the license invalid, causing it to fall back to standard copyright.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

Addendum: Also the FSF might have something to say about 'misappropriation' of their license, but attempts to construe that as a license violation would be a gross over-stepping of their remit.

---------- Post added at 15:27 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

Quote:
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.
Quote:
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
I've read the GNU License in full and our problems stem from these 2 paragraphs. In english they say that "Source Code" is everything required for someone with an appropriate compiler to produce a compiled version of the work, and that you can share these compiled versions as long as you also share the "Source Code"

side note: The Orbiter SDK (the Headers and Libs) does not fall under "generally available free programs" or "System Libraries"

Just for information, LGPL isn't suitable either, as the exceptions to the GPL included in that are for things linking to us, but we're the ones doing the linking, so it doesn't help us.
jangofett287 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2015, 02:39 PM   #104
kamaz
Unicorn hunter
 
kamaz's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 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.
This is not the consensus position, this is FSF's position.

However, there is absolutely no agreement that FSF's position has legal standing. This is because there is no case law establishing that dynamic linking does, in fact, create a derivative work, which is a precondition for GPL.

---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 Aha. So you see it as fact that contributing to the code-base would make the exception implicit?
Yes, that's what I would argue in court. Keep in mind that the plaintiff essentially has to prove that you are using their code in a way they have not authorized. If you are using their code for the same purpose they gave it to you, then they don't really have a case, do they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face View Post
 Interesting. So in your opinion the license itself is not copyrighted material by the FSF?
The license text is a copyrighted material, but you are allowed to use this material verbatim for your programs, which is what you are doing. Nowhere does it say that you must agree with FSF on the interpretation of the license to use it.
kamaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 08-10-2015, 02:41 PM   #105
Face
Beta Tester
 
Face's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
 This is not the consensus position, this is FSF's position.
I meant consensus in this thread, not in the world. But just go ahead .

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamaz View Post
 However, there is absolutely no agreement that FSF's position has legal standing. This is because there is no case law establishing that dynamic linking does, in fact, create a derivative work, which is a precondition for GPL.
Wow. So does that mean now that the GPL can be used for addon development after all?

This reminds me a bit of building my house. For every problem there was, if you talked to 10 people, you've got 20 opinio...erm...facts!
Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.