License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[jarmonik]

I found the code for BaseSyncMFD from my backups and it's been cleaned up and now I would need to attach a GPL license to it.

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 evelopment after all?

In my opinion any license should be decipher based on how it is designed or intended to work. If we decide that a license can be used because of some inaccuracies in a copyright law, that would place us on a very shady ground, without having a solid foundations.

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).

Are we sure that it applies to a software as expected ? Also, let's assume that Martin would decide to open source the Orbiter and chooses to write his own license for that, then how would the Volenti non fit iniuria work, does it make old Orbiter addons automatically compatible with a new Open Orbiter or would it brake all linking exceptions ?

To avoid possible problems on that matter, would it be practical to have a linking exception to a non-free main program "Orbiter" or any later edition of that software, just to be sure. That doesn't do any harm or does it ?

Also, the GPL FAQ recommends adding the exception http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

Now I have Project Mercury linked to Orbiter Sound and Orbiter itself and I want to use XCompress (fictitious) a GPLed file compress library and code. Will I able to use it? No because XCompress was never written in Orbiter in mind nor for use with anything that links to a closed source Orbiter add-on like Orbitersound.

My software BaseSyncMFD is a MFD plugin for the Orbiter and it doesn't link to any other non-free software. How ever, it does contain math and functionalities those could be useful in a vessel development which may require linking to an additional non-free libraries like the OrbiterSound. If I have understood correctly that would require a linking exception in my code. Also, I don't really want to be bothered by request to link my software to UMMU or some other modules, so, would it be practical to add a statement: "or any other free/non-free Orbiter module(s) by your choice".

Also, should those exceptions have a copy-left requirement ? (i.e. Any Orbiter work that builds upon this software would need to forward the exceptions)


Then it would be necessary to write a copyright notice, that is away beyond my skills so I might need some help with it:
(Here's my prototype)

(removed)

 

[Face]

Oh, besides the certainly insightful nitpicking around the terms "totally fine", what about another part of my post back there?

Going back to the origin of the discussion, Multistage2015, I now wonder what that all means for addons that use a GPL'ed "middle-ware" like that (or genericvessel).

IMHO, it doesn't mean that the authors of these addons are obliged to release them under GPL, too. They can still choose what license to use for their meshes, textures, sounds etc. Only if they include the middle-ware binaries in the distribution, they have to give credit and state the GPL for those parts.

Do I have to also post a note in that addon's thread to inform users of the legal problems?

 

[Lisias]

Nevertheless, you could argue that it is derived work, because without Martin's example I would not have started to code AU to begin with. And I hope I am not naive here, but isn't inspiring people to release addons part of the reason for Martin's examples?

Of course it is. Inspiring people to write vessels appears to be the reason he released the source code. And in any moment anyone said anything that could be understood (I hope) the other way.

But still, it's unacceptable by GPL - and this is my only argument.

And.. isn't that getting even further. Can't we also say on this grounds, that almost EVERY damn addon is a copyright infringment, because it is highly probable that everyone used example code to base his addon on? If this is so, no license is relevant, isn't it? Way to care about the Orbiter ecosystem...

You are shooting the messenger. I did not wrote the laws (nor the licenses).

BTW: I've never stated "using GPL is totally fine" in this isolated way.

I stand corrected. This was already addressed in meu previous posts.

I said that it seems to me that the arguments have settled on GPL being totally fine for Orbiter addons. This is an interpretation of the situation as I've observed it, not a statement of authority.

An incorrect interpretation in my opinion - there were no such settlement at that point.

However, I sure would wish for such a statement done by an Orbiter representative,

As it appears from my discussion with dseagrav, if an Orbiter representative would had made such statement, he would be risking doing that in error.

Such official statements should me made after legal advice - and as far as I know, none of us are in such position (provide legal advising).

 

[Face]

In my opinion any license should be decipher based on how it is designed or intended to work. If we decide that a license can be used because of some inaccuracies in a copyright law, that would place us on a very shady ground, without having a solid foundations.

This would be the ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, copyright law by itself is already a very shady ground, if you ask me.

For me, it really doesn't matter if somebody could sue me or not, because they can't take away much at this point in my life, anyway . However, it is important for me that the community prosper and that my code contributes to that. I don't see these aspects fulfilled with either closed or "take-all-give-nothing-back" mechanisms. Just my opinion, of course.

If somebody sues me for copyright infringement, I'd be less bothered than when the community shunned my work for using GPL. If this is the case, I'd rather stop working for it. I think you of all the developers here are the first to understand this, taking a similar stance in the past.

 

[dseagrav]

Given the current practices by some add-on developers (relying on implicit and or informal consent), the GPL is not totally fine for Orbiter Addons.

The GPL is fine. The "current practices" (they sure as hell aren't MY practices) are not.

The GPL is totally fine for Orbiter addons in which you have full ownership of the code used and/or explicit consent from the copyright holders from the code you don't own.

OR if the code you are using is under a GPL-compatible license. If something is GPL or LGPL, I don't have to have explicit permission.

There're licenses where implicit permission are enough? Such a license would be welcome here.

Such a license would be very dangerous; Implied consent in and of itself is dangerous. What do you do if Doc Martin passes away and his inheritors decide to interpret your verbal differently? Or deny it ever existed? You're up a creek without a paddle. This is why most Linux distributions won't bundle software without a clear license.

In any event, Doc Martin's "All Rights Reserved" is clear and unambiguous. He reserves all rights. You have none. He may not have INTENDED this, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

some developers are not comfortable in waiving the rights that the GPL demands on the meshes - they don't mind the code, but want to keep such rights about the mesh. GPL is not fine to these guys.

(From this point out: "assets" means the artwork and sounds and such associated with a project. Basically, that which isn't code.)

There's also nothing that says you HAVE to apply the GPL to your assets. It's YOUR license, and YOU decide what it applies to. You just can't apply it to only part of a program/library. You can GPL your code and CC BY-NC-ND your assets. You can distribute them in the same archive. It's your copyright. Problem solved. The only thing you can't do is relicense someone else's work without their permission.

Moreover, at least in my country there is a of a law that imposes restrictions to musical works (it's pure government sponsored extortion). GPL don't accept further restrictions (if you can't fulfill external obligations and the GPL at the same time, you don't have the right to distribute it at all).

If you can't GPL your assets, don't. You don't have to. See above.

GPL is still not totally fine to be used in Orbiters add ons without further considerations.

There is no license, or no other legal document, that is totally fine to be accepted or applied without consideration. It is not the GPL's fault that you have to think carefully about what rights you give others with respect to your work.

The GPL licensed add-ons are almost none nowadays (compared with the total number of add-ons published), and these few guys that licenses his add-ons under the GPL are smart enough to know what they are doing.

My concerning is that by stating that "The GPL is totally fine to be used in Orbiter's add-ons", some developers (or most of them?) that nowadays are on a legal limbo (but not ethical one - the norma here is the implicit consent, just to be clear) will become legally liable by reissuing his work under the GPL.

If it's HIS work, he has no liability. If he releases someone else's work without their permission, he has liability REGARDLESS of what terms he releases it under. The GPL does not matter. You cannot release someone else's work without their permission, either in the form of a license permitting it or an explicit written statement in the absence of a license. To do anything else is to invite trouble later.

They would void the license to use and distribute their work (that nowadays are implicit), by using a license that imposes demands that they cannot comply under the penalty of not being applicable - and then, as yourself explained, the Berne Convention license applies : "All Rights Reserved" i.e., no distribution and end user usage allowed.

Again, this only comes up if you distribute someone else's work, in which case you are liable no matter what license you released with. There is no license that makes it OK to distribute works you don't have permission to distribute.

What perhaps wasn't became clear to you is that this is not a Open Source driven community.

Of course not. You're doing your best to drive us away.

The guys here formed this community around a Closed Source Software (Orbiter), where third party development (by professionals *AND* by amateurs) are welcomed no matter the license.

...unless it's the GPL, apparently. Then you need to harass us and take down our work because of a bunch of baseless FUD.

How in hell I can say to these guys "GPL is totally fine to be used on Orbiter add-ons"???

How can you not? The GPL is totally fine to be used with Orbiter add-ons. The fact that some people don't want to use it doesn't change this. The fact that other people have sloppy releases and don't want to share their artwork does not change MY obligations to anyone.

The GPL does not create any additional liability that you would not already otherwise have. There is no license that will permit you to release works you do not have permission to release. There is no means by which you can relicense someone else's work without their consent. Blaming the GPL for this is shooting the messenger.

 

[Face]

But still, it's unacceptable by GPL - and this is my only argument.

So does this mean - again in your legally not binding or in any way restraining and jadajadayouarenotgoingtobesuedbyme OPINION - that my use of GPL for Ascension Ultra is making the license void? So that everybody wanting to re-distribute the project because he made changes to it is in danger of doing so illegally?

 

[jarmonik]

This would be the ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, copyright law by itself is already a very shady ground, if you ask me.

On that you are probably right, I don't know the copyright law.

I don't have a problem with your genericvessel or any other works.

 

[boogabooga]

Keeping up with this thread is a full time job. :uhh:

I mean somewhat seriously, perhaps this is important enough to condense the conversation into an Orbiter Forum Article?

 

[dseagrav]

perhaps this is important enough to condense the conversation into an Orbiter Forum Article?

Whoever does, you have my sincerest condolences.

 

[kamaz]

I don't care if I am the only one arguing. I will continue to argue until proven wrong (perhaps we should bring this to someone at FSF or EFF?).

If you want to bring down the entire Orbiter add-on community -- by all means please do. I have actually met these people (including in person) and I know what they are capable of: a massive flame war which will end up with everyone packing up their toys and going home. Been there, done that.

Now, I take a look on the Delta Glider and in *EVERY* DG's source code I found:

Yes, technically you are right: every add-on built on DG reference code can be argued to violate martins copyright. However:

(a) the only person who could bring a suit against the add-on developer is martins himself. I don't see it happening.

(b) the notions of estoppel and volenti not fit inuria kick in: this code has been published as SDK examples, and the very idea of SDK examples is that you should use them to build your own code upon them. Therefore it is unlikely that martins suit against add-on developers would be successful.

(But it is true that what martins should do is to mark SDK samples as public domain. That would remove the legal uncertainity.)

Further, it is not true that putting out a DG-derived code out under GPL violates the license. Again, the software license can be only violated by the licensee (the person receiving the code under GPL and redistributing it further), not the licensor (the person which puts GPL on the original code).

 

[dseagrav]

Further, it is not true that putting out a DG-derived code out under GPL violates the license. Again, the software license can be only violated by the licensee (the person receiving the code under GPL and redistributing it further), not the licensor (the person which puts GPL on the original code).

Right. In this case, it is the addon developer making the GPL release who violates the license on the code s/he got with the SDK. The GPL release is irrelevant, it was the SDK example license that was violated.

 

[kamaz]

Are we sure that it applies to a software as expected ?

Estoppel applies like this: if the licensor agrees that GPL can be used for Orbiter add-ons, then he has no grounds to sue the licensee for using his GPL'd code in Orbiter add-ons. And, if someone puts out his original add-on code under GPL then he obviously agrees with it being used with Orbiter, duh. So basically, an Orbiter add-on written from scratch and released under GPL can be further redistributed and modifed under GPL. (That's obviously assuming that some developers would be brain-dead enough to start suing his own users.)

The only risk is if you took a third party GPL code and put that into Orbiter add-on. Then the third party would have grounds to sue, because there have made no action or statement that they are OK with using their code in Orbiter add-ons. Whether the suit would prevail is another matter (I think it would not).

Also, let's assume that Martin would decide to open source the Orbiter and chooses to write his own license for that, then how would the Volenti non fit iniuria work, does it make old Orbiter addons automatically compatible with a new Open Orbiter or would it brake all linking exceptions ?

I don't really understand this scenario.

To avoid possible problems on that matter, would it be practical to have a linking exception to a non-free main program "Orbiter" or any later edition of that software, just to be sure. That doesn't do any harm or does it ?

Correct.

I'm arguing that even lack of such clause by the original developer does not expose the add-on redistributors to a legal risk by the notion of estoppel.

My software BaseSyncMFD is a MFD plugin for the Orbiter and it doesn't link to any other non-free software. How ever, it does contain math and functionalities those could be useful in a vessel development which may require linking to an additional non-free libraries like the OrbiterSound. If I have understood correctly that would require a linking exception in my code. Also, I don't really want to be bothered by request to link my software to UMMU or some other modules, so, would it be practical to add a statement: "or any other free/non-free Orbiter module(s) by your choice".

Correct.

Also, should those exceptions have a copy-left requirement ? (i.e. Any Orbiter work that builds upon this software would need to forward the exceptions)

You can put this, but it will propagate by itself anyway.

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------

Right. In this case, it is the addon developer making the GPL release who violates the license on the code s/he got with the SDK. The GPL release is irrelevant, it was the SDK example license that was violated.

Exactly. However it's doubtful that violation of an SDK sample license is even actionable by the notion of estoppel.

 

[jarmonik]

Does any of those linking exceptions create code incompatibilities with project NASSP ?

 

[dseagrav]

Yes. A linking exception is GPL-incompatible. NASSP is vanilla GPL v2 Or Later. We use other GPLed software, one with an Orbiter exception (yaAGC) and at least one without (the excel file reader). In our case the Orbiter exception would make us unable to use other GPLed software unless we got them (all of their contributors if they don't have a special contributor agreement) to sign off.

Remember that only COPYING, MODIFYING, OR REDISTRIBUTING a GPLed package creates a violation. We cannot be sued for including the vanilla GPL software because we aren't distributing NASSP + Orbiter. The only scenario in which a violation can occur is if someone distributes NASSP with Orbiter, and we now have a notice in the root directory of the source tree to this effect.

See https://github.com/dseagrav/NASSP/blob/master/COPYING.txt

Edit: To clarify, presence of a linking exception does not mean NASSP can't use your code, it's the other way around - If we use other vanilla-GPL code, we can't impose any restrictions beyond the vanilla GPL. This is why we can use yaAGC, which has the exception.

 

[Face]

I also understand it that way. The exception is only necessary if you want to enable legal distribution of your addon together with Orbiter itself. If you don't mind that, you can just use the GPL, because it is "totally fine" for Orbiter addons.

 

[jarmonik]

Yes. A linking exception is GPL-incompatible.

Then we need to find a solution. I don't really understand the problem. For an example if I license the code under MIT then it would be GPL-compatible even if it would give a lot more freedom than a GPL with few linking exceptions. Linking exceptions doesn't add limitations.

How about statement that allows to remove the linking exceptions from a derived works by user choice ?

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Edit: To clarify, presence of a linking exception does not mean NASSP can't use your code, it's the other way around - If we use other vanilla-GPL code, we can't impose any restrictions beyond the vanilla GPL. This is why we can use yaAGC, which has the exception.

So, linking exceptions are not a problem.

 

[dseagrav]

Oh, I got it backwards. I can't take GPL code into a GPL+exception project because I don't have the right to relicense the GPL code to GPL+exception. The exception would only apply to my code, I can't apply it to the other party's code.

 

[jarmonik]

So, you actually do need that exception. EDIT: Which actually exist automatically since my code links to the Orbiter as well.

 

[Face]

If you want to bring down the entire Orbiter add-on community -- by all means please do. I have actually met these people (including in person) and I know what they are capable of: a massive flame war which will end up with everyone packing up their toys and going home. Been there, done that.

To be fair, I think we could just drop the toys and go home. If the other kids want to continue on this playground, let 'em. At home, there are mommy's cookies and warm milk. Mmmmmhhh... :rofl:

But seriously, I think you are right. Running to attorneys in order to get code released as open source is a non-starter, and will only split the community.

 

[Lisias]

Oh, I got it backwards. I can't take GPL code into a GPL+exception project because I don't have the right to relicense the GPL code to GPL+exception. The exception would only apply to my code, I can't apply it to the other party's code.

Unless you get their explicit permission to do that.