License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Face]

Except that FSF believes that it isn't.

But unless your add-on contains code authored by FSF, you can simply ignore them.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------



Here is a write-up concerning the same controversy in a different context:

https://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/

I think I am really slow at comprehension today, please bear with me. You mean this all for the "allowing redistribution of addon bundled with Orbiter and/or Orbitersound-like things" situation, yes? Not like "FSF will not let you distribute Orbiter addons (alone) under GPL", right?

 

[Lisias]

I deleted the content of one of my posts to further editing.

On a second look, I realized that my rhetorics would had implied that my interlocutor were intentionally ignoring some facts.

That was a mistake from what I ask for apologies to anyone that had read, in special, my interlocutor.

 

[kamaz]

I think I am really slow at comprehension today, please bear with me. You mean this all for the "allowing redistribution of addon bundled with Orbiter and/or Orbitersound-like things" situation, yes? Not like "FSF will not let you distribute Orbiter addons (alone) under GPL", right?

Yes, indeed, "FSF will not let you distribute Orbiter addons (alone) under GPL (unless you add an exception)". However they can be safely ignored (unless you use their code in your add-on).

The two situations have a different level of "illegality" so to say. I can do a longer write up on this but you have to wait until I get home.

 

[Face]

Yes, indeed, "FSF will not let you distribute Orbiter addons (alone) under GPL (unless you add an exception)". However they can be safely ignored (unless you use their code in your add-on).

The two situations have a different level of "illegality" so to say. I can do a longer write up on this but you have to wait until I get home.

Ok, so this is now new information for me. It means that if I use some of FSF code (is that all under the GNU umbrella? Savannah?), although I distribute the addon alone, although I don't give a dime what happens to bundlers, although it is the same GPL that the FSF code uses, I can not use the GPL unmodified, because the FSF have legal grounds to be jerks?

If that is so, wouldn't that mean I can never use FSF code in my project, because as soon as I add an exception to my license, I would also have the FSF licensors to agree to that exception?

BTW: take all the time you need, please, there is really no need to hurry.

 

[dseagrav]

Yes, indeed, "FSF will not let you distribute Orbiter addons (alone) under GPL (unless you add an exception)". However they can be safely ignored (unless you use their code in your add-on).

This is not true. FSF has no say in your distribution of anything that's not theirs, and even if you DID incorporate FSF's code in your GPL orbiter addon, you are not in violation of the GPL unless you are distributing your addon together with Orbiter. The "linking" that FSF opposes does not happen until Orbiter is combined with the GPL code.

Give me a minute to write something longer.

 

[Lisias]

What requirements? All you have to have is the right to use the item you are publishing in the manner you are telling others is OK. If someone gives you a file that they have created and says you can use it in your GPL project, then you can use it. Period.

The requirement to do not add further restrictions.

In at least a few times the authorization to use some artifact was done under additional non GPL allowed restrictions (you can use my texture in your vessel, but not in another, or something like that).

It's my understanding that, if by accident, the packager forgot to state the restricting licensing terms on some specific artifact, and by default the GPL were applied on that artifact, the whole package would be rendered undistributable.

You see, set aside Mr Schweiger sample code, it's also common practice to ask for permission to use some asset in forumsl or just by sending the thing by mail under request

HOWEVER, that permission not rarely does not complies with all the GPL freedoms. So, such "license" is not GPL compatible.

So, by claiming your package is GPL covered, you can incurs in GPL rendering your package undistributable if you do not exempt explicitly the artifact (mesh, sound, configuration file, whatever) that is not covered by GPL.

AGAIN, not GPL's fault.

But this is something that I foresee will happens.

 

[dseagrav]

The reason the FSF opposes DLL linking of GPL and non-GPL code is because someone could then make a non-Free program that requires a mandatory Free "plugin" and therefore get around the restriction that you cannot GPL only parts of a program.

No matter what, in no case can anyone sue you for distributing something except for the copyright holders of the something. FSF cannot control what you apply the GPL to or what you do with it. The only way YOU could get sued by the FSF is to do something in violation of the GPL with their code. They cannot sue you for what your end-users might be doing, however they may disagree with it.

The GPL (v2) says:

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License.

In this case, the "incorporating" is being done by your end-user, not you. As the end-user is not distributing the "incorporated" result, they are safe and you are safe.

---------- Post added at 07:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 AM ----------

In at least a few times the authorization to use some artifact was done under additional non GPL allowed restrictions (you can use my texture in your vessel, but not in another, or something like that).

In that case, you can't GPL it, but you can't share it at all either. You couldn't use the GPL any more than you could use MIT or WTFPL or anything else. If you were told the item wasn't reusable then it's not reusable.

It's my understanding that, if by accident, the packager forgot to state the restricting licensing terms on some specific artifact, and by default the GPL were applied on that artifact, the whole package would be rendered undistributable.

Only if the copyright holder of the item objects. If they don't object there is no violation. The license doesn't decide who violates it, the copyright holder does. The license just makes it clear what rights you did (or didn't) have.

If you were told not to share something and you shared it anyway, you're in trouble no matter what means by which you shared it.

 

[Face]

You see, set aside Mr Schweiger sample code, it's also common practice to ask for permission to use some asset in forumsl or just by sending the thing by mail under request

HOWEVER, that permission not rarely does not complies with all the GPL freedoms. So, such "license" is not GPL compatible.

I always ask people not only for permission, but also explicitly state that their work would be under GPL, what they always were OK with. I then put the appropriate files in as commit under their names, so it is also documentated in the version history. This is followed by adding them to the AUTHORS list (or directly by adding them to file headers - if it isn't there in the first place), stating what part they contributed.

I think this suffice to make it GPL "compatible". I wouldn't want to do less in this regards, because it might really lead to the original author claiming GPL incompatibility.

 

[Lisias]

I always ask people not only for permission, but also explicitly state that their work would be under GPL, what they always were OK with.

As I stated before, you are one of that smart guys that knows what you are doing!

But there're people that don't understand such things.

And there're people that don't want to understand such things.

And there're people that understands and doesn't agree.

All of them are contributors - I aim to alienate them the less as possible.

So, I want to be able to tell them:

You see, there's that GPL thing. It's a nice thing, without it the World would not be what it is today, I don't know if we even could be talking to each other freely and almost costless without many softwares that were made with GPL.

So could be a good idea to license your add-on using it - but it has its gotchas, and there's a good chance that the mechanisms that nice guys from the FSF built to guarantee the GPL programs will always be there can backfires on you. This is some of them... <blablababla>

If by any means you don't feel comfortable with this, there's no problem. A lot of people think as you (and they also helped to make the World the place it is today). Let me talk to you about BSD and MIT licenses.

 

[Urwumpe]

What about the other way? Are we allowed to link to OrbiterSound according to GPL? or what does the LGPL say there?

 

[dseagrav]

What about the other way? Are we allowed to link to OrbiterSound according to GPL? or what does the LGPL say there?

Yes. You just can't package OrbiterSound with your addon. (OrbiterSound's license doesn't allow this anyway)

LGPL has no linking restrictions at all, but LGPL is GPL-incompatible. You cannot use GPL software in a LGPL project. (You can do the reverse. GPL projects can use LGPL software.)

---------- Post added at 07:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 AM ----------

there's a good chance that the mechanisms that nice guys from the FSF built to guarantee the GPL programs will always be there can backfires on you

On what basis do you make this statement, same as how every addon is a deltaglider ripoff?

 

[Lisias]

If you were told not to share something and you shared it anyway, you're in trouble no matter what means by which you shared it.

I have not a single objection to that statement.

But this is not what I'm talking about.

Different sources grants rights to artifacts under different conditions.

They *are* granting the right to distribute the artifact bundled into the guys package. But these rights are not extensible to everyone, ergo, are not GPL compatible.

Since you *can't* distribute GPL bundled with non compatible GPL artifacts (or, at least, it's what was stated many times in this thread, and until now, is undisputed), the guy can (and I say again, can - I'm not stating that it will!!) ended up with a package full of things that he has the right to distribute and his direct user has the right to use - but a protection mechanism bundled into GPL to protect GPL licensees was triggered and the whole package are rendered non distributable.

Again, not GPL's fault. But the simple fact is that the GPL license was not made for Orbiter's add-on. We are the ones bringing it to our mess.

 

[Face]

As I stated before, you are one of that smart guys that knows what you are doing!

Well, thanks, but I have to admit that you made me thinking right the opposite thing. Before the distribution-not-usage-license argument, I thought that somehow Orbinauts cannot modify, compile and re-distribute my code without risking take-downs/bans/infractions or whatnot. And if it only were people circumventing the project, because "nah, didn't you read that? GPL is dangerous, let's not even touch that genericvessel/AU/OMP thingy with a 10-foot-pole".

And I thought to myself: "perhaps this is the reason why superb things like NASSP lay dead for so many years as soon as the main team is offline, perhaps this is the reason why people prefer the cathedral approach to software distribution instead of the bazaar one, perhaps this is why talented - and all in all level-headed - developers here prefer closed source: they fear that with GPL their work is all for naught."

 

[Lisias]

On what basis do you make this statement, same as how every addon is a deltaglider ripoff?

I already had apologized by had been made so broad statement, but it will cost me nothing to apology again.

I'm pretty sure they are many, many, many. But not all of them. Add-ons as spacecraft.dll et all doesn't appears to be one of these - they provides functionalities that were not available anywhere.

But that add-ons derived from Delta Glider can be "fixed" (at least, most of them). It's enough and sufficient that Delta Glider be relicensed to something that allow use - obviously, under certain conditions. Such conditions must not prevent GPL derivatives, but should not be under the GPL itself to do not prevent non GPL derivatives.

Such add-ons can be, so, successfully "relaunched" with their current licensing terms.

I do not comprehend all the legal mechanisms that would be involved, but fortunately I'm hardly the only guy in town willing to help.

To be compatible with GPL, I'm afraid that Mr Schweiger would have to waive the right to prevent his code being used in a GPL licensed competitor - something that perhaps he would not be willing to - but this is speculation, just ask the guy instead of arguing with me about this.

 

[Urwumpe]

And I thought to myself: "perhaps this is the reason why superb things like NASSP lay dead for so many years as soon as the main team is offline, perhaps this is the reason why people prefer the cathedral approach to software distribution instead of the bazaar one, perhaps this is why talented - and all in all level-headed - developers here prefer closed source: they fear that with GPL their work is all for naught."

Or simply because they know that OSS development is not easier than closed source development at all, especially since it happens in the spotlight of the public. You have to be brave enough to be confronted with your errors.

 

[Face]

Or simply because they know that OSS development is not easier than closed source development at all, especially since it happens in the spotlight of the public. You have to be brave enough to be confronted with your errors.

TBH this didn't come to my mind, but I see what you mean.

 

[dseagrav]

They *are* granting the right to distribute the artifact bundled into the guys package. But these rights are not extensible to everyone, ergo, are not GPL compatible.

If you don't have the right to distribute the item beyond the binary distribution of your addon, then you can't open-source it under any common license at all. BSD,MIT,GPL,whatever. It does not matter. If it cannot be reused would have to make your own license that restricts usage of the source to your project only.

Since you *can't* distribute GPL bundled with non compatible GPL artifacts (or, at least, it's what was stated many times in this thread, and until now, is undisputed), the guy can (and I say again, can - I'm not stating that it will!!) ended up with a package full of things that he has the right to distribute and his direct user has the right to use - but a protection mechanism bundled into GPL to protect GPL licensees was triggered and the whole package are rendered non distributable.

It's not a GPL thing, it's that you don't have the right to distribute the item in question. You would be liable no matter what license you chose. If you were told this mesh or texture or whatever was for your project only, then you cannot share it with others.

This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone else's addon can use the GPL.

And I thought to myself: "perhaps this is the reason why superb things like NASSP lay dead for so many years as soon as the main team is offline, perhaps this is the reason why people prefer the cathedral approach to software distribution instead of the bazaar one, perhaps this is why talented - and all in all level-headed - developers here prefer closed source: they fear that with GPL their work is all for naught."

It probably has more to do with it being long, hard, tedious, and unglamorous work rather than fear of the GPL.

Edit: I see the GPL as a chance. Two and a half years ago I came within four hours of dying. If I had tried to make NASSP myself, it would have died with me. At least since it's out in the world there's a chance that it might live on, and even in its incomplete state people are able to enjoy it.

 

[Urwumpe]

Edit: I see the GPL as a chance. Two and a half years ago I came within four hours of dying. If I had tried to make NASSP myself, it would have died with me. At least since it's out in the world there's a chance that it might live on, and even in its incomplete state people are able to enjoy it.

Same here. SSU would never have been without the open-source approach and could never be done IMHO as closed source project, because it would be impossible to let enough people participate in the project to also specialize in a field to form stable "tiger teams".

I think its the same for NASSP. Gemini could be done by a single person with enough time. Same for Mercury. Soyuz maybe as well. But even just the DPS subsystem of the Space Shuttle can already overwhelm you in its earliest simplest version - let alone all OI versions and later facets. I doubt a single human could ever become an expert of the whole shuttle DPS.


That's no reason for a GPL, sure. But you need in the beginning of a project a contract to define how all involved developers contribute to it and how the ownership of the product is finally defined. The GPL has been a great popular license with many people talking about its cave-eats and limitations - that's much better IMHO than making your own license and start at zero again.

A logical license making software would be a good idea maybe... But then Lawyers would sue me, because I could hurt their business model...

 

[Face]

A logical license making software would be a good idea maybe... But then Lawyers would sue me, because I could hurt their business model...

Now imagine you made it licensed under GPL :rofl:

 

[Urwumpe]

Now imagine you made it licensed under GPL :rofl:

Stop it, I can already hear the universe collapse. :lol: