License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Loru]

I think instead of forcing user user to include license we can just modify OHM ToS. Currently it looks bit simple but with proper augmentation with added "minimum license" should be enough IMO. Then, if uploader wants some specifics extending basic license, he can include license file in the package.


Current OHM ToS.

Orbit Hangar Mods Terms of Service

1. Only uploads of acceptable content are allowed.
a. Any uploads which are not Orbiter add-ons or related software are STRICTLY prohibited.
b. Add-ons containing sexually explicit material will be immediately removed
and your account will be frozen until the issue is resolved.

2. All add-ons are available to the public.
a. Anything uploaded to Orbit Hangar Mods will be available for everyone to download.
If password protected files are uploaded, they will be immediately removed and you will
be requested to either unprotect the file or not upload it again.
b. Users who upload add-ons with descriptions stating that this add-on is only meant for one person
or a restricted group of people will be asked to remove that part of their description.

3. Orbiter related movies or otherwise
a. The uploading of movies to Orbit Hangar Mods has been prohibited. Movie uploads
were allowed at one time, but due to the large amount of space many of them occupied,
they had to be removed. There are no exceptions to this rule.

4. Music
a. The uploading of music to Orbit Hangar Mods is allowed if and only if the music has been licensed for free
copying and redistribution.
b. If you have obtained special rights for a set of music to be distributed specifically from this site, a copy
of the legal document granting these rights must be sent to the site administrators prior
to uploading the music. Administrators can be reached via the contact link.
c. Any music uploaded to the site which does not meet the requirements in parts 4a and/or 4b will be removed.

5. Copyrights and Permissions
a. The uploading of content to Orbit Hangar Mods without the explicit permission of the
original author is prohibited.
b. If you are uploading an add-on containing content created by someone other than yourself,
you must give the original author credit in a text file within your add-on's archive
as well as in the add-on description.
c. If any complaints are received about permissions, the add-on targeted by the complaints will
be removed and the uploader will be asked not to upload the file again until proper credit is given
within the archive and description.

6. Add-on file size
a. All add-ons are now hosted at Orbit Hangar Mods reguardless of file size. Please contact me
before uploading any add-ons over 150 mb in size.

 

[Face]

So, going back to Xyon's proposals, what do you think of them?

Do you have any reserves about my counterproposals?

I don't really care about OHM in its function as community hub for addon distribution, because I prefer (or should I better say: preferred) to host it on my own at the "social coding" sites directly. I think the later is a better place for open source based Orbiter addons.

But of course OHM is setting "expectations" in the community, and what happens there will also shape opinions. If whatever is done there effectively makes GPL shunned by the community, I see it as problematic. If whatever is done there makes people believe that without a double-license, addons are somehow not legal now, I think you will lose many contributors for good this time.

That was my problem all along: the explicit nitpicking on only one license. Dseagrav brought it to a point at the end of his post here (a bit more emotional, but I wholeheartedly understand that).

You see, the posting etiquette here says this:

5. Reporting copyright / license violations for Orbiter addons.

Do not post on the public forums accusing someone of stealing another person's work. Doing so is not constructive, nor is it the best way to contact that person. If the addon in question is published on ORBITHANGAR.COM, then you should report it by using the Report This Add-On button, located on the top-right corner of each addon's page (looks like an exclamation mark icon). Please include the name of the original addon and a link to the copy-righted material and any other evidence required to support your claim in the report on orbithangar.com. Complaints raised without evidence will not be responded to.

I've really got the impression that there always was an unspoken exception there: "unless the GPL is involved". I hope this thread will in the end clarify that it isn't so, but up to here I don't see that.

 

[dseagrav]

The problem here seems to be that people see the license as something that INCREASES liability. This is not the case. If someone uploads something they don't have the right to distribute, and OHM redistributes it, the uploader is liable and OHM is liable. Whatever license the uploader used is irrelevant - They don't have permission to upload it and OHM doesn't have permission to distribute it. Even if no license at all was claimed, the liability does not change.

 

[Face]

(added some 4 hours after the posting)

I was "fishing" when I made that statement. Since nobody bitten the bait , I will expose my failed attempt of being a jerk

Why the heck are you doing that? Baiting members is just putting oil into the fire in an already heated debate. Did you not see that many developers got upset already? Or do you find it funny to drive developers away from the community?

 

[dseagrav]

Like I said, he's deliberately trying to drive people away so Orbiter remains some private special thing that makes him special rather than a wider community. If Orbiter goes huge like KSP did, it won't be special anymore.

 

[Urwumpe]

Like I said, he's deliberately trying to drive people away so Orbiter remains some private special thing that makes him special rather than a wider community. If Orbiter goes huge like KSP did, it won't be special anymore.

Nobody here wants a second KSP. Really. Especially since most of us already have KSP and don't need a second one. :rofl:

But joke aside, a don't measure the strength of a community in numbers. A small community with good atmosphere and lots of activities and regular events is IMHO much better than a big one that is fragmented into smaller subgroups which not always interact well.

 

[dseagrav]

Why not? If Orbiter gets popular then people are learning, and that's what we need. KSP is nice because it gives people a taste of space, but it's just the first step - Orbiter should be the next step in the line. I feel it's immoral to scare people off just to preserve your individual feeling of "special snowflake-ness".

 

[Face]

Why not? If Orbiter gets popular then people are learning, and that's what we need. KSP is nice because it gives people a taste of space, but it's just the first step - Orbiter should be the next step in the line. I feel it's immoral to scare people off just to preserve your individual feeling of "special snowflake-ness".

I think Urwumpe meant it more in the sense of content, not popularity. Like in "true to science, less cartoons".

 

[Notebook]

I'm totally confused.
I took all my stuff off OHM a while back in a fit of pique and stupidity(and alcohol problems). Some others who had copies of bases, put a few back up, and good luck to them. Anyone who uses them is welcome.
I was going to get back into my last project, the test stand for Blue Streak's engine at Westcott UK. Very niche, as has been pointed out, but I like it!
It gets my brain working; 3d graphics, physics, C++, whether it ever gets finished is not the point to me. I enjoy the help and encouragement I get here, and the feeling it could be finished if I put the effort in.

I'd never heard of GPL or BDM? or the rest before this debate, and its making me seriously think about starting add-ons again.

N.

 

[kamaz]

Hi Xyon,

The current problem on OH is that there is a ton of add-ons which don't have specified any distribution terms. It would be very beneficial to give uploaders a choice of standard licenses like this:

- ( ) public domain
- authorship acknowledgement: ( ) MIT ( ) CC-BY
- copyleft: ( ) LGPL | ( ) GPL | ( ) CC-BY-SA
- no derivative works: ( ) CC BY-ND
- no commercial use: ( ) CC BY-NC
- no derivative works and no commercial use: ( ) CC BY-NC-ND
- ( ) I'm attaching my own license file: ________________

Then based on the user's choice the uploader script selects the appropriate LICENSE.txt file and puts it into the zip. Since people are lazy then I think more than 90% of uploaders will choose whatever standard license fits them.

You can also do separate choices for code and artwork.

---------- Post added at 10:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 AM ----------

I'd never heard of GPL or BDM? or the rest before this debate, and its making me seriously think about starting add-ons again.

I think you meant BSD. :lol:

Anyway, here is what you must know:

- if you have no third party code / assets in your add-on (i.e. you did everything yourself), then you simply don't need to care about this thread

- if you have third party code / assets, then read the license these came with and obey it

 

[dseagrav]

I think Urwumpe meant it more in the sense of content, not popularity. Like in "true to science, less cartoons".

Oh, that's not what I meant at all. I mean in terms of uniqueness.

Some people like things that are obscure and unknown because it makes them feel superior to others that don't know about it. When new people arrive they are driven away to protect the obscurity of the thing and by extension the individual superiority of the established people. They say things like "These new people don't really understand, they're not part of our community, they don't deserve to enjoy it."

This is what I'm talking about. People like Lisias need to make sure that Orbiter doesn't get too popular, so they militarize the community against newcomers or ideas that would result in increased popularity. This ensures Orbiter stays their special little secret.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think Urwumpe meant it more in the sense of content, not popularity. Like in "true to science, less cartoons".

Exactly. Also I simply meant: if there is already KSP, the original, why should Orbiter try to become KSP, the copy?

I see the Orbiter community as something inclusive - you share the same interest, you are welcome? You like old sci-fi literature? Hey, we also have many people with that interest here. Do you have a favorite space shuttle TPS tile?

That inclusiveness is also something that we share with the KSP community. I know that we interpret SSU as something more exclusive, because easy-to-use Shuttle add-ons already exist. Same likely with NASSP, which also has AMSO to refer to as "starter drug".

I am not sure, if we are really a tolerant community, or if we are expecting new members to be much better than the old guys. I know that at least the really old veterans from old M6 ages are pretty adamant in that topic - we all had our share of spectacular fails (In orbiter and in the community). Same with add-on development, sometimes I have the feeling that some people like to burn people already for their first add-on not being a second XR.

 

[Athena]

Please tell me i'm not the only one that thinks that this thread got way more posts and time to spend on that it actually needed.

 

[dseagrav]

You're not. I really didn't plan to spend 50 posts on why NASSP is the turbosatanhitler that is killing the Orbiter community.

 

[Lucy]

I don't really care about OHM in its function as community hub for addon distribution, because I prefer (or should I better say: preferred) to host it on my own at the "social coding" sites directly. I think the later is a better place for open source based Orbiter addons.

As ever, you're free to host your work wherever you please; OHM is convenient for most, and it may be that your work'd visibility in the community could improve by having an addon "registered" in OHM, but that it just a stub linking off to BitBucket or Sourceforge or similar where you have elected to store your work. The plan is to improve freedoms, rather than impose additional restrictions.

Of coursr, you're free also to ignore OHM entirely, and to comment on how it could be made better in your eyes (that, however, we should take to another thread).

But of course OHM is setting "expectations" in the community, and what happens there will also shape opinions. If whatever is done there effectively makes GPL shunned by the community, I see it as problematic. If whatever is done there makes people believe that without a double-license, addons are somehow not legal now, I think you will lose many contributors for good this time.

This point about double licensing adds too much confusion to an already very unclear system. The intention would be to try to simplify and make clearer the available options for licensing your addons, not muddy the waters further.

I've really got the impression that there always was an unspoken exception there: "unless the GPL is involved". I hope this thread will in the end clarify that it isn't so, but up to here I don't see that.

I can assure you, as you know, this is not the case. If you would like to take this up with the forum staff we can discuss the problem, per the rules, in private.

OHM doing anything to the .zip/.rar after receiving it could get, for lack of a better word, messy, with regards to licensing and copyright.

Yeah, the more I think about that idea the less I like it, at least in terms of writing the zip file with an additional text file (essentially, repackaging the addon). Let's not do that.

Reading the zip file contents, though, retains copyright integrity. And it can thus still check a LICENSE.txt file or other given filename for the appropriate license text (matching the selected license).

But one minimal set of rights *must* be granted to OHM (in order to distribute the bundle) and to Orbiter Users (in order to the bundle be legally used), so OHM already made some decisions for (to tell you the true, imposed demands to) the uploader.

Not that it matters really, but by uploading to OHM you certify that you have the right to distribute the content you upload, and that you grant OHM the right to do the same. That's an uploader decision, the act of uploading the addon makes it, OHM is not making the decision for you.

I think forcing uploader to include license file is bad idea. Of course site may be set up to check if proper "license.txt" is inside zip, and if not refuse upload but how would you verify what's inside said "license.txt"

You would not be forced to specify any license. If you chose not to, the same as happens with the current site would happen.

If you select a license, generally those licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc) must be distributed with your package as part of the license requirements. In this matter, the intention is to help you in case you forgot to put the license in, or if you have changed from one license to another but not updated LICENSE.txt. I really want to avoid "forcing" anything on anybody.

Also I think choosing of license is developer's task as he decides what part and in what manner can be further restitributed and IMO there shouldn't be any restrictions on that.

True for those elements that the developer themselves created. When you have a piece of work which is a collaboration then the license must be agreed between the collaborators, but this still rests with the person uploading the content. OHM will not be making decisions for you.

 

[Artlav]

KSP is nice because it gives people a taste of space, but it's just the first step - Orbiter should be the next step in the line.

Easier said than done. Even physics students don't really go into it, Oculus Rift shenanigans or not.
It's just this interesting-looking space sim someone mentioned in a lecture.

However, KSP was presented to the same bunch a week before me, and i haven't seen it mentioned or played either, so there is that.

What i mean is, it's not like there is a gate in front the community, with a line behind it and a bouncer in front.

---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

having an addon "registered" in OHM, but that it just a stub linking off to BitBucket or Sourceforge or similar where you have elected to store your work.

By the way, that's a good idea - make it possible to post link on OHM instead of hosting a file.
These days the "store a file on the internet" is not that big of a problem any more.

Or am i just out of the loop, and it's done/worked on already?

 

[dseagrav]

Easier said than done. Even physics students don't really go into it, Oculus Rift shenanigans or not.
It's just this interesting-looking space sim someone mentioned in a lecture.

Nobody says this won't change later. Maybe NASSP or SSU will be what gets people's attention. Maybe Orbiter 2015. Maybe both of those. Maybe neither - Maybe it's something we haven't thought of yet that someone else is developing right now. As long as you don't scare off everyone who wants to put in the work to make things happen, there's always a chance - and for some people that's scary.

 

[Urwumpe]

Or am i just out of the loop, and it's done/worked on already?

AFAIR, it already exists for some years.

 

[kamaz]

Exactly. Also I simply meant: if there is already KSP, the original, why should Orbiter try to become KSP, the copy?

And there's even less need for that since KSP got Realism Overhaul: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/wiki

 

[Face]

Of coursr, you're free also to ignore OHM entirely, and to comment on how it could be made better in your eyes (that, however, we should take to another thread).

I think OHM is totally fine as repository of addons. I just don't think it makes sense for hosting open source projects. That's all, and also only my personal opinion.

I can assure you, as you know, this is not the case. If you would like to take this up with the forum staff we can discuss the problem, per the rules, in private.

I know what you think, but you can't assure me that others don't think so. I think a private discussion with the staff will not change my feelings, as the staff is not the problem here. You guys do an awesome job, and I feel entitled to say so, because I have seen it in action in detail, as many will remember.

What will change my feelings, OTOH, is a clear statement that GPL is either OK or NOT OK for Orbiter addons, which there still is not. It's like everybody is dancing around egg-shells.