PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: swift on December 22, 2004, 04:07:31 am
-
A few minutes ago I was reading a post about the posting of quest soloutions to the internet when I came across a wierd anomaly in the GPL
Strangely I would have to agree that none of the licences that cover Planeshift seem to prohibit the posting of quest solutions etc as long as they don\'t contain material from the game.
I also happened to notice this in the gpl page while reading the liscence. This is very important, it seems to imply fairly strongly that the liscencing of planeshift violates the GPL.
In \"Terms And Conditions for Copying, Distribution and Modification\" section 2 :
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
(This would imply that the art, rpg rules, web texts etc must be covered by the GPL rather than the restrictive Planeshift License).
Seeing as I was not entirely sure that that applied to the elements of the project described on the liscence page, I checked the FAQ page on the GNU GPL site .
This is what it said :
If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list page gives a partial list of GPL-compatible licenses
This seems to confirm that the use of the \"Planeshift License\" Violates the GPL.
Does anyone agree with me?
-
Well, it would seem that you are correct. However the GPL is just a set of guildlines for making programs open source. I mean the PlaneShift development team could just say that it isnt GPL but still release the code and keep it open source. From
\"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.\"
it would appear that anybody who wants to can copy and use anything out of planeshift, be it the source code or artwork or other material in any of their own work, as long as (if i understand the GNL licensce) as long as they dont attempt to copyright it themselves. The secondary licensce that planeshift uses to cover everything apart from the source code is in direct opposition to this. Well spotted swift.
EDIT*****
\"Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a \"violation\" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community. \"
EDIT 2 *****
This one is VERY interesting:
\"Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.\"
This means that if the developers have stated that the program is GPL, then they cannot revoke that later on. So if this is true, the developers cannot revoke any third parties right to use any of MB, be it the artwork, story line, source code. Obviously they would have to move quickly to correct this for CB...
-
I am not skilled with licenses at all, but from my standpoint, the planeshift code base and artworks are completely seperate.
Take RPGMaker for example... since I can\'t think of a better one.
In a hypothetical situation:
Suppose RPGMaker 2000 was a GPL program and you made an rpg with it. I don\'t beleive that you need to make the rpg designs public, all you need to do is release the maker with it or let people obtain the maker with little to no fuss.
-- end situation.
I see planeshift as the same thing, the client, server, engine are all GPL, the art used just so happens to need the engine to put it together, but the content is made by someone else and it not an intergral part of the game, if you so desire you could try to make you very own art and just use the client server... but I don\'t have a clue how that will actually work...
Actually... did what I just say conflict with the PS license?
EDIT: If it doesn\'t conflict, then the story content and the graphics are property of the creator and not anyone else, the creator is simply allowing the public to use it under the PS license.
-
\"I am not skilled with licenses at all, but from my standpoint, the planeshift code base and artworks are completely seperate.
Take RPGMaker for example... since I can\'t think of a better one.
In a hypothetical situation:
Suppose RPGMaker 2000 was a GPL program and you made an rpg with it. I don\'t beleive that you need to make the rpg designs public, all you need to do is release the maker with it or let people obtain the maker with little to no fuss.
-- end situation.
I see planeshift as the same thing, the client, server, engine are all GPL, the art used just so happens to need the engine to put it together, but the content is made by someone else and it not an intergral part of the game, if you so desire you could try to make you very own art and just use the client server... but I don\'t have a clue how that will actually work... \"
No, because the artwork and material defined is part of planshift, NOT something made using it. If was you said was true, and the content is not an intergral part of it, then the artwork is a modification to a GPL program, and under GPL any modifications must also be realeased under GPL.
In \"Terms And Conditions for Copying, Distribution and Modification\" section 2 :
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Therefore if you view the artwork and story as a modification, then it has to be GPL as well.
-
I haven\'t looked at the source code.. have you?
Maybe this is just the \'default\' and \'recommended\' item to go with planeshift. Combined they form this so called planeshift, independently you just have art/quest and 2 source programs which read files and communicate.
Does the GPL apply to artwork in the first place? I have never seen GPL on anything other then source code...
-
To me the GPL is about sharing knowledge and methodology. To me there is a fundamental difference between functionality and content. All of PlaneShift\'s functionallity is fully available and I will gladly explain it to anybody that asks. However, the content is much different. If somebody asks me \"What is the equation for combat\" does the GPL force me to give that information out so he exploit that information? Or how about all our quests? Those are not in GPL and not public? Should PS be forced to publish all our quest data in every detail ( including the SQL insert statements ). It\'s very fustrating for me that people cannot ( or are not willing ) to try and see the difference between content that is copyrighted and functionality.
-
No, i havnt looked at the source code. Was going to download it, but then its like 110 mb, so i though id wait until CB. As i see it you cant say oh yes this part if GPL but other parts arnt. If you\'re going to call the whole thing Planeshift, and call it GPL then you have to release all of it. Bear in mind of course the devs arnt under any obligation to do so, they can release as much or as little as they want. Its just the way they\'ve done it appears to contradict the GPL licensce which they use.
-
This is really pretty simple, I think.
If you use a web server that is released under the GPL, does this mean that all of the web pages, graphics, or other files served by this server must be GPL as well? Of course not. ;)
Now... it\'s true that the Planeshift art is bundled with the client rather than served to you on the fly. But the art is auxiliary, or supplementary to the software rather than integral to it. Documentation bundled with GPL software isn\'t itself GPLed for example.
The art, models, music, sounds, etc. used in Planeshift are separate from the source code. The source for the client, server, admin utilities, et al. are GPL. The art isn\'t, and are covered instead by the Planeshift license. But anyone is free to use the Planeshift software and supply their own art.
-
\"To me the GPL is about sharing knowledge and methodology. To me there is a fundamental difference between functionality and content. All of PlaneShift\'s functionallity is fully available and I will gladly explain it to anybody that asks. However, the content is much different. If somebody asks me \"What is the equation for combat\" does the GPL force me to give that information out so he exploit that information? Or how about all our quests? Those are not in GPL and not public? Should PS be forced to publish all our quest data in every detail ( including the SQL insert statements ). It\'s very fustrating for me that people cannot ( or are not willing ) to try and see the difference between content that is copyrighted and functionality.\"
Look, im not saying that you have an obligation to do so. I think you\'re perfectly entitled to copyright any content you want. However this dicussion arose from a technical discussion about the licensce and wether the current one is technically deficent in some areas. We\'re not saying you HAVE to do anything, just that some of the wording isnt done very well. Ang legally, it dosnt matter what GPL means to YOU, its about what is written in the licensce and way that is interpreted in the courts, if such a problem ever arose. Better that these issues be discovered and fixed before such a problem does arise, else there could problems.
-
I thought this was categorized as Freeware or Open Source, neither of which states that the Artwork and quest data are public domain.
I see two well written replies by acraig and Jaedru so far :)
-
Originally posted by Diamondcite
I thought this was categorized as Freeware or Open Source, neither of which states that the Artwork and quest data are public domain.
I see two well written replies by acraig and Jaedru so far :)
(Score:5 Interesting)
:)
-
\"This is really pretty simple, I think.
If you use a web server that is released under the GPL, does this mean that all of the web pages, graphics, or other files served by this server must be GPL as well? Of course not.
Now... it\'s true that the Planeshift art is bundled with the client rather than served to you on the fly. But the art is auxiliary, or supplementary to the software rather than integral to it. Documentation bundled with GPL software isn\'t itself GPLed for example.
The art, models, music, sounds, etc. used in Planeshift are separate from the source code. The source for the client, server, admin utilities, et al. are GPL. The art isn\'t, and are covered instead by the Planeshift license. But anyone is free to use the Planeshift software and supply their own art.\"
Planeshift is an entire project. Planeshift uses GPL. Any modifications to GPL MUST be released under GPL as well, no matter what those modifications are. It dosnt matter what you \'feel\' the \'spirit\' of the wording is, its what you have written. If somebody else decides to copy the planeshift material you need a clear, strongly defined licensce that protects that material, not one with numerous contenious issues. By mentioning GPL i fear the devs have opened themselves to such issues which would make it hard for them to protect their work, if it were being abused. Im not saying i want to go off and steal their artwork, and im not saying they have an obligation to release it. Im saying there could be problems if they try to protect it. We all want the planeshift material to be safe, for the good of the project. If you have any technical comments about the licensce, please add it, but lets not get off topic here and detract from the issue. Saying \"oh, i though GPL didnt cover artwork\" wont help the team if they take somebody to court over copyright infringment.
From the GLP, :
\"This License applies to any program or other work which containsa notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributedunder the terms of this General Public License. The \"Program\", below,refers to any such program or work, and a \"work based on the Program\"means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into anotherlanguage. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation inthe term \"modification\".) Each licensee is addressed as \"you\".\"
A work containting the program or a portion of it. These words mean that if a program contains code under GPL then it is under GPL as well, becaue of
\"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.\"
This means because the source code is GPL, and the planeshift client is a derivitive of this, it is GPL. This was taken verbatim from the GPL liscence, which is the license for the source code.
ESPECAILLY:
\"to be licensed as a whole\".
You cant just licensce parts of it, it has to be the whole client.
\"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. Ifidentifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works inthemselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when youdistribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work basedon the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to theentire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.\"
Because the source code plus the artwork is released as MB or CB, in the form psclient.exe, \" the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to theentire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.\" Thats pretty clear and straightforward, you have to release the artwork under GPL. :( Big problem?....
-
Wow...I believe it actually does violate it. I\'m with ram.
-
From http://www.gnu.org
If you think you see a violation of the GPL (or the LGPL, or the GFDL) the first thing you should do is double-check the facts:
Does the distribution contain a copy of the License?
Does it clearly state which software is covered by the License? Does it say anything misleading, perhaps giving the impression that something is covered by the License when in fact it is not?
Is source code included in the distribution?
Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of just binaries?
Is the available source code complete, or is it designed for linking in other non-free modules?
Does the distribution contain a copy of the liscence?
I don\'t know I\'ve never checked....
Does it clearly state which software is covered by the Liscence?
Yes, its made obvious its for PlaneShift.
Does it say anything misleading, perhaps giving the impression that something is covered by the License when in fact it is not?
I haven\'t read the liscence docs....
Is source code included in the distribution?
No, it is separate.
Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of just binaries?
I\'ve never looked....
Is the available source code complete, or is it designed for linking in other non-free modules?
I don\'t have the source, I don\'t know....
If all of those are answered yes (except for if source is included, as long as there is an open offer it is acceptable) then there is no violation.
Clearly art is never mentioned by them.
-
\"Clearly art is never mentioned by them.\"
Art is included if it is part of the program as a whole. Check the actual GPL licencse itself if your unsure. Plus i think? that list you were talking about if for people infringing the copyright, not about the actual developers themselves. As i stated before, the developers havnt violated the GPL themselves, its just the fact their licensces contradict one another. But they have rather left themselves open to not being able to defend their material and content in the game, which is what we\'re discussing.
-
The page I showed is about the possibility of having a GPL violation, and what to do about it. Those are the questions they said to ask to see if there is a violation. They only talk about source code, never art. So by not distributing the art they are NOT violating the GPL.
Here is the exact page: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
-
Couple well known similar examples are Quake and Quake2. Both engines were open sourced (GPL\'d) by ID Software. That doesn\'t mean you can get the full game for free, you still have to pay to get the levels, textures, models etc. Do they violate GPL as well? I don\'t think so.
-
\"The page I showed is about the possibility of having a GPL violation, and what to do about it. Those are the questions they said to ask to see if there is a violation. They only talk about source code, never art. So by not distributing the art they are NOT violating the GPL. \"
frada, have you read the GPL licencse itself? i can tell you with certianty that if art is included in the program, or any other content for that matter IT IS INCLUDED.
\"\"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. Ifidentifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when youdistribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to th eentire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.\"
---\"can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,\", its talking about other content--, and when you distribute these with the code under GPL \"the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to th eentire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.\"
\"Couple well known similar examples are Quake and Quake2. Both engines were open sourced (GPL\'d) by ID Software. That doesn\'t mean you can get the full game for free, you still have to pay to get the levels, textures, models etc. Do they violate GPL as well? I don\'t think so.\"
well i havnt seen the exact wording of their licensce, but you should be very careful to note the differene between open source and GPL. GPL is just one licensce that helps you release open source code. And no, you cant get the full game for free because ID is not obliged to release the game free- under GPL you have the RIGHT to. I would have to read the license included with the quake 2 engine, but also keep in mind ID held the exclusive license BEFORE they released it open source. In this case i am almost certain that you can release parts you want, because you own the code in the first place, and then you release it. Either this, or ID would have used a modified liscensce. Planeshift, on the otherhand has always been open source, and has not modified the GPL lisence but included in verbatim.
-
Originally posted by ramlambmoo
frada, have you read the GPL licencse itself? i can tell you with certianty that if art is included in the program, or any other content for that matter IT IS INCLUDED.
If it is included they why don\'t they mention it at all when they tell you what to look for to see if something is a GPL violation?
-
\"If it is included they why don\'t they mention it at all when they tell you what to look for to see if something is a GPL violation?\"
that page is just guidlines for the spotting copyright, it isnt the licensce itself. The source code is what most programs deal with, because alot of GPL programs are primarily concerned with that. However the GPL licensce itself clearly states all parts of the program are covered by it, wether that guide does or not.
EDIT**
Also another subtly- the GPL does not require the developers to make content avalaible- they do not have to say here are all the .bmps for the texture files, heres the script for the storyline. However the GPL states that at the same time if somebody does use these things, taken from where they appear in the program as a whole then they can be licensed to any third party that wishes, and that the licensce to use them cannot be withheld.
-
I think what the GPL doesn\'t say is pretty important too. That it doesn\'t mention artwork does open it up to different interpretations. But the fact that it is riddled with the terms \"program\", \"binary\", and \"source\" and doesn\'t say anything else does seem to imply an exclusion of artwork from my personal, non-professional perspective. It certainly gives the PS devs breathing room in defense of their decision, anyway.
Moreover, section 3 states:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
The artwork is not necessary for this. Not including artwork does not prohibit use or modification of the Planeshift software.
It\'s also worth considering this... Redhat might modify lilo (which I think is GPL) and include a bootscreen graphic that prominently displays their logo. They clearly do not intend for their logo to be GPL, although it\'s included with lilo. They also include wallpaper with their fedora on it. I am not a lawyer by any means, but Redhat no doubt has a full cadre of the suckers who feel that art and source are separate.
Lastly, it\'s probably very important to differentiate between Planeshift the game, and Planeshift the Open Source Project. The first is an end result of the second. They are not one and the same. It is the same difference as that between Linux and a distro of Linux, such as Redhat.
-
\"anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. \"
no, this is talking about dlls and other system files that the operating system uses to run the program. Such as OpenGL dlls and dirextx dlls, not artwork.
\" That it doesn\'t mention artwork does open it up to different interpretations. But the fact that it is riddled with the terms \"program\", \"binary\", and \"source\" and doesn\'t say anything else does seem to imply an exclusion of artwork from my personal, non-professional perspective.\"
Good point, however the GPL licensce mentions:
\"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. Ifidentifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when youdistribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to th eentire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.\"
I think it is pretty clear that artwork and story \"can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves.\" Therefore they are mentioned, and are dealt with, with the license saying that any third party wishing to use such works, they MUST be on terms of this License, that is, that they can be used by anyone.
-
Well, heres another point.
Quake and Quake 2 are legal GPL releases because the engine is what is released under the GPL.
PlaneShift is required to be under the GPL because it is branced off of Crystal Space, however, since Crystal Space is the engine, then only the engine of PlaneShift is required to be under the GPL.
Anything that isn\'t hard coded isn\'t a \"modification\", its an \"addition\" to the program, like a plug-in is.
The only thing it talks about that is close to that really is \"work based on the program\", which they explain as work and derivative work of the program, meaning that art is not included in that.
Also in the clause you mentioned, a derivation would be the same thing. Copied or adapted from others.
However the clause does state that if the program under the GPL is included, the rest is \"to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. \"
So I suppose you are correct, then, the art must be distributed freely, and be completely free. Unless PlaneShift becomes two separate downloads, one of art, and one of the program...
However, the art IS distributed freely with the program, and you should be able to convert the file formats all you like. This means that anyone can use the art just by downloading the program in anything they like, so long as they DO NOT charge money for what it is included in, and credit is given to the original author. That means that the art can only be used in free things anyway. This means that the devs wouldn\'t have to offer the art as a special download.
I haven\'t read the other liscence that is on PlaneShift, but unless it expressly states that you can\'t use the PlaneShift art in ANYTHING else then the two don\'t conflict.
-
@Frada: \"So I suppose you are correct, then, the art must be distributed freely, unless PlaneShift becomes two separate downloads, one of art, and one of the program...\"
yes, you are exactly correct. Because MB was released as one program, with both the source code and the art and story as one, unforuntaly the GPL lisence then extends to that content. So seperating the two would remove that problem. Of course seperating the downloads would be a bit tricky, and would delay the release of CB by weeks if not months. The far easier option would be to just have a modified license, that uses parts of the GPL lisence but clearly states that artwork is protected.
\"However, the art IS distributed freely with the program, and you should be able to convert the file formats all you like. This means that anyone can use the art just by downloading the program in anything they like, so long as they DO NOT charge money for what it is included in, and credit is given to the original author. That means that the art can\'t be used in anything free anyway. \"
I dont see what you mean here, i mean people using the artwork in their own programs, and if the GPL license extends to this then they can use it in free programs.
\"I haven\'t read the other liscence that is on PlaneShift, but unless it expressly states that you can\'t use the PlaneShift art in ANYTHING else then the two don\'t conflict.\"
The other lisence does state exactly that: you cant use their artwork or other material in anything else without their express permission.
-
Originally posted by ramlambmoo
yes, you are exactly correct. Because MB was released as one program, with both the source code and the art and story as one, unforuntaly the GPL lisence then extends to that content. So seperating the two would remove that problem. Of course seperating the downloads would be a bit tricky, and would delay the release of CB by weeks if not months. The far easier option would be to just have a modified license, that uses parts of the GPL lisence but clearly states that artwork is protected.
The Dev team can NOT remove the GPL liscence from their work, as they are a derivation of something already on the GPL.
Originally posted by ramlambmoo
I dont see what you mean here, i mean people using the artwork in their own programs, and if the GPL license extends to this then they can use it in free programs.
Eh, sorry about the misunderstanding there, I made a typo that reversed what i was saying, I just fixed it now.
-
\"The Dev team can NOT remove the GPL liscence from their work, as they are a derivation of something already on the GPL. \"
Yeah, i know thats exactly the problem. The thing is the new CB isn\'t under GPL yet because it hasnt been released yet. So if they want to change it so that their content is proteted now is the perfect time. The content from CB can still be protected.
EDIT****
no actually you appear to be correct. I can think of a way around it at the moment. :(
-
Originally posted by ramlambmoo
Yeah, i know thats exactly the problem. The thing is the new CB isn\'t under GPL yet because it hasnt been released yet. So if they want to change it so that their content is proteted now is the perfect time.
They are a derivation of Crystal Space. Crystal Space is under the GPL. They would have to completely change engines to remove the GPL liscence from PlaneShift, which would effectively take the game back to square one, starting all over.
-
No, your 100% correct. I just re-thought it and your right.
HOWEVER----
The GPL is not leagally binding. Even the GPL site says it: you cant stop the developers from revoking their right. If a developer revokes the GPL they cannot subsequently sue somebody thats using their code. HOWEVER if they state that GPL no longer applies for NEW code that they own and they are yet to release, i think that would have some weight behind it. And since CB is yet to be released, somebody using their material cannot claim it is under GPL if they expressivly state that that has been revoked BEFORE CB is released.
-
So now, technically, because no one has asked for the art that I know of, the GPL isn\'t violated, but PlaneShift\'s liscence does conflict. If they change their liscence so that it does not conflict all is well. Since MB is no longer distributed, that mistake does not need to be corrected, however, it should be for CB.
EDIT: Didn\'t see your addition to your post there.
You\'ve brought up another issue that needs some thinking on, however it is time for me to consume sustenance.
-
Plus, if they modify the MB code, and produce CB with a different license, the only people who can sue them are the origional copyright owners-- themselves! :P
So an external third party CANNOT claim that GPL should apply to CB because the only group that can make such as claim are the original developers. Isnt it clever?
-
I think we need another sub-forum just for these repetitive GPL discussions. It might save the team some typing. Quotes below are from http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php
a) The GPL is about protecting the authors (us, the PS team) from potential infringers (people like you, who would take our code, modify it, and sell a game from it). It isn\'t there to protect you. It protects us, the authors.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
PS is a work written entirely by us.
b) What the GPL protects the PlaneShift team from is people taking our code and making derivative works from it. A \"derivative work\" is a complex legal term with many nuances, but it basically means that no one can take our engine, change/add a few things and rename it to their own thing unless they too GPL their new engine and give us credit for our part.
The \"Program\", below, refers to any such program or work, and a \"work based on the Program\" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law
Sections 5-6 of the LGPL license get into more detail on defining derivative works in code, DLLs and so forth, but the bottom line is that no one can make a derivative work of the PS engine without GPLing it.
c) The GPL is about code, not art, not models, not quests, not config files.
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
or even this is relevant:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
There are other ways to fulfill the requirement in Section 3, but they all come back to machine readable source code--not data files.
d) Art/Content is not included. The Art and Content for PlaneShift are separate works with separate copyrights from the programs and modules which make up the GPL PlaneShift engine. Quoth the GPL:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
i.e. Model files and ogg files are separate works from the exe files. Whether you download them in one zip file or not.
I\'ll try to rebut some of the earlier points made in a post in a few minutes.
- Vengeance
-
hmmmm vengance:
\"d) Art/Content is not included. The Art and Content for PlaneShift are separate works with separate copyrights from the programs and modules which make up the GPL PlaneShift engine. Quoth the GPL: \"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.:
\"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.\"
READ a bit more:!:
\"But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.\"
It CLEARLY states that if the artwork is included as part of the program then it MUST come under the GPL.
\"the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License,\".
clear as ,... er cyrstal
EDIT***
\"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.\"
Yes. You dont have to provide the source for the quests and models and textures. However it is covered by the license, meaning you cannot deny the use of it to any third party.
-
They are distributed together for our convience, if they so desire they can make us download each INDIVIDUAL art file from a website one at a time...
Edit: I really don\'t wish for a harder life needing to download even more... Come to think of it.. neither of us knows how CB will be released, maybe there will be a multi os art only download.. no one knowns... but packaging it with the distro makes it a quicker download with less the manage.
-
\"They are distributed together for our convience, if they so desire they can make us download each INDIVIDUAL art file from a website one at a time...\"
yes but they havnt. Thats the problem. That makes it one whole release, making everything convered under GPL.
-
If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
A \"module\" is a technical term. It is a piece of code which links into an executable file. Not just any file in a distro.
Furthermore, see this distinction in the GPL FAQ about code vs data:
If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone.
Our content is our data and the GPL does not affect it or touch it. I assume we will do what we have to do to enforce this on people who infringe our license.
- Venge
-
Ok last post because it gets so tiresome arguing with teenagers who think they have law degrees:
from the prior post:That makes it one whole release, making everything convered under GPL.
The distro packaging has nothing to do with what is defined as a \"Work\" or a \"Derivative Work\" under the GPL. Please rtff.
What is the difference between \"mere aggregation\" and \"combining two modules into one program\"?
Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.
Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can\'t, or won\'t, do that, you may not combine them.
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
Code and data are aggregated, not combined. No matter how badly you want it to be otherwise.
- Venge
-
\"If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone.\"
So your defense is that psclient.exe is an interpreter that is interpreting the date you provide? Admirable defense, but it donst apply if you release the data with the interpreter at the same time. You have NOT released planeshift as an interpreter, it is not stated anywhere, you have released it as a whole program that can be run. Can planeshift be run without this data? Planeshift is designed to run with that data. An interpreter does not need that data to run. Planeshift does, and the data is part of the program as a whole.
-
\" If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. \"
If modules are designed to run...in a shared address space.
The art and the exe is designed to run togeather. Therefore that \"almost surely means combining them into one program.\"
therefore
\"the whole combination must also be released under the GPL\"
planeshift is released as one, with the art and the exe togeather. MB was ONE package. You dont download the engine, then the artwork- it all goes togeather. The modules ARE designed to run in a shared space, togeather. Therefore the entire thing is GPL.
Im not saying this because i want to steal the art. But i find it extremly doubtful your claims would be upheld if you attempted to sue somebody for copyright infringment.
Most importanty vengance:
This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide.
neither of us knows 100%. We both think we\'re correct, but we dont know.
do you want a judge to decide the future of planeshift? Im not even a part of the dev team and i can tell you i dont. It would require minimal changes to prevent this, so why not do so? Just to be sure, for the sake of the project.
-
It is somewhat amusing at this late hour that you, Ramalamb, refuse to see the difference between code and data.
I quoted the interpreter section of the GPL FAQ because it clearly does make a distinction and say that interpreted scripts are data, and thus not covered. Saying that a jpg is data and not code is so stupidly redundant they don\'t bother talking about that obvious case.
As far as address spaces go, saying that data loaded by a program into its address space automatically forces that data to follow the license of the parent program is similarly stupid. Under this logic, Microsoft would own every document ever written in MS Word because that data (the document) was in the address space of Word.
We are the authors. We license whatever we want under whatever scheme we want. The PS engine is not a derivative work of anything else and the GPL protects us, it doesn\'t force us into crazy cockamamie situations as you are trying to push here.
Sorry if that disappoints you.
- Venge
-
Actually... I just have to point something out.
By downloading the client, you\'re *not* downloading the PlaneShift project. The client download does not include source, the server, admin utils, nor MYSQL stuff. This is where the distinction of PS the game and PS the project comes in. Nobody who just downloads a client can have the reasonable expectation of being able to develop the game based on that.
Here is also why I had thought my comparison to a Linux distro to be somewhat relevant. A linux distro can and often does contain proprietary components. Ones which are not aggregated, and are clearly considered seperate by the GPL as pointed out by Vengeance. Yet you can obtain the whole thing in one download.
Further, after some googling, projects such as KDE often license their artwork under a separate license. It lives in a different directory (as does the art in the PS client, least for MB) and includes a text file notice concerning this fact (as does the PS art directory.)
Clearly, mightier legal minds have not seen this common practice as a GPL violation.
-
\"Sorry if that disappoints you. \"
ah, believe whatever you want. I wish it wasnt that way, but if you dont want to change it dont. But dont complain if you cant defend your copyright. If you dont want to change it to be sure, well whatever. I dont see how youd have anything to lose, but suit yourself.
And of course i know the difference. Im just quoting the license. Just because we know the difference, dosnt mean a judge who has never use a computer will, you know? Just because we know the difference dosnt mean the people who have the power to decide will. Why not make sure?
-
You are all forgetting one thing. There are two things to talk about here. First there is \'PlaneShift The Engine\'. This is what you can checkout from CVS and this is fully GPL. Then there is \'PlaneShift The Game\'. This is a non-GPL game that uses the \'PlaneShift Engine\'. The rules and art are input for the PlaneShift Engine and don\'t have to fall under the GPL license at all.
A good analogy is \'gcc\' which is GPL but you can still use GPL to make commercial or non-GPL programs. Also there are GPL databases that can be used to make commercial SQL applications. There are plenty of other examples. The point is that the rules and data are input for the GPL licensed engine. And this is fully ok.
So there is no violation here. Only you have to be careful about what you speak when you talk about \'PlaneShift\'. There are in fact two distinct entities: The Engine and The Game.
Greetings,
-
I would strongly suggest that, while it **may** be possible to defend the present liscencing system if a malevolent group wanted to take items which should be protected under the \"Planeshift\" liscence we endeavour to change the liscence for the CB release.
(If that is still possible using the CS engine, I\'m certainly not sure on that one)
It would be prudent to change the liscence anyway, to something very similar to the GPL but stating explicitly that artwork does not need to be released under the same liscence as the game. This could avoid legal problems later on, which could potentially cripple the project if a company (lets say MS) decides that they want to take Planeshift, burn it to disks, start up a large advertising campaign and sell the game to unsuspecting public without helping the project. While we **THINK** that we are covered, MS (and other large games companies) will have legal teams that are sure to think otherwise, and will certainly delay the case until we run out of money.
A change of liscence would be a simple step to take, requiring no change to the ideas expressed by the orginal liscenses, that might well save us lots of trouble in the future.
Edit by me:
While Jorrit\'s post suggests that the engine and game are different things, and personally I realise that this is true, the website does not show this to be the case. It simply says \"Download Planeshift\". To a user/evil empire lawyer this shows that they are one and all. If the page was to say something like this:
Download Planeshift Engine, A GPLed game enigne.
Download Planeshift Game, a game for the open source Planeshift Engine.
it would convey a different message.
-
i agree with swift. as computer programmers we understand the difference, but would a judge? I think it certaintly would be prudent to make it clear in the license, if not for any of reason to just be sure.
-
In the PlaneShift Project we have three different licenses:
1. The first one is GPL. This license is applied to all our source files except the rpg rules ones. You learn more about that license here.
2. The second one is PlaneShift License. This license is applied to all artwork and texts in this web site and is applied to all art/models/music/texts/names/setting/... present in the game except the ones covered by third license (see below).
3. The third one is the Joint-Copyright PlaneShift License. This license is applied to contributors and allows the author to maintain his copyright while giving to PS the right to use his material. We give more details on that option below in this document
The license page clearly states that the code only is under GPL, and anything else isn\'t. Having the site say \"Download PlaneShift\" means nothing. The license page has already said which parts of the download are under which license. Using your example of someone going and selling the game as you can download it, they would be in breach of the PlaneShift license. You can download the plain code from the CVS and all the programs will run, so you don\'t NEED the art to actually run the game. It\'s just an added extra which is under a different licence. Having the download contain both GPL and non-GPL stuff doesn\'t suggest that all of it is GPL. If I put the plain engine into a zip file with some metallica songs as the music, that wouldn\'t make the metallica songs be under GPL. :P
-
Jorrit is basically right at least concerning european copyright law.
Nevertheless clarification about the distinction between \"GPL Engine\" and \"Application for the GPL Engine\" is a good thing to do if any of the developers is really paranoid and fears about their hard work being stolen in front of a court.
To my knowledge/research there is not a lot of cases about GPL license applications or a comparable \"copyright conflict\" like mentioned by the initial poster (to my knowledge a case by the Landgericht Munich/Germany in July`04 was the first case enforcing GPL => available as original pdf in german language over me if anybody is interested or also as english translation if needed).
Having own \"distribution rules\" for PS (the game) is perfectly rigth by EU copyright law as we are speaking of the protection of Intellectual Property Rights (\"Richtlinie ?ber die Ma?nahmen und Verfahren zum Schutz der Rechte an geistigem Eigentum\" (Durchsetzungrichtlinie by the EU Ministerrat)).
I do not know a lot about US copyright law, but to my knowledge there is no major differnece concernign GPL aspects.
Meketh
*edit typo*
-
\"If I put the plain engine into a zip file with some metallica songs as the music, that wouldn\'t make the metallica songs be under GPL\"
yeah but metallica songs have nothing to do with planeshift, and cannot interact with the client. The artwork has been developed for it, and directly interacts with it. Theres a bit of a difference.
And another thing, i know about the seperate license which covers the artwork. Im not sure of any precedants as to which license takes preference if they are in contradiction of one another, im not too sure.
\"You can download the plain code from the CVS and all the programs will run, so you don\'t NEED the art to actually run the game. It\'s just an added extra which is under a different licence.\"
does psclient.exe run without the artwork and models? Im not too sure about this, i havnt tried it myself, might try that actually.
-
Firstly, yes it does run, although you obviously won\'t see much ;)
Secondly, \"Art\" includes music, and you can easily make a metallica song directly interact with the client. And just because \"artwork\" is made for the game, doesn\'t put it under license. When people make mods for games, the mods don\'t go under the games licence.
-
\"When people make mods for games, the mods don\'t go under the games licence.\"
oooohhhhhh are you sure about that? If the license is GPL then actually it does Xordan. Thats part of the GPL license- if you mod something, you have to keep it GPL. Thats how this discussion arose. Of course its all contentious, even the GPL website itself says its open to debate where the boudary between whats part of a program and whats not isnt very clear. But modding the source code means it would definatly come under the GPL, im sure about that.
\"Secondly, \"Art\" includes music, and you can easily make a metallica song directly interact with the client.\"
yes, and you would get sued by metallica for copyright infringment. If they didnt sue you, it could be classified as part of the game, and so it would be open to the issues we\'ve been discussing.
\"And just because \"artwork\" is made for the game, doesn\'t put it under license.\"
Well this is what we\'ve been dicussing. Contrary to common sense it would appear that if the artwork appears as part of a \'whole\' program, unfortunaly due to a particular clause in the the GPL, yes it would come under the license. Check the GPL:
\"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.\"
Im not going to get in another debate about it, but there certaintly is room to argue that the artwork, if it is part of a \'whole\' is under the license.
-
I\'d define the word \"Program\" as meaning the code. The artwork is not part of the \"Programming\".
And also, you say metallica woud sue for copyright infringment yes? Well the PS team could similarly sue anyone using their music for copywrite infringment.
-
\"I\'d define the word \"Program\" as meaning the code. The artwork is not part of the \"Programming\".\"
yeah well thats what you would define it as. The problem is what the GPL defines it as. Or the Judge who has to make a desicion on a court ruling, for that matter. What these entities perceive the program as can be different.
\"And also, you say metallica woud sue for copyright infringment yes? Well the PS team could similarly sue anyone using their music for copywrite infringment.\"
no, thats the whole point. Metellica have a clearly defined license that protects their music. PS have used a GPL license for some of their program, which potentially cause conflicts with the other licenses that are meant to protect their music. Thats why we are dicussing this.
-
yeah well thats what you would define it as. The problem is what the GPL defines it as. Or the Judge who has to make a desicion on a court ruling, for that matter. What these entities perceive the program as can be different.
I see the problem then. A simple way to get round it is the joint copywrite license. If the maker holds partial copywrite over it then there is no way it falls under GPL. The dev who did it can just say he doesn\'t object to the project using it ;)
-
\"I see the problem then. A simple way to get round it is the joint copywrite license. If the maker holds partial copywrite over it then there is no way it falls under GPL. The dev who did it can just say he doesn\'t object to the project using it\"
yeah good point, nobody\'s brought up the joint copyright. But i think if you contribute something, like code, it becomes part of the project and since the project is GPL well then it becomes GPL too. This certaintly happens with the source code, and if the artwork turned out to be GPL, well then......
Because of course there\'s a phrase in the joint copyright saying that you agree to the PS project using it even if you remove your support and dont want them to use it anymore, so it becomes tricky to say the least. I think a simple modification or clarification clause added the GPL license would do. Your allowed to use the GPL to make your own license anyway..
-
You guys don\'t seem to understand the whole deal here. To make it simple;
Anything you can find in the CVS ( http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/planeshift ) is under the GPL.
Anything you can\'t find in the CVS, but which is still bundled with the .exe/binary/whatever you download from the site, is under the PlaneShift License ( http://www.planeshift.it/pslicense.html ).
There\'s nothing more to understand than that, because that\'s just how it works.
-
\"There\'s nothing more to understand than that, because that\'s just how it works.\"
.....have you read some of the posts?
we all know thats how its meant to work, and how the developers intended it to. However the discussion was about the GPL license which covers the source code interferring with the seperate license for the artwork.
Rest assured, we wernt arguing for all that time because we failed to grasp the basic seperation of the two licenses. :) :P
-
Originally posted by ramlambmoo
\"There\'s nothing more to understand than that, because that\'s just how it works.\"
ugh, have you read some of the posts?
we all know thats how its meant to work, and how the developers intended it to. However the discussion was about the GPL license which covers the source code interferring with the seperate license for the artwork. You dont seem to understand the whole deal here, because certain clauses in GPL have the ability to interfere with the other licenses because of particular wordings in them. We were always aware of the basic structure which you pointed out to us. To make it simple, because of the GPL it gets rather complicated. Which makes it not so simple.
There is NO interference. Keep in mind that the GPL talks about \'linking\' and making derivative works that are linked together using standard linking practices. The rules and artwork are not \'linked\' by the GPL code. They are \'loaded\' by it which is totally different. It is not wrong for GPL code to load non-GPL data. That\'s always allowed. It can be wrong for GPL code to link with non-GPL stuff. But that\'s not what PS is doing at all.
Greetings,
-
\"There is NO interference. Keep in mind that the GPL talks about \'linking\' and making derivative works that are linked together using standard linking practices. The rules and artwork are not \'linked\' by the GPL code. They are \'loaded\' by it which is totally different. It is not wrong for GPL code to load non-GPL data. That\'s always allowed. It can be wrong for GPL code to link with non-GPL stuff. But that\'s not what PS is doing at all. \"
um i dont know how to say this, but i dont really want to get into another huge discussion about it. There\'s been alot of relevant direct quoting from both sides, from the GPL license itself and from the GPL website. You can find my arguements for and against above. However to put it shortly, when a program is compilied and disributed \'as a whole\', if it uses parts of it that are GPL, then the entire project is GPL. That is a fact which is taken from the GPL itself. The various subtilities, and the distinction between the core and non essential parts of the project have been argued backwards and forwards, and even the GPL site itself says there is no clear line, and you cannot know until it is taken to court. So i will settle for the fact that since not many of us are lawyers or judges here, we cant make a qualified desicion, and neither side can know for sure. We cannot say that somebody could definatly exploit this, but you cant say certaintly that the material is safe, given the lack of precedents set. Any desicion based on what we know at the moment i conceive would be ill advised, until some definite legal advice was assatained. Keep in mind that our perception of the situation is different to that of a judge who would make a desicion on it: most of us here have a good knowledge of computers, and most of the devs, as well as myself are active computer programmers. Any conclusion we draw is biased by our understanding. We can easily distinguish between the data and the source code, but in terms of the law, and a judge who has to make a desicion who isnt familiar with computers, might see the problem differently. It is fruitless therefore to continue arguing it, except how to discuss how to deal with any problems arising from it, until the situation has been clarified. (by people other then ourselves.)
-
There is no GPL violation. The artwork and rules are data for the client and server. They are only read and interpreted. There is a gpled base set of data in the cvs to show you it works. But there is no force to have data also under the GPL.
Just to seefor you: What you talking about is like this: I write a programm, which reads 5 pictures and shows on screen an aggregation of these pictures. Now you want every picture used or produced in that program to be licensed under the GPL.
-
by the way, if a judge is going to set a verdict, he/she reads into the material, gets to know what he/she is talking about.
but a simple way of finding out would be a tryal case :D
so who wants to start one (has the money for it ;))
-
The place where I fund something related to PS was a website about linux and GPL... In the linux community the PS license isn\'t very liked... But at the same time they are proud of seeing a free mmorpg and the PS engine growing.
Personaly I hope every idea and storytelling I do for PS is under a licence : I don\'t want to see a part of Warcraft4 sold with my ideas for example... I already saw some website which have stolen my ideas and my text... I don\'t want to see the same with PS.
PS : I know for now I\'ve not done enough to be scared about that but one day if I could help...
-
Originally posted by fken
The place where I fund something related to PS was a website about linux and GPL... In the linux community the PS license isn\'t very liked...
Of curse it isn\'t. Linux is all about being all-free. Anything that isn\'t obviously isn\'t within that spirit.
However, PS does have a valid reason for it\'s \"non-free\" attitude, and this has been stated on the website: to preserve it\'s uniqueness. In other words: the freeness of the content is reduced in order to keep others from using it in other projects that would be clones of various degrees of modification. I can agree to this, as it\'s a necessary evil in this case.
Originally posted by fken
But at the same time they are proud of seeing a free mmorpg and the PS engine growing.
Obviously.
Originally posted by fken
Personaly I hope every idea and storytelling I do for PS is under a licence
It\'s not, unless it\'s distributed by the PS team, in which case it\'d be under the PS license / joint copyright license. If you post an idea on this forum, without stating a license, I don\'t see why it wouldn\'t be public domain. There luckily is no proprietary right in ideas, just in manifestations of ideas.
The whole question boils down to: is the content a mere aggregation with a GPL product, or is it a combination? I feel reasonable confident in saying it\'s a mere aggregation, because it fulfills none of the prerequisites for being a combination.
- it doesn\'t link
- it is input for the program
- it isn\'t required for the programs operation (in fact, the program has been designed to be able to use other content)
It\'s more clear than I originally thought.
Anyway: the GPL is designed to protect both authors and users. Otherwise, it would be just another proprietary license. Currently I see PS in compliance with this spirit, despite it\'s non-free content license.
Oh, and BTW, the creator of a GPL\'d work can at any time release the exact same work under any other license they choose. This, however, doesn\'t revoke the grant of the GPL on the same work.
Example: I can write a program to do something and release it under the GPL. Then some company comes along and offers me billions of $$$ for a license of this program that would enable them to incorporate it into their proprietary package.
I can grant them the license to do so, but I cannot revoke the GPL that I granted. This means that even if I cease to distribute the program (which I may do any time), everyone who has received a copy of it, by whatever means and at whatever time, even after me removing the download, may still happily exert their full rights of the GPL, i.e., modify and redistribute it.
A newer version, or an updated version, or even the exact same version may, however, be distributed and licensed by me under any license I see fit, including the most restricting license, because I own the full copyright of everything and therefore I may choose to license it under whatever number and combination of licenses I wish. This new or updated or same version would be completely free of the GPL, though. This means that you couldn\'t exert GPL rights on it even if it were the exact same version as the GPL\'d one: you\'d have to use a GPL\'d copy.
Therefore, the download of PS can, if necessary, be considered to be covered solely by the PS license, not by the GPL, i.e., to be re-released under a separate license. The CVS or any other source-only package would still be GPL.
Disclaimer: luckily IANAL. :P
-
I\'m going to try and put in a few definitions to show what \"module\" (mentioned by Venegance) could be interpreted to mean in a court.
While \"module\" could mean a code file as Venegance suggests, as the GPL does not state a meaning for this term - as far as I know - it could also be interpreted perfectly correctly as follows (definition comes straight from the \"Concise Oxford Dictionary)
Module
\"A standard unit for measuring; unit of length for expressing proportions, e.g semi-diameter of column at base, standardised part or independent unit in construction esp. of furniture, building, spacecraft, or electronic system. \"
Note that there is absoloutely no mention of source code etc.
In my opinion the art is certainly an independent unit in construction of the game.
-
\"A newer version, or an updated version, or even the exact same version may, however, be distributed and licensed by me under any license I see fit, including the most restricting license, because I own the full copyright of everything and therefore I may choose to license it under whatever number and combination of licenses I wish. This new or updated or same version would be completely free of the GPL, though. This means that you couldn\'t exert GPL rights on it even if it were the exact same version as the GPL\'d one: you\'d have to use a GPL\'d copy.
Therefore, the download of PS can, if necessary, be considered to be covered solely by the PS license, not by the GPL, i.e., to be re-released under a separate license. The CVS or any other source-only package would still be GPL. \"
yeah, those are some good points. However does it make it expressivly clear on the PS website that these versions are seperate? no. Does it make it expressivly clear on the PS website that MB as a whole is covered by its own, non GPL license? no. I mean expressivly clear in that any idiot could figure it out. Those are just some points that a defandant could raise. At the moment, for somebody looking at the site, who dosnt know much about the project, would they instantly know the difference? In australia, im not sure how it works in overseas, but here in civil cases such as this would be the matter is decided on what the common person would think, that is to say what makes common sense. Not what the c++ programmer who understands the subtle difference between loading and linking thinks. Its stupid, IMO, but thats how it works. The PS site should really make it clear that MB and CB as a whole are under a different license, to prevent a defendant from saying that it wasnt clearly stated, and that the licensing was ambiguous. Any those are just some thoughts, i dont nessacarily agree with them, but they could be raised by people defending themselves.
EDIT****
Spoke to L. Pancallo, who said that he had noted this problem with the GPL license, and that in CB the license that goes with CB will state that the enitre .exe and files comes under the PS license, not the GPL one. So thats sorted.