Planeshift License - Does it violate the GPL ?

[swift]

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?

[ramlambmoo]

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...

[Diamondcite]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[Diamondcite]

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...

[acraig]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

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.

[Jaedru]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[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

[acraig]

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)

[ramlambmoo]

\"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?....

[Zeonire]

Wow...I believe it actually does violate it. I\'m with ram.

[Frarda]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.