Planeshift License - Does it violate the GPL ?

[Frarda]

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

[huru]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[Frarda]

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?

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[Jaedru]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[Frarda]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

@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.

[Frarda]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[Frarda]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

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.

[Frarda]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

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!
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?