Planeshift License - Does it violate the GPL ?

[Meketh]

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*

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[Xordan]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[Xordan]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[Xordan]

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

[ramlambmoo]

\"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..

[Kiva]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.

[jorrit]

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,

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.)

[zinder]

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.

[Madouc]

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  
so who wants to start one (has the money for it  )

[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... 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...