Planeshift License - Does it violate the GPL ?

[Seytra]

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.

[swift]

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.

[ramlambmoo]

\"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.