Google earth to google PS

[ramlambmoo]

Narita, I would advise you to give up now- I noticed this very same thing about a year (?) ago, and had a huge arguement about it in the same way you did.  I ended up contacting Luca Pancallo who admitted there was some ambiguity but that a solution was at hand; I assume the recent formation of the Atomic Blue organisation has something to do with this.  I could dredge up the email I got in response but I cant really be bothered.  In the end, we can all argue as much as we want, but the only way anyway can ever have the final say is if this went to court and was argued by lawyers.  For example, you would need legal advice as to whether "distributing seperately licensed stuff in the same download" is in fact "incorporating" in a legal sense, regardless of what any of us might think.  If the PS dev team have sought legal advice, and they dont see any problem, then let them be.  If you really want to prove your point, then steal their artwork, distribute it, and defend yourself in court.

Although I would be interested to know which qualified lawyers in fact gave this opinion, and Indeed what country they are from, considering copyright protection is only afforded by national and not international laws, and thus any infrignment would be subject to prosectution by the laws in the country which it occured, and not the country in which legal advice from "qualified lawyers" was sought.  Intrepretations of legal wording can vary within a country even, not to mention in different countries.  If someone in China is plagurising your work and you're relying on a very fine line between the exact meaning of the english legal terms "distribute" and "incorporate" to prosecute them, well good luck to you with that.

[Robinmagus]

Damnit ram, I thought that for once you would end an arguement, but those hopes were soon shattered with the second paragraph.

[hook]

Two licences. Either you use the GPL licence with it, and according the GPL all part of the software MUST but under GPL compatible licence. Either you use the commercial licence and your software may have proprietary content.

If you read my post before, you'd see that all parts of the code that's integrated need to be under GPL. That doesn't count for art and data in use.

Plus, if you read the their licences page more carefully you'd see that there is no mentioning of having art and data open - or any other content except code for that matter. It is just a standard GPL limitation that allows you to use any content whatsoever with the code as long as your modifications on the code are in complience with GPL.

What Nevrax is doing by that is allowing FOSS projects and development to exist on one hand, while also allowing against a license fee proprietary companies to use the same NeL code and tools as the FOSS projects can, but with added limited support and the license that they don't have to publish their modifications to the code under GPL. Imagine Bioforge being interested in NeL - they probably wouldn't (at least Atari wouldn't!) want to open their source code because of the competition on the market.

Irrelevant, Firefox is not released under GPL.

True, it's not under GPL ...but it's a good example of plugins though.
Or, if you'd rather have Konqueror (the GPL'd KDE browser) for example - it can also use java, macromedia flash and other plugins. Or Xine or Mplayer that you can use with win32codecs, DivX and all the rest of the proprietary non-GPL-compatible gang. The important part is that plugins and codecs are not a part of the code.

That's my point. The raw GPL licence don't allow to release other games using the PS engine with proprietary content as PS does currently. This is greatly reducing the potientiality of the engine, and furthermore, it's unfair for other developpers. The licence may be amended to allow exceptions (as it's the case for GPL fonts for example) or another licence may be added (like NEL but it could be free). In the current state, the PS licence set is inconsistent and this may cause trouble.

Yes, it does! GPL has no restriction whatsoever to disable GPL code being used together with non-GPL-compliant content. Do you think you breach the GPL everytime you load a non-GPL wallpaper on your Linux desktop? What about when you open up a document in OpenOffice.org or KOffice that you didn't publish under GPL (whatever you make is under your exclusive and complete rights automatically, untill/unless you state otherwise!)? Draw pictures in the GIMP or Krita? Or even view a DVD in Xine?? Or even more obscurely - watching non-GPL content on the internet with your GPL'd browser or read e-mails with your GPL'd e-mail client?

With that said, I think it's obvious that the PlaneShift client code is very well able to use the PlaneShift code in order to play. Also you're free to use the code - but not the art and data. What good is the code without art and data? Well ...what good was to anyone that id' GPL'd all their engines when the next game came out? Just search happypenguin.org for FPS that are based on the quake or doom engines

It's pointless to blindly defend the GPL as the best licence for everything.

That I agree with
But it is the best license to make sure the code written is kept open and free.

On the side note: GPL as an idea is a child of Richard Stallman, but as a license it's Eben Moglen's work.

[ramlambmoo]

Damnit ram, I thought that for once you would end an arguement

Dont humor me... I'd rip this "arguement" to shreds if I could be bothered.

[hook]

Although I would be interested to know which qualified lawyers in fact gave this opinion, and Indeed what country they are from, considering copyright protection is only afforded by national and not international laws, and thus any infrignment would be subject to prosectution by the laws in the country which it occured, and not the country in which legal advice from "qualified lawyers" was sought.  Intrepretations of legal wording can vary within a country even, not to mention in different countries.  If someone in China is plagurising your work and you're relying on a very fine line between the exact meaning of the english legal terms "distribute" and "incorporate" to prosecute them, well good luck to you with that.

I find it funny how people always question the qualifications of lawyers, but not coders, artists, usability experts and so on.

Yes, it is true that copyright is mainly a matter of nationa law, but there are also international converntions like TRIPS, the Berne convention, the Paris convention and the WIPO copyright treaty. The trend is that intellectual property law is being heavily internationalized, also because the problem you just mentioned - the internet provides easy access to and trade with intellectual works with little to no limits between countries and therefore legislations.

Also, since we are talking about license agreements (GPL, PlaneShift, MPL were mentioned already) - and hence contracts - these are not being taken completely litterally. Licenses, just as other contracts (and pretty much all of civil law affairs) are always subject to interpretations in law. Especially contracts (and hence licenses) where even they are not completely directly applicable in their verbatim form, are being interpreted in the way that would be most likely to be agreeable by the signing parties of the contract/agreement and applying that to the valid law. And that's a very short and simple recap of the basics of the interpretation methods of civil law.
Or said even simpler: The lawyers and the court have to interpret the contracts (and thus also licenses) the closes to what the guys who made it and agreed with it wanted.

Oh, and while we're at it, since IP fits under civil law that means that in the license agreement or at least contract you (the clients) can define which court (and thus which legislation) is to prosecute any disputes from that contract.

[narita]

Narita, I would advise you to give up now- I noticed this very same thing about a year (?) ago, and had a huge arguement about it in the same way you did.  I ended up contacting Luca Pancallo who admitted there was some ambiguity but that a solution was at hand; I assume the recent formation of the Atomic Blue organisation has something to do with this.  I could dredge up the email I got in response but I cant really be bothered.  In the end, we can all argue as much as we want, but the only way anyway can ever have the final say is if this went to court and was argued by lawyers.  For example, you would need legal advice as to whether "distributing seperately licensed stuff in the same download" is in fact "incorporating" in a legal sense, regardless of what any of us might think.  If the PS dev team have sought legal advice, and they dont see any problem, then let them be.  If you really want to prove your point, then steal their artwork, distribute it, and defend yourself in court.

It's not about to steal the arts or such, but about to reuse the engine to do another game. the game must then to be under GPL, including the arts because there is no written exception. Atomic blue could then reuse the game content or sue if the sources are not provided. The other game cannot sue AB even if the licence set is inconsistant (well, the judge will probably tell AB to fix this quickly). Also, the other game MUST give the source to all players. In such situation, nobody will do something serious with the PS engine.

There is other licences (like the BSD licence, the perl Artistic licence or even the LGPL) which allow a fair development between AB and others, but for some reason people remains screwed at the GPL.

For the others articles, I'll try to make short sentences. As I already told:
- It's GPL specific, other licence like firefox's one don't have the same issues.
- It's because GPL is used as the only licence, other engine under GPL (like Quake, Doom, NEL) allow commercial usage because and only because they are released with two licences. Please check their owner's websites instead of web articles.
- "The software" means "all the software", but not "only some part of the software".
- The user private datas or the user's original creations are not managed by the licence of the tools used. GPL or not.
- An army of  lawyers can be consulted, as far a risk remains for a lawsuit, nobody will use this code.

[Xordan]

That's my point. The raw GPL licence don't allow to release other games using the PS engine with proprietary content as PS does currently.

I don't see that this is the case. GPL mentions incorporating the engine with a proprietary program. The content under the planeshift license does not count as a proprietary program. Therefore there is no proprietary program in PlaneShift's case. Thus, people who wish to use our engine _may_ use proprietary content (can you point out exactly what says they can't?), but they may not incorporate it with a proprietary program (_code_ which is seperately licensed), which is how it's designed to be. If we had wanted that, we would have used LGPL I think.

Edit: Ok, I see what you're saying. The restriction that their code must be under GPL is designed that way. As for the game content, I see the _very slight_ ambiguity. There is nothing written that says that people may or may not put their content under a seperate license. I am pretty sure that they legally can, but it isn't stated so, doing so would be a bit like having to put a label on a cup of hot coffee saying 'hot'. Personally I would prefer a LGPL license on the PlaneShift code, and have thought this for a while, because using GPL actually restricts us as well, but it isn't my decision, and I think that it was wanted that there's no way the code can have a proprietary part.

Hook: People have been trying to get across the whole discussion that only the GPL'd code has to be GPL, not the art and other content. You're probably wasting your time trying again now

[hook]

the game must then to be under GPL, including the arts because there is no written exception. Atomic blue could then reuse the game content or sue if the sources are not provided. The other game cannot sue AB even if the licence set is inconsistant (well, the judge will probably tell AB to fix this quickly). Also, the other game MUST give the source to all players. In such situation, nobody will do something serious with the PS engine.

Just the code ...the CODE ...*not* art and data ...sheeeeeesh, am I speaking gibbereish?!?? Gaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!   *hook bangs his head into the wall*

....is it soooo hard to understand??? 

*hook considers getting his Humongous Hammer of Many Teachings +6 and his Books of Law and start using them together on people*

[lanser]

iirc Arianna used Planeshift code in her Virtual Annelov

[juggalo10101]

ok you know what, forget it! im ending the project!

[Xordan]

woot for offtopicness!

[ramlambmoo]

Just the code ...the CODE ...*not* art and data ...sheeeeeesh, am I speaking gibbereish?!?? Gaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!   *hook bangs his head into the wall*

....is it soooo hard to understand???  Cry

*hook considers getting his Humongous Hammer of Many Teachings +6 and his Books of Law and start using them together on people*

Hook, everyone understands what the devs want to be covered under the GPL, and what is in fact meant to be covered: what we're argueing is what Is in fact legally covered, due to the ambiguity of the wording.  The devs clearly intended for just the code to be covered by GPL; as you have mentioned.  But we're discussing whether the wording of the GPL means that it would inadvertently cover art as well.  Dont assume just because we dont have your background in law that we cant read and disect a license- Australian Law is based on the prefix of understanding of the common man, and what an ordinary person would see of a situation- and so a lawyer's opinions are no more valid than an ordinary person provided they fully understand the situation.
As I see it, and tell me if Im wrong here, the simple crux of the matter is whether the Planeshift Program provided by the devs in it's entirety represents a Proprietry product.  If, as Xordan says, it does not, then the license is clearly fine and the their is no contradiction.  If It does, as narita says, then the license that the art is provided under is in apparent contradicition of the GPL license and we have a very ambiguous situation.  From what I've seen no one on either side of this discussion has a lack in understanding of what's going on.

I just read the email from a year ago on this subject, and I understand how they solved it- but Im not going to spoil your nice discussion, so I'll leave you lot to continue.   

ok you know what, forget it! im ending the project!

I was going to offer to help you code it... sounded like an awesome project.

[minetus]

personally i tink he should try to join the team, atleast if he has enought skill to break the google skill that is..

about map making.. heres something i did 1 year ago for other game i played:
http://img282.imageshack.us/my.php?image=coordinatesv33zk.swf
if anyone wants the source ill be happy to send it

[Xordan]

Hook, everyone understands what the devs want to be covered under the GPL, and what is in fact meant to be covered: what we're argueing is what Is in fact legally covered, due to the ambiguity of the wording.

It is quite clearly stated what is covered by each license.

"
In the PlaneShift Project we have two 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 Content 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.
"

How much clearer can we make it than that?

[Myrthe]

1) juggalo you shouldnt end the project just because some idiots are fighting over something thats not up to them anyway.

2) exactly: this isnt up to normal players to decide what happens, its up to devs.

3) this guy's just trying to use his time to make stuff better for everyone playing. i think its a great idea and have nothing against his ideas. some of the crap im hearing is still insane! you say it would be too easy and spoil the game. he fixed that by saying he could implement fog of war! how else could it spoil the game for players, answer me that.