License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Lisias]

But what about all the other GPL critics? Will they insist on the GPL being "illegal", like they did in the past?

Of course they will. Did SCO stopped trolling the Linux world? Just after being forced to. It's what they do, this is not a new problem neither exclusive to Orbiter.

I think not. You brought up doubts about it yourself, about the exception not being enough, because what about the other addons Orbiter links to while running with the addon.

Perhaps extending the exception to any addon (GPL compliant or not) to use your addon, as long it is linked solely to Orbiter? I don't really know, I think you should start to think on asking EFF for advice...

Your problem will be if the others GPL add ons are compatible with your exceptions, the closed source addons simply doesn't care.

You see, all the problems we are facing is due the choice for the GPL. BSD licensed code would not suffer such problems. But since we realized that GPL is the only license that would fits your need, we need to deal with all the problems that GPL incurs.

Please note that neither Orbiter neither any other closed source addon is causing the problems.

It's not this community that is biased into closed source, but GPL that is biased into Open Source, and imposes a lot of restrictions on that.

(I'm just the messenger!)

If they complain, will admins/mods take my addon down?

if some Hollywoodian with his filled with money makes a movie about an greek classic era hero called Lisias, and then issues a Cease and Desist letter claiming that all my posts are in copyright violation of his movie because of my name, you can bet your mouse the guys will comply even if *I* am the 2000 years old hero whose history is being told in the movie.

It would be financial suicide not to do so.

The same will happen if Bill Gates wake up one day and decides that he wants to use the name of some of your addon in his products.

So, please don't over think the issue. Let's deal with we already have on our hands.

I just can't be sure anymore. As I said before, I realize that the community is biased towards closed source.

I think that the community reflects the world we live in. I can't talk in behalf of anyone else here, but I didn't saw closed source bias in this discussion.

I saw concernings in preventing licenses to be involuntarily violated.

 

[jarmonik]

So let me get that straight: you are claiming that everybody releasing and/or distributing an Orbiter addon under GPL is doing so illegally?

Absolutely not. I was merely expressing my concerns about the license when talking about a vessel module like add-on. I am not accusing anyone doing anything illegal, "legal" was a badly chosen word in a stupid post nothing more. Also, only a copyright holder can act if there is a copyright violation and no-one really knows if linking to a software makes it a derivative work, so any questions about legality could be very complicated.

I also said that you can use what ever license that inspires you to create something which is very important to me, since it is the thing that keeps us going. I am not trying to enforce nor prohibit a use of any specific license. Of course, it would be preferable that used licenses would allow every person receiving the source codes to modify, compile, link to a proprietary software and redistribute the resulting binaries without any special permissions from a copyright holder. Without those freedoms a work couldn't be branched or continued after a developer is gone.

I never wanted a blame-war. I hope to leave this behind as quickly as possible.

 

[Urwumpe]

Excellent question! I guess we'd have to include exceptions for those libs, too, if we follow Lisias' reasoning.

Yes, and still get a lot of trouble, because of the virality of the GPL.

Also, we can't just say "Orbiter 2010 or later versions of that software". We have to provide exceptions in the license specifically for the third-party software that we use and which is needed for building the sources licensed that way. I am not sure if it would otherwise violate the GPL in legal aspects, but it would violate the intent of the GPL in technical aspects.

The license would be contradicting itself in the moment you can no longer build the available software based on the conditions of license as it was granted to you for using it. If the situation takes place, that there is no compatible version of OrbiterSound for example, you would need to change the license again and provide new exceptions for the new source code and its new dependencies.

I know that lawyers maybe not pay much attention to the technical aspects and mostly stick to what the contract says. But a neutral judge would likely come to the conclusion, that a contract, that you can only use in reality by violating it, is no binding contract.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------

I never wanted a blame-war. I hope to leave this behind as quickly as possible.

I don't really mind about the blame-war. I think it is really good and healthy that there is a new good discussion about the legal realities in Orbiter. Simply because it allows talking about problems that we like to ignore.

Like the fact that open-source add-ons only work, if you can compile the sources yourself. Otherwise, it would be shared source.

 

[Face]

Perhaps extending the exception to any addon (GPL compliant or not) to use your addon, as long it is linked solely to Orbiter? I don't really know, I think you should start to think on asking EFF for advice...

I already said that I won't go from pillar to post just to make my code free to the world.

Your problem will be if the others GPL add ons are compatible with your exceptions, the closed source addons simply doesn't care.

What other GPL addons? From my point of view, there is just the GPL addon of the project, and Orbiter. Perhaps our misunderstanding is due to assuming that the projects I'm talking about consist of many libs/snippets from other GPL'ed material. Or are you talking about simultaneously loaded addons in one Orbiter session.

Of course Urwumpe's question about DanSteph-ware is another chapter in this book.

So, please don't over think the issue. Let's deal with we already have on our hands.

So I'll just let it sit there as it is now: no hosting from my side, no more (re-)distribution. Causes the least problems and work, after all. I'll wait and see what other projects will do and adjust accordingly.

 

[Lisias]

Could you write an innocent looking contribution to the project, get listed in the AUTHORS file, then come back a month later and declare that the project should be shut down, because its license is clearly violated, because there is a missing exception for Orbiter, so it was invalid in the first place?

Yes, I can make a fuss for my line of code being used in GPL violation.

And you can agree (even if that line of code was inspired by you) just to shut me up, then take the project down, fork the thing one commit before my line of code, merge everything but my commits into the new fork, rewrite the functionality that line of code of mine provided, and release the new fork as the current canonical version for your project.

That old fork will be forever "infected" by my code. But you are not obliged to stick on that fork for the rest of your life.

Of course things would be worse if by some reason you let me write half the project before realizing that exception is necessary. But this is not about project secession, right?

Or would it be even simpler? Could you just say - without doing anything at all to the project - "hey, that thing has no exception for Orbiter, so the GPL is violated, dear BitBucket admins, please take that violation down"? And probably succeed, of course.

Without being an copyright holder, all I can do is to make a hell of a fuss until I succeed (is how Patent Trolls manage to get what they want) or someone with more money sues me for harassment.

But I can report you to the infringed copyright owner, see below.

And to give a nice topping, could you report the appropriate development thread here in O-F, explaining that due to copyright violation this is illegal software, and therefore should be removed from O-F, essentially causing infraction points for Artlav, Donamy and me?

No, I cannot report you to the Orbiter forum. If your code is in clear GPL violation (and I'm not talking about copyright infringement, but in license unlawful adoption), what I can do is to report your project to EFF or FSF, and then THEY would report you to the Orbiter forum moderators (while their attorneys write a nice Cease and Desist letter that I strongly recommend you to do not dispute).

The GPL license is copyrighted itself by the FSF, and you must obey FSF terms in order to use FSF copyrighted works. And it's up to them to enforce such rights.

(Don't claim your code is licensed under the GPL without fulfilling every single FSF demand to do so, or you will can see youself in legal trouble.)

Of course, that line of action is highly dependant of an actual GPL violation. If the alleged violation doesn't exists at all, *I* can be liable to be prosecuted for slandering (or worst).

If these above points are a problem NOW, the only option is to either cease to work on the project anymore, or add the exception by means of appropriate mechanism (getting permission of all copyright holders, document the process, rewrite, re-distribute). So if not all holders agree, the work is dead in the water IMHO. Unless the above points are no problem at all NOW, then I don't understand the whole discussion, anyway.

The two last points are a problem *NOW*, and they can bite you (or not) in the ... back... anytime in the future.

It's not guaranteed that FSF will came for you for this, however. A lot of GPL violations goes unchecked because it doesn't worth pursuing the cause.

Jarmo made a strong point IMHO, and nobody countered that so far, so I think it is what we have to deal with when we GPL Orbiter software: the notion that it is illegal to modify, compile and redistribute it.

I beg the right to correct you. I think you should rephrase your statement to: "I think it is what we have to deal with when we GPL closed source software addons: the notion that it is illegal to modify, compile and redistribute it."

All the problems (hypotheticals or not) we are discussing here is not Orbiter related. Every single closed source software that allow addons and/or plugins are subjected to these problems when GPL is involved.

As I said before, the GPL is strongly biased into Free Software (even BSD licensed code has problems with GPL), and FSF don't spend any effort on making this kind of interfacing easier. It's not their best interest promoting closed source software, directly or indirectly.

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

Also, only a copyright holder can act if there is a copyright violation and no-one really knows if linking to a software makes it a derivative work, so any questions about legality could be very complicated.

Yes, only the copyright holders can pursue the matter - but anyone can report you to the copyright holders!

And publishing a software under the GPL without 100% fulfilling the GPL terms are a copyright infringement per se - against the FSF.

So, Face's concerning are not unfounded.

I never wanted a blame-war. I hope to leave this behind as quickly as possible.

I'm sorry you had been caught in the crossfire.

 

[Face]

I think you should rephrase your statement to: "I think it is what we have to deal with when we GPL closed source software addons: the notion that it is illegal to modify, compile and redistribute it."

I guess you mean "when we GPL addons for closed source software"? As in clarifying that the software we GPL is the addon, and that the software the addon is for, is closed source. Seems like legalese is actually more complicated in English than it is in German. Never thought this could happen :rofl:.

 

[Lisias]

What other GPL addons? From my point of view, there is just the GPL addon of the project, and Orbiter. [...] Or are you talking about simultaneously loaded addons in one Orbiter session.

Yes, I'm talking about others GPL'ed addons - the closed source ones just don't care.

Since you are adding exceptions to your GPL licensing, and since the other guys that GPL'ed their addons also added exceptions to their licensing, what would happen if they forgot an exception that you need? How would you prevent into linking in their code and being a licensee violator yourself?

By example, you links up against PayLoad Manager, and cannot works without it. So you exempt PM in your license, but somehow forgets to add Orbiter Sound in the exception.

But then someone creates an PayLoad Manager replacement that use Orbiter Sound and releases it under the GPL, adding the OS in his exception list.

You user installs the Payload Manager replacement and Orbiter Sound *and* your addon. Your addon links against Payload Manager, that is linked against Orbiter Sound, that your license didn't exempts.

Are you in GPL violation? (It appears to me that yes, the GPL states against indirect linking - but I'm not sure if it would apply here...)

So I'll just let it sit there as it is now: no hosting from my side, no more (re-)distribution. Causes the least problems and work, after all. I'll wait and see what other projects will do and adjust accordingly

Not an aftermath thats please me, but it appears to be the safest "lazy" move possible.

 

[Urwumpe]

Are you in GPL violation? (It appears to me that yes, the GPL states against indirect linking - but I'm not sure if it would apply here...)

Again: Yes.

The only way to make use of the rights granted by the copyleft license would mean violating the license, so the license itself would be void.

Explanation for non-coders:

If you allow creating derived works of the add-on, as long as the license itself is not changed (as most OSLs require), but you get into a situation, in which it is impossible to exercise that right because a critical library is no longer available, so you need to replace it. But by replacing the library, you also have to change the license of your derived work, which you can't, so you can't publish your changes.

There is also no such way as indirect linking (In C11/C++). If you use a library that depends on another library, you are responsible for including that dependency as well into the product.

Which would mean fallback to default copyright.

 

[Face]

Yes, I'm talking about others GPL'ed addons - the closed source ones just don't care.

Since you are adding exceptions to your GPL licensing, and since the other guys that GPL'ed their addons also added exceptions to their licensing, what would happen if they forgot an exception that you need? How would you prevent into linking in their code and being a licensee violator yourself?

By example, you links up against PayLoad Manager, and cannot works without it. So you exempt PM in your license, but somehow forgets to add Orbiter Sound in the exception.

But then someone creates an PayLoad Manager replacement that use Orbiter Sound and releases it under the GPL, adding the OS in his exception list.

You user installs the Payload Manager replacement and Orbiter Sound *and* your addon. Your addon links against Payload Manager, that is linked against Orbiter Sound, that your license didn't exempts.

Are you in GPL violation? (It appears to me that yes, the GPL states against indirect linking - but I'm not sure if it would apply here...)

So in essence you already say that the exception will not be enough, anyway. Next we perhaps talk about how my addons violate the GPL because e.g. catch-ctd loads my DLL...

This is exactly what I meant about not being sure that the re-licensing will settle such discussions: it will just go on and on. Moving target, so to say.

I think without a clear commitment of the whole community (or representatives) that GPL is safe here, there is nothing I can do to continue using it. Perhaps we can make a kind of Orbiter Public License?

Not an aftermath thats please me, but it appears to be the safest "lazy" move possible.

Oh. Excuse me, sir, for not dragging my ass to your pleasing.

 

[Lisias]

I guess you mean "when we GPL addons for closed source software"? As in clarifying that the software we GPL is the addon, and that the software the addon is for, is closed source. Seems like legalese is actually more complicated in English than it is in German. Never thought this could happen :rofl:.

Oh, yeas. Legalese is complicated already in any language. But dealing with three degrees of syntax barriers makes everything worse. =/

My mother tongue is Portuguese, yours appears to be Deutsch, and we are both trying to understand each other on a third one, English - and the adverbs and adjectives from a noun follows drastically different placement rules in all three languages.

Willkommen zu Hölle

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

Perhaps we can make a kind of Orbiter Public License?

It would be my second (or third?) suggestion (that Orbiter End User License - OEUL) in my first posts of this thread.

And since double licensing is possible, you can also GPL your code to be usable in GPL projects from other GPL softwares (a situation you stated being comfortable with).

You want to use the code in an Orbiter addon? Here, take this OPL licensed distribution.

This code would be useful to a GPL project you maintain? No problem, take this GPL licensed distribution.

As long all copyright holders agrees, this is doable: you guarantee the usefulness to Orbiter users, and to GPL users (GPL users can't compile your code to be used on Orbiter, but who cares? The OPL distribution already covered Orbiter).

Oh. Excuse me, sir, for not dragging my ass to your pleasing.

I can live with the disappointment. :rofl:

 

[Face]

It would be my second (or third?) suggestion (that Orbiter End User License - OEUL) in my first posts of this thread.

And since double licensing is possible, you can also GPL your code to be usable in GPL projects from other GPL softwares (a situation you stated being comfortable with).

You want to use the code in an Orbiter addon? Here, take this OPL licensed distribution.

This code would be useful to a GPL project you maintain? No problem, take this GPL licensed distribution.

As long all copyright holders agrees, this is doable: you guarantee the usefulness to Orbiter users, and to GPL users (GPL users can't compile your code to be used on Orbiter, but who cares? The OPL distribution already covered Orbiter).

Hm. Besides strongly doubting that adding ANOTHER pile of legalese to the stack will make that situation any better, I don't understand how the Orbiter Public License will be different to the GPL. Will it allow others to modify, compile and re-distribute the code? Will it forbid closed-source software (other than Orbiter) to make use of it?

And what does it mean regarding using software components that are GPL'ed? It would be interesting to see a proposal for this OEUL you mentioned.

 

[Lisias]

There is also no such way as indirect linking (In C11/C++). If you use a library that depends on another library, you are responsible for including that dependency as well into the product.

What I will propose below is almost (or effectively is) a fallacy, but... Are you sure?

If I wrap my library in a RPC style mechanism, that would be not an indirect dependency?

What about code injection? That catch-ctd example was superb - by using an wrapper, it's feasible to even replace the wrapped DLL in runtime to another one. What can be said of this? (please, let keep my mom out of the subject )

This is not an argument - just genuine curiosity.

 

[jangofett287]

I'm confused. Can someone consistently explain exactly what the issue we're tying to solve here is?

 

[Lisias]

Hm. Besides strongly doubting that adding ANOTHER pile of legalese to the stack will make that situation any better,

It will not make the situation any better - but it would make the situation bearable.

I don't understand how the Orbiter Public License will be different to the GPL. Will it allow others to modify, compile and re-distribute the code? Will it forbid closed-source software (other than Orbiter) to make use of it?

Double licensing is basically releasing TWO versions of the same codetree, one obliged to one license terms, other to another license terms - and the receiver chooses what license suits him best.

Take by example QT. It is released under the GPL, but also under some other licenses that imposes some restrictions but waives others. If you need a commercial license to a close source application, you need to pay for a closed source version of the QT. Don't wanna pay, or intents to use it on a GPL software? No problem, you take the GPL version of QT - and obeys to GPL terms.

What I propose here is that every add on be released under an Orbiter Public License that guarantees that:

1) Every Orbiter end user will be able to use the addon on any compatible version of Orbiter, in combination with any other OPL licensed add on.

2) Every Orbiter developer will be able to reuse the addon (or components of it) in any add on for Orbiter if some conditions are fulfilled (such crediting the original creator).

3) If the source code of the add on is released:

3.1) Any Orbiter developer can recompile it to be used in any Orbiter version if some conditions are fulfilled (as not pretending to be the original author of the add on).

3.2) Any Orbiter developer can adapt and reuse the code in his/her own add ons, if some conditions are fulfilled (what ones?)

4) Meshes, sounds, textures can be reused in new Orbiter addons, if some conditions are fulfilled (what ones? this can be optional?)

5) No artifact should be included in a add on that could impose further restrictions or violate third party licenses. Common Creations appears to be a good way to such licensing, but it' just my suggestion.

The community should agree on a minimum set of rules that give us the guarantees we need in order to keep Orbiter advancing without losing content by add ons obsolescence. But we should, too, prevent that some developers flee by trying to force them to release the source code (and other artifacts) if they don't want to. At least the interfacing should be OPL protected, so one can in theory replicate the module himself.

(this is already happening with generic vessel, but I think this should be explicitly stated in the license).

Such a license should be mandatory to Hangar publishing. But such a license will not be GPL compatible - so others, non Orbit related, GPL projects will not be able to take benefit from these addons!

But, at the developers solely discretion, the addon could be double licensed into GPL (or anything else!), and so the GPL projects could use the GPL code under GPL conditions (the OPL will not apply, and the derivatives would be GPL only).

To bring alien code to OPL would be a problem - GPL forbids that, unless you get explicit permission from the code's copyright holders. But this already happens anyway.

Other Open Source licenses (as BSD) will impose no problems (and this already happens too).

This would meet both your demands: being usable by GPL projects "out there", but not by any other commercial or close source project - unless they pay the copyright holders to be issued an third, commercial and proprietary, license to use the code (what's perfectly possible - it's what QT does).

---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

And what does it mean regarding using software components that are GPL'ed?

They should be double licensed into that OPL/OEUL/??? license. This would prevent all that exception hassle - as it will be needed just once.

It would be interesting to see a proposal for this OEUL you mentioned.

OPL sounds better to my ears - when I proposed OEUL I was thinking mainly about the End Users. Perhaps we can see developers as a special case of End Users?

Orbiter Public License, on the other hand, could be not the best option, as Orbiter itself is not Open Source, and such a name can lead to misinterpretations (because of Moziila Public License).

Anyway, I diverged. The name of the license is absolutely the less important issue to be discussed!

 

[Urwumpe]

If I wrap my library in a RPC style mechanism, that would be not an indirect dependency?

That would be just a runtime dependency on the surface, but still: if you would need WSDL-files or .x files from another project to bind your client to the remote function server, you are again responsible that this does not violate your license.

What about code injection? That catch-ctd example was superb - by using an wrapper, it's feasible to even replace the wrapped DLL in runtime to another one. What can be said of this? (please, let keep my mom out of the subject )

Where do the header files come from, that define the abstraction layer? in case of catch-ctd, its Windows SDK and Orbiter SDK again.

Or think about reverse engineering an API: Is that legal and conform to the GPL? After all, you easily violate the license of the reverse-engineered product that way ( = There had to be a reason, as hostile as this reason is, that there is open API for you to use).

The main problem is quite simple: Late-binding in C++ is possible, but not always free of dependencies and not always in legal territory.

 

[Face]

I'm confused. Can someone consistently explain exactly what the issue we're tying to solve here is?

Orbiter addons with GPL license are arguably violating the license itself, therefore distributors are in danger of receiving a cease and desist letter from the FSF if it gets reported and if they even care. In addition, if the FSF contacts the O-F forum due to this, the OHM addon and/or appropriate links must be taken down.
Also, because the license is violated, the notion is that it might get invalid completely, and as such the default copyright is in effect, making it practically impossible for people to modify, compile and redistribute the software "legally".

At least this is what I decoded.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, because the license is violated, the notion is that it might get invalid completely, and as such the default copyright is in effect, making it practically impossible for people to modify, compile and redistribute the software "legally".

That is what is important for me. Legal security for contributors, that their contributions are neither futile, nor stolen.

I don't really give a damn about what the FSF says there, despite all their authority on the GPL, Richard Stallman would need to defeat me in a Trial of Grievance with his Katana first before I let him take down my add-on. *



* Disclaimer: I do know that Richard Stallman has the right to select the location of the Trial as he was challenged.

 

[boogabooga]

How jerkish has FSF been historically?

Have they ever aggressively litigated someone that acted in good faith because of the fine print?

Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center

They seem pretty reasonable to me. Seem to go after corporations that profit from GPL, and flagrantly. When your legal team works pro-bono, I suppose that you have to prioritize...

 

[Face]

Richard Stallman would need to defeat me in a Trial of Grievance with his Katana first before I let him take down my add-on.

I'm sure he will just send his crazy 88 lawyers first. Each one with 2 Katanas. Do you have a yellow jumpsuit? :rofl:

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:25 ----------

Have they ever aggressively litigated someone that acted in good faith because of the fine print?

I think not. But after all that discussion, are we really still in good faith? I am not anymore...

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm sure he will just send his crazy 88 lawyers first. Each one with 2 Katanas. Do you have a yellow jumpsuit? :rofl:

Not yet. But I would even battle them wearing only a Borat swim suit.

88 with two Katanas you say? Maybe I should also take a lunch box with me.