4 ms·

GPL likely wouldn't have had any effect here. Classic is offered over the web, so only the AGPL would be relevant (or well, I'm not actually sure how GPL appli

GPL likely wouldn't have had any effect here. Classic is offered over the web, so only the AGPL would be relevant (or well, I'm not actually sure how GPL applies to JS apps served over the web but run in browser), and anyway, it's not like MS is making money from Minecraft classic, for a lot of people they did get something out of it: a cool game.

bonzini 8y ago
When JavaScript is served to a browser, it is distributed and thus anything that uses a GPLed JavaScript library must be GPL too.
- cjbprime 8y ago
  I don't think any experts (including the FSF who wrote the license) believe this to be true. That's why the AGPL exists.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    The AGPL exists to close a loophole for code running on the server. Code being served to the client obviously needs the permission of the code’s copyright holder. Otherwise, all those movie piracy streaming sites wouldn’t get constantly shut down.
  - kragen 8y ago
    Chris, you know better than this nonsense. No experts know the answer, but the FSF strongly advocates the position that JS running on your computer is just like any other software running on your computer. The AGPL was written to require a server operator to free their patches to software running on their server, not in your browser. https://www.fsf.org/news/announcing-js-labels https://www.fsf.org/news/announcing-js-labels https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html It isn't at all clear how courts will decide the case if such a case ever comes to trial.
alxmdev 8y ago
> it's not like MS is making money from Minecraft classic Of course they are, it's part of the franchise so at the very least it's an advertisement for all the other Minecraft things you can buy.
- softawre 8y ago
  In the same way that this OSS game engine is an advertisement for the developer who created it.
  - alxmdev 8y ago
    To some extent, but going down this road leads to "artists should be thankful for exposure".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
anoncake 8y ago
MS is a for-profit company. If offering Minecraft classic made them no money, they wouldn't do it.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  This is a cynical and wrong viewpoint. Companies are made up of people, and people don't always act in the absolute for-profit interests of the companies. Further, companies can, and do, sometimes take actions that aren't directly profit oriented. And the trope about shareholder liability making it illegal for a company to not act in a directly profitable way is wrong.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    It's a cynical and mostly correct viewpoint. Companies that don't make their workers act in their profit interests exist, but they aren't successful. Microsoft is not among them. When the market works, at least. So it's actually quite possible that Microsoft is being nice and "inefficient" here.
    - drdeca 8y ago
      “Mostly correct” is also “somewhat incorrect”. Also, I think there are probably sufficiently small decreases in expected profit ithat many large companies would tolerate. And even aside from that, there is the possibility of a choice between options which does not have any large-enough-to-predict-or-evaluate-its-direction impact on the bottom line, and in these cases, the decision will likely be made in accordance with how some people working there prefer.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        > “Mostly correct” is also “somewhat incorrect”. No model is perfect. I guess I should prioritize rhetorics in the future lest someone use my honesty against me. > Also, I think there are probably sufficiently small decreases in expected profit ithat many large companies would tolerate. There aren't. A company that accepts decreases in profit does not become large, it fails against its more psychopathic competitors. > And even aside from that, there is the possibility of a choice between options which does not have any large-enough-to-predict-or-evaluate-its-direction impact on the bottom line, and in these cases, the decision will likely be made in accordance with how some people working there prefer. If a company cannot predict whether an action is profitable, it will always decide against it and instead invest its resources in something that is.

bonzini 8y ago

When JavaScript is served to a browser, it is distributed and thus anything that uses a GPLed JavaScript library must be GPL too.

cjbprime 8y ago
I don't think any experts (including the FSF who wrote the license) believe this to be true. That's why the AGPL exists.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The AGPL exists to close a loophole for code running on the server. Code being served to the client obviously needs the permission of the code’s copyright holder. Otherwise, all those movie piracy streaming sites wouldn’t get constantly shut down.
- kragen 8y ago
  Chris, you know better than this nonsense. No experts know the answer, but the FSF strongly advocates the position that JS running on your computer is just like any other software running on your computer. The AGPL was written to require a server operator to free their patches to software running on their server, not in your browser. https://www.fsf.org/news/announcing-js-labels https://www.fsf.org/news/announcing-js-labels https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html It isn't at all clear how courts will decide the case if such a case ever comes to trial.

alxmdev 8y ago

> it's not like MS is making money from Minecraft classic Of course they are, it's part of the franchise so at the very least it's an advertisement for all the other Minecraft things you can buy.

softawre 8y ago
In the same way that this OSS game engine is an advertisement for the developer who created it.
- alxmdev 8y ago
  To some extent, but going down this road leads to "artists should be thankful for exposure".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

anoncake 8y ago

MS is a for-profit company. If offering Minecraft classic made them no money, they wouldn't do it.

joshuamorton 8y ago
This is a cynical and wrong viewpoint. Companies are made up of people, and people don't always act in the absolute for-profit interests of the companies. Further, companies can, and do, sometimes take actions that aren't directly profit oriented. And the trope about shareholder liability making it illegal for a company to not act in a directly profitable way is wrong.
- anoncake 8y ago
  It's a cynical and mostly correct viewpoint. Companies that don't make their workers act in their profit interests exist, but they aren't successful. Microsoft is not among them. When the market works, at least. So it's actually quite possible that Microsoft is being nice and "inefficient" here.
  - drdeca 8y ago
    “Mostly correct” is also “somewhat incorrect”. Also, I think there are probably sufficiently small decreases in expected profit ithat many large companies would tolerate. And even aside from that, there is the possibility of a choice between options which does not have any large-enough-to-predict-or-evaluate-its-direction impact on the bottom line, and in these cases, the decision will likely be made in accordance with how some people working there prefer.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > “Mostly correct” is also “somewhat incorrect”. No model is perfect. I guess I should prioritize rhetorics in the future lest someone use my honesty against me. > Also, I think there are probably sufficiently small decreases in expected profit ithat many large companies would tolerate. There aren't. A company that accepts decreases in profit does not become large, it fails against its more psychopathic competitors. > And even aside from that, there is the possibility of a choice between options which does not have any large-enough-to-predict-or-evaluate-its-direction impact on the bottom line, and in these cases, the decision will likely be made in accordance with how some people working there prefer. If a company cannot predict whether an action is profitable, it will always decide against it and instead invest its resources in something that is.