4 ms·

"The EULA for Minecraft says you can’t make money of Minecraft. If you make mods, they have to be free." I don't understand the legal theory behind this. I

"The EULA for Minecraft says you can’t make money of Minecraft. If you make mods, they have to be free." I don't understand the legal theory behind this. Is this contract law? If a programmer wrote a third-party mod without buying the software (say by reading an API description), would they still be bound to its terms? Also, does restricting modification like this infringe on "first sale" rights?

tptacek 12y ago
You're asking if there's such a thing as an enforceable noncommercial license?
- throwaway_yy2Di 12y ago
  Well there are well-known noncommercial clauses about redistribution of software. But this license is about restricting third-party modifications, like plugins, which don't contain copyrighted code, but do link to it and target its API. So yes I'm asking if that's enforceable, and what type of law allows for that (contract or copyright?). Or did you mean noncommercial use, as in evaluation licenses? (edit: several edits because I am confused)
  - avz 12y ago
    I think the recent Oracle vs Google case is relevant here as it involves the question of whether APIs are copyrightable. The case is about a subset of Java APIs included in Android. Note that the Android implementation exposed by those APIs is new and did not involve copying code from Java standard libraries (modulo rangeCheck()). The district court ruled that so long as implementation is different you are free to provide the same API. A federal circuit court reversed this ruling this year. The case is now back in the district court for consideration of whether the use of the API falls under the fair-use clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google
    - throwaway_yy2Di 12y ago
      One difference is that mods are meant to be linked against the proprietary implementation. In the discussion of GPL linking, this is really murky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lin... But I don't think either of those are really similar. Android is emulating the Java API, without Oracle code being involved. Programs that link against GPL libraries are intended to make runtime calls to copyrighted code. And game mods modify the copyrighted program's runtime behavior, having the program make calls to the modding code (in place of its own). I can't think of an analogue of the last situation.
  - nl 12y ago
    Minecraft doesn't have an official API, so modding involves decompiling and shipping recompiled Mojang-owned code. I'm pretty sure a restriction on that would hold up in most jurisdictions.
drewcrawford 12y ago
Well I'm no lawyer, but one legal theory you could argue is the one from MAI vs Peak. This is the one that holds that loading a computer program into ram for running is a copy that requires permission from the copyright holder. Therefore one would argue that by running this program, they ratified the EULA, or else they blatantly committed copyright infringement, which is probably worse than simple breach of contract. I know there are lawyers who seem to argue otherwise, for example the GPL states "You are not required to accept this license to receive or run a copy of the program". But I don't know if that statement has any legal basis in general, or if it's just the FSF granting permission to run covered software without accepting the GPL. As far as the US goes, I think it's the latter, but it may be different in other jurisdictions. I'm not a lawyer, please go hire someone if you really need to know.
tokenizerrr 12y ago
Minecraft does not have an API currently. If you are making mods you are decompiling the original Minecraft java source code, modifying it, and releasing a modified version of their original works.
- indiv0 12y ago
  Actually their EULA states that you are not allowed to redistribute Mojang's code (compiled or decompiled) in any way. Mods are created using the decompiled client, and built against that. But when they are released, they do not contain any of Mojang's code. Installing mods is done by copying compiled .class files into the client .jar
  - Filligree 12y ago
    > Installing mods is done by copying compiled .class files into the client .jar This is no longer true, except for Forge. What you're talking about is the old-style mod system, which has been obsolete for some number of years; nowadays they're dynamically linked from iterating over the mods/ folder.
belorn 12y ago
A court held that when a defendant purchased old copies of National Geographic magazine, tore out articles, and bound them together for sale with articles relating to a common subject matter, it had infringed on the owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y v. Classiﬁed Geographic, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 655 (D. Mass. 1939). Even if you do not do any copying, you can still infringe under copyright law. The theory is that the copyright owner has exclusively power to decide who should compile, adapt or arrange a copyrighted work. I recommend further reading at: http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=facschol http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
- drdeca 12y ago
  I would have thought that right of first sale should guarantee the right to do that. I guess not?
bradleyjg 12y ago
Blizzard has won some cases like this. Here's one complaint: https://pdf.yt/d/exHXLZNbCvuVq3v0 https://pdf.yt/d/exHXLZNbCvuVq3v0 The causes of action are: direct and secondary infringement of registered copyrights, trafficking in circumvention devices, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations. A couple of those might not apply in a clean room implementation, but the others would.

tptacek 12y ago

You're asking if there's such a thing as an enforceable noncommercial license?

throwaway_yy2Di 12y ago
Well there are well-known noncommercial clauses about redistribution of software. But this license is about restricting third-party modifications, like plugins, which don't contain copyrighted code, but do link to it and target its API. So yes I'm asking if that's enforceable, and what type of law allows for that (contract or copyright?). Or did you mean noncommercial use, as in evaluation licenses? (edit: several edits because I am confused)
- avz 12y ago
  I think the recent Oracle vs Google case is relevant here as it involves the question of whether APIs are copyrightable. The case is about a subset of Java APIs included in Android. Note that the Android implementation exposed by those APIs is new and did not involve copying code from Java standard libraries (modulo rangeCheck()). The district court ruled that so long as implementation is different you are free to provide the same API. A federal circuit court reversed this ruling this year. The case is now back in the district court for consideration of whether the use of the API falls under the fair-use clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google
  - throwaway_yy2Di 12y ago
    One difference is that mods are meant to be linked against the proprietary implementation. In the discussion of GPL linking, this is really murky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lin... But I don't think either of those are really similar. Android is emulating the Java API, without Oracle code being involved. Programs that link against GPL libraries are intended to make runtime calls to copyrighted code. And game mods modify the copyrighted program's runtime behavior, having the program make calls to the modding code (in place of its own). I can't think of an analogue of the last situation.
- nl 12y ago
  Minecraft doesn't have an official API, so modding involves decompiling and shipping recompiled Mojang-owned code. I'm pretty sure a restriction on that would hold up in most jurisdictions.

drewcrawford 12y ago

Well I'm no lawyer, but one legal theory you could argue is the one from MAI vs Peak. This is the one that holds that loading a computer program into ram for running is a copy that requires permission from the copyright holder. Therefore one would argue that by running this program, they ratified the EULA, or else they blatantly committed copyright infringement, which is probably worse than simple breach of contract. I know there are lawyers who seem to argue otherwise, for example the GPL states "You are not required to accept this license to receive or run a copy of the program". But I don't know if that statement has any legal basis in general, or if it's just the FSF granting permission to run covered software without accepting the GPL. As far as the US goes, I think it's the latter, but it may be different in other jurisdictions. I'm not a lawyer, please go hire someone if you really need to know.

tokenizerrr 12y ago

Minecraft does not have an API currently. If you are making mods you are decompiling the original Minecraft java source code, modifying it, and releasing a modified version of their original works.

indiv0 12y ago
Actually their EULA states that you are not allowed to redistribute Mojang's code (compiled or decompiled) in any way. Mods are created using the decompiled client, and built against that. But when they are released, they do not contain any of Mojang's code. Installing mods is done by copying compiled .class files into the client .jar
- Filligree 12y ago
  > Installing mods is done by copying compiled .class files into the client .jar This is no longer true, except for Forge. What you're talking about is the old-style mod system, which has been obsolete for some number of years; nowadays they're dynamically linked from iterating over the mods/ folder.

belorn 12y ago

A court held that when a defendant purchased old copies of National Geographic magazine, tore out articles, and bound them together for sale with articles relating to a common subject matter, it had infringed on the owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y v. Classiﬁed Geographic, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 655 (D. Mass. 1939). Even if you do not do any copying, you can still infringe under copyright law. The theory is that the copyright owner has exclusively power to decide who should compile, adapt or arrange a copyrighted work. I recommend further reading at: http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=facschol http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

drdeca 12y ago
I would have thought that right of first sale should guarantee the right to do that. I guess not?

bradleyjg 12y ago

Blizzard has won some cases like this. Here's one complaint: https://pdf.yt/d/exHXLZNbCvuVq3v0 https://pdf.yt/d/exHXLZNbCvuVq3v0 The causes of action are: direct and secondary infringement of registered copyrights, trafficking in circumvention devices, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations. A couple of those might not apply in a clean room implementation, but the others would.