4 ms·

Looking at the actual DMCA request [1], it's definitely weird. The argument seems to be that: * Wolvereness's contributions to CraftBukkit are licensed under t

Looking at the actual DMCA request [1], it's definitely weird. The argument seems to be that: * Wolvereness's contributions to CraftBukkit are licensed under the GPL, and therefore may only be redistributed on that license * CraftBukkit itself is released under the GPL * ...but Wolvereness claims that CraftBukkit includes Mojang's Minecraft server, which is proprietary (apparently this is disputed by Mojang themselves, though) * Therefore CraftBukkit's GPL license is illegitimate, and the CraftBukkit developers' right to use Wolvereness's contributions is terminated. Even if the factual claims in the DMCA takedown are correct (which is hard to verify now that the repository is offline), it strikes me as an abuse of the process. When you file a lawsuit, you have to demonstrate that you have standing because of some adverse effect that specifically affects you. By that logic, Wolvereness shouldn't be able to use a third party's copyright to enforce a takedown. [1]: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-09-05-CraftBukkit.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-09-05-CraftB...

DannyBee 12y ago
This seems to be accurate, except for #4. It does not make their license "illegitimate". It's true that he can terminate his right to use the contributions (particularly if no CLA was signed granting rights), contrary to their assertion that he can't because he knew what the licensing was. He can also sue for copyright infringement in previous versions. But that's it. At least in the US, the only one who could sue for copyright infringement is a copyright holder. That means, in this case, the folks who own copyright to CraftBukkit. Right now that includes him. They could remove his contributions, but that would not put them in compliance for the versions already distributed, and they could be sued for those. (For the curious, Breach of contract wise, third party beneficiary arguments around the GPL have repeatedly failed, AFAIK, so others trying to get source as beneficiaries have not succeeded).
- teraflop 12y ago
  Yeah, to be clear, I'm not arguing the validity of these positions, and #4 is the part I'm most suspicious of.
- Danieru 12y ago
  Just to be clear, if they did remove his contributions they must also make so none of the left over code is a derivative work. That would be a task beyond even a security audit. Mojang is not in a very business friendly situation right now. The only 100% not-lawsuit-libel approach is to either open source minecraft or rewrite the entire thing. They are still open to lawsuits related to the existing distributions but the traditional settlement is a combination of stopping to infringe and medium cash payment.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    Yes. This is why, when folks say "CLA's are not necessary, you'd just remove the code" (like bradley kuhn recently did), i think they are very very wrong :)
tedks 12y ago
The GPL states that any derivative work created by combining the GPL'd work and another work must be licensed under a GPL-compatible license. Violating any clause of the GPL revokes your copy of the license. So if I'm a company that distributes GPL'd binaries without providing corresponding source (a legal term in the GPL that means the preferred version of the source that a developer would edit, so decompiled code does NOT satisfy the license), I lose that license and am violating the copyright of the original author. In this case, Wolvereness' code has been incorporated into a derivative work, with other code (the Mojang decompilation) that isn't licensed compatibly with the GPL. Note that the form of the copyrighted work (the Mojang Minecraft server) is irrelevant. Mojang's copyrighted work is there, whether it's decompiled or in binary form or in any other form. The work is the same, much in the same way a vinyl record, a digital file, and a live performance all can contain the same copyrighted work. I don't think this is weird at all; this is a very straightforward case of GPL incompatibility. If Wolvereness wanted to include an exception for linking to the Mojang server, he could have done so using the infrastructure in the GPLv3, or with a special exception in the GPLv2. Mojang has definitely violated the GPL, and as such they have no claim to Wolvereness's license. Wolvereness is the party with standing here.
- tzs 12y ago
  Didn't he implicitly include a GPL exception when he contributed his GPL code to a project that was not GPL? If I'm understanding this correctly, CraftBukkit purports to be GPL, but includes disassembled, deobfuscated code that they did not own and was not available under a GPL compatible license.
  - tedks 12y ago
    No. There's no such thing as an "implicit" GPL exception. You're right that the original CraftBukkit project equally violated the GPL, but now that Mojang is distributing it, they're the ones liable for the violation.
    - tzs 12y ago
      > No. There's no such thing as an "implicit" GPL exception. You don't think a court would use some equitable doctrine such as estoppel to find that if I explicitly contribute my code to a project with the intent that they include it and distribute it, I am giving them whatever licenses is necessary to allow that?

DannyBee 12y ago

This seems to be accurate, except for #4. It does not make their license "illegitimate". It's true that he can terminate his right to use the contributions (particularly if no CLA was signed granting rights), contrary to their assertion that he can't because he knew what the licensing was. He can also sue for copyright infringement in previous versions. But that's it. At least in the US, the only one who could sue for copyright infringement is a copyright holder. That means, in this case, the folks who own copyright to CraftBukkit. Right now that includes him. They could remove his contributions, but that would not put them in compliance for the versions already distributed, and they could be sued for those. (For the curious, Breach of contract wise, third party beneficiary arguments around the GPL have repeatedly failed, AFAIK, so others trying to get source as beneficiaries have not succeeded).

teraflop 12y ago
Yeah, to be clear, I'm not arguing the validity of these positions, and #4 is the part I'm most suspicious of.
Danieru 12y ago
Just to be clear, if they did remove his contributions they must also make so none of the left over code is a derivative work. That would be a task beyond even a security audit. Mojang is not in a very business friendly situation right now. The only 100% not-lawsuit-libel approach is to either open source minecraft or rewrite the entire thing. They are still open to lawsuits related to the existing distributions but the traditional settlement is a combination of stopping to infringe and medium cash payment.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Yes. This is why, when folks say "CLA's are not necessary, you'd just remove the code" (like bradley kuhn recently did), i think they are very very wrong :)

tedks 12y ago

The GPL states that any derivative work created by combining the GPL'd work and another work must be licensed under a GPL-compatible license. Violating any clause of the GPL revokes your copy of the license. So if I'm a company that distributes GPL'd binaries without providing corresponding source (a legal term in the GPL that means the preferred version of the source that a developer would edit, so decompiled code does NOT satisfy the license), I lose that license and am violating the copyright of the original author. In this case, Wolvereness' code has been incorporated into a derivative work, with other code (the Mojang decompilation) that isn't licensed compatibly with the GPL. Note that the form of the copyrighted work (the Mojang Minecraft server) is irrelevant. Mojang's copyrighted work is there, whether it's decompiled or in binary form or in any other form. The work is the same, much in the same way a vinyl record, a digital file, and a live performance all can contain the same copyrighted work. I don't think this is weird at all; this is a very straightforward case of GPL incompatibility. If Wolvereness wanted to include an exception for linking to the Mojang server, he could have done so using the infrastructure in the GPLv3, or with a special exception in the GPLv2. Mojang has definitely violated the GPL, and as such they have no claim to Wolvereness's license. Wolvereness is the party with standing here.

tzs 12y ago
Didn't he implicitly include a GPL exception when he contributed his GPL code to a project that was not GPL? If I'm understanding this correctly, CraftBukkit purports to be GPL, but includes disassembled, deobfuscated code that they did not own and was not available under a GPL compatible license.
- tedks 12y ago
  No. There's no such thing as an "implicit" GPL exception. You're right that the original CraftBukkit project equally violated the GPL, but now that Mojang is distributing it, they're the ones liable for the violation.
  - tzs 12y ago
    > No. There's no such thing as an "implicit" GPL exception. You don't think a court would use some equitable doctrine such as estoppel to find that if I explicitly contribute my code to a project with the intent that they include it and distribute it, I am giving them whatever licenses is necessary to allow that?