4 ms·

I think the game is the following: 1. Bukkit is GPL, developed without help from Mojang, but with a questionable use of the decompiled source. 2. Mojang likes

I think the game is the following: 1. Bukkit is GPL, developed without help from Mojang, but with a questionable use of the decompiled source. 2. Mojang likes Bukkit, hires some of the devs and buys name. And I'll assume the these core devs would be willing to assign copyright to Mojang. 3. (Eventually) One of these core devs, now a Mojang employee, makes a new release of CraftBukkit, including Bukkit and linked against the Mojang official server blob. Although the timing is different, this is exactly the situation with GPL libraries like Readline. You can't use them in a proprietary product. On the other hand, I suspect if this went to court, Mojang could argue that since that's all bukkit ever did, and this dev contributed to it while that was the case, the license should be interpreted as including something like the classpath exemption, because it's absurd to assume that people wrote code and distributed it but did not legally intend for it to be used in exactly that way.

DannyBee 12y ago
"Although the timing is different, this is exactly the situation with GPL libraries like Readline. You can't use them in a proprietary product. " Actually, this is disputed by a number of good open source lawyers. In particular, it's not clear what the line for derivative works is, despite what the FSF/etc claim. "On the other hand, I suspect if this went to court, Mojang could argue that since that's all bukkit ever did, and this dev contributed to it while that was the case, the license should be interpreted as including something like the classpath exemption, because it's absurd to assume that people wrote code and distributed it but did not legally intend for it to be used in exactly that way." I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Let me give you an official open source lawyer view: There is a roughly 0% chance this guy could force Mojang to open source anything. He can sue for CraftBukkit for copyright infringement over previous versions. He can stop them from distributing new versions with his code in it. That's it. This is because his rights are in his code, not Mojang's. At least in the US, he cannot sue for copyright infringement of someone else's source code, no matter what license it's released under. So once they removed his contributions, they would be fine, except for whatever damages already exist. If CraftBukkit included decompiled source without Mojang's authorization, the most likely outcome is that they would pay some small amount of money damages, and maybe be enjoined from distributing older versions.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Actually, this is disputed by a number of good open source lawyers. In particular, it's not clear what the line for derivative works is, despite what the FSF/etc claim. Could it be argued that the definition of a derivative work used in the GPL is a condition for distributing the GPL code? In other words, if you distribute readline you can't link against it for sure, but if you don't distribute it then whatever legal definition of "derivative" applies?
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    "Could it be argued that the definition of a derivative work used in the GPL is a condition for distributing the GPL code? " GPL does not redefine derivative work, or else, yes, you could argue that ;)
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      I guess I was thinking of the FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCOOPLang https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#T... - "Subclassing is creating a derivative work" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCLinkingWithGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#T... Also the preamble of LGPL2.1 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC2): When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
      - belorn 12y ago
        The key concept to take away from legal theory is that in the end, judges decide. The uncertainty and doubt that DannyBee comments seem to instill is a bit regrettable, since its not that complicated. A derivative work is a legal concept built on a few vague concept, neither which has been clearly defined, and the precedential case law for software derivatives is almost non-existent. What does exist is an industry standard, and a defined intent written in the license text. When a judge look at a copyright case, intent and industry standards goes a long way. Judges does not seem amused when people trying to find loop holes or game the system. Add that with the commonly commercial nature of cases that get brought to court, and I would not bet on the infringer getting a pass.

DannyBee 12y ago

"Although the timing is different, this is exactly the situation with GPL libraries like Readline. You can't use them in a proprietary product. " Actually, this is disputed by a number of good open source lawyers. In particular, it's not clear what the line for derivative works is, despite what the FSF/etc claim. "On the other hand, I suspect if this went to court, Mojang could argue that since that's all bukkit ever did, and this dev contributed to it while that was the case, the license should be interpreted as including something like the classpath exemption, because it's absurd to assume that people wrote code and distributed it but did not legally intend for it to be used in exactly that way." I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Let me give you an official open source lawyer view: There is a roughly 0% chance this guy could force Mojang to open source anything. He can sue for CraftBukkit for copyright infringement over previous versions. He can stop them from distributing new versions with his code in it. That's it. This is because his rights are in his code, not Mojang's. At least in the US, he cannot sue for copyright infringement of someone else's source code, no matter what license it's released under. So once they removed his contributions, they would be fine, except for whatever damages already exist. If CraftBukkit included decompiled source without Mojang's authorization, the most likely outcome is that they would pay some small amount of money damages, and maybe be enjoined from distributing older versions.

nitrogen 12y ago
Actually, this is disputed by a number of good open source lawyers. In particular, it's not clear what the line for derivative works is, despite what the FSF/etc claim. Could it be argued that the definition of a derivative work used in the GPL is a condition for distributing the GPL code? In other words, if you distribute readline you can't link against it for sure, but if you don't distribute it then whatever legal definition of "derivative" applies?
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "Could it be argued that the definition of a derivative work used in the GPL is a condition for distributing the GPL code? " GPL does not redefine derivative work, or else, yes, you could argue that ;)
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    I guess I was thinking of the FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCOOPLang https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#T... - "Subclassing is creating a derivative work" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCLinkingWithGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#T... Also the preamble of LGPL2.1 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC2): When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
    - belorn 12y ago
      The key concept to take away from legal theory is that in the end, judges decide. The uncertainty and doubt that DannyBee comments seem to instill is a bit regrettable, since its not that complicated. A derivative work is a legal concept built on a few vague concept, neither which has been clearly defined, and the precedential case law for software derivatives is almost non-existent. What does exist is an industry standard, and a defined intent written in the license text. When a judge look at a copyright case, intent and industry standards goes a long way. Judges does not seem amused when people trying to find loop holes or game the system. Add that with the commonly commercial nature of cases that get brought to court, and I would not bet on the infringer getting a pass.