5 ms·

"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, thi

"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
        "The key concept to take away from legal theory is that in the end, judges decide. " This depends. If whether it is a derivative work turns on a question of fact, the jury will decide it, not the judge. "The uncertainty and doubt that DannyBee comments seem to instill is a bit regrettable, since its not that complicated. " If you honestly believe this is "not that complicated", you have apparently found a way to solve a problem that has plagued software copyright law for 20+ years! You then go on to describe that it is not clearly defined, and there is no case law, which seems complicated to me! ". 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" With you so far. However, you then claim intent and industry standards go a long way: "When a judge look at a copyright case, intent and industry standards goes a long way." Which is it? Is there no precedential case law, or is the precedential software case law saying "intent about derivative works is what drives what a derivative work is". Because it can't be both! In any case, there is literally no industry standard here, and no intent in the written license text. The GPL says nothing about it (the word "derivative work" appears twice in the GPL 2.0, and neither is a definition). Large numbers of authors using the license disagree on what it means (happy to give specific examples if you like, i deal with this literally every day). "Judges does not seem amused when people trying to find loop holes or game the system." I agree with this, but it seems, at least to me, irrelevant to this discussion.
pedrocr 12y ago
>There is a roughly 0% chance this guy could force Mojang to open source anything. >He can stop them from distributing new versions with his code in it. That's it. He seems to be effectively saying "license the whole thing as GPL" or otherwise you can't use my contributions. That seems reasonable and could very well lead Mojang to at least license as GPL the decompiled source of their server, which they seem to have been happy to allow to continue to exist in the repository. He may instead be trying to get them to release the original code as GPL, which is probably not needed to comply with the GPL in this case.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "He seems to be effectively saying "license the whole thing as GPL" or otherwise you can't use my contributions." I think this is what he is saying, and agree that this is reasonable to do :) "He may instead be trying to get them to release the original code as GPL, which is probably not needed to comply with the GPL in this case." It's a bit of a grey area, depending on how it's linked, used, etc.
kevinpet 12y ago
There's one thing I'm curious of from the perspective of a lawyer, which is the part I didn't describe clearly. If someone were to post some piece of software online with a description saying, "go ahead and use it for anything you want" but then also include a LICENSE.txt that says it's only licensed for non-commercial use, would that original statement of "anything you want" make it harder to sue a commercial user? In this case, Bukkit and CraftBukkit are effectively the same project. Bukkit is the collection of plugins, CraftBukkit is the essentially the abstraction layer to allow those mods to run in the memory space of the Minecraft server. Regardless of what FSF thinks is a derivative work, and really regardless of what really is a derivative work under the law, everyone contributing to Bukkit seemed to be acting as if they thought plugins in the same memory space communicating over APIs was a perfectly legitimate use of their code, at least until this squabble.

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
      "The key concept to take away from legal theory is that in the end, judges decide. " This depends. If whether it is a derivative work turns on a question of fact, the jury will decide it, not the judge. "The uncertainty and doubt that DannyBee comments seem to instill is a bit regrettable, since its not that complicated. " If you honestly believe this is "not that complicated", you have apparently found a way to solve a problem that has plagued software copyright law for 20+ years! You then go on to describe that it is not clearly defined, and there is no case law, which seems complicated to me! ". 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" With you so far. However, you then claim intent and industry standards go a long way: "When a judge look at a copyright case, intent and industry standards goes a long way." Which is it? Is there no precedential case law, or is the precedential software case law saying "intent about derivative works is what drives what a derivative work is". Because it can't be both! In any case, there is literally no industry standard here, and no intent in the written license text. The GPL says nothing about it (the word "derivative work" appears twice in the GPL 2.0, and neither is a definition). Large numbers of authors using the license disagree on what it means (happy to give specific examples if you like, i deal with this literally every day). "Judges does not seem amused when people trying to find loop holes or game the system." I agree with this, but it seems, at least to me, irrelevant to this discussion.

pedrocr 12y ago

>There is a roughly 0% chance this guy could force Mojang to open source anything. >He can stop them from distributing new versions with his code in it. That's it. He seems to be effectively saying "license the whole thing as GPL" or otherwise you can't use my contributions. That seems reasonable and could very well lead Mojang to at least license as GPL the decompiled source of their server, which they seem to have been happy to allow to continue to exist in the repository. He may instead be trying to get them to release the original code as GPL, which is probably not needed to comply with the GPL in this case.

DannyBee 12y ago
"He seems to be effectively saying "license the whole thing as GPL" or otherwise you can't use my contributions." I think this is what he is saying, and agree that this is reasonable to do :) "He may instead be trying to get them to release the original code as GPL, which is probably not needed to comply with the GPL in this case." It's a bit of a grey area, depending on how it's linked, used, etc.

kevinpet 12y ago

There's one thing I'm curious of from the perspective of a lawyer, which is the part I didn't describe clearly. If someone were to post some piece of software online with a description saying, "go ahead and use it for anything you want" but then also include a LICENSE.txt that says it's only licensed for non-commercial use, would that original statement of "anything you want" make it harder to sue a commercial user? In this case, Bukkit and CraftBukkit are effectively the same project. Bukkit is the collection of plugins, CraftBukkit is the essentially the abstraction layer to allow those mods to run in the memory space of the Minecraft server. Regardless of what FSF thinks is a derivative work, and really regardless of what really is a derivative work under the law, everyone contributing to Bukkit seemed to be acting as if they thought plugins in the same memory space communicating over APIs was a perfectly legitimate use of their code, at least until this squabble.