GPL distribution requirements and Linux

[phantombeta]

- game code under the GPL. What's making this even worse is that DN3D was licensed under the GPL2+ but some bonehead removed the + part and I haven't been able to track down who that was. All I know is that JFDuke still retained the original license but the first EDuke32 commit had it removed. I don't even know if such a change is legal because it took away some rights.

- lots of more recent code without any clear usage rights. We can only guess what was intended, my impression is that nobody cared because the combination they have isn't legal to begin with.

Sounds like it's time to sic the FSF on them

[Redneckerz]

I cannot "consider" a license for code I haven't written.
ZMusic contains large portions of third party code and the games this could be used for normally cannot choose their license. Which means I need a version under a permissive license - at most LGPLv2 - but this would leave out some of the integrated players so I want to provide an alternative that contains everything - but that requires GPLv3.

Would a GZ-GPL license of your own customary make sense? That would basically be something that's halfway inbetween a permissive license and a public domain one, with an angle towards the former.

[Rachael]

Would a GZ-GPL license of your own customary make sense? That would basically be something that's halfway inbetween a permissive license and a public domain one, with an angle towards the former.

That can't even be considered.

Once code is GPL, it's GPL forever, unless the original author states otherwise. And even then - if you do a rerelease later under a more restrictive license, any code you've once released under the GPL is still valid to be used under the GPL license. Obviously, if you re-release under a more permissive license (BSD) then any work you do after the license change applies to the new code.

[Graf Zahl]

Once code is GPL, it's GPL forever, unless the original author states otherwise

Even the original author cannot revoke a license. All they can do is re-release it under a different one - but the original will forever be under its original license, and that goes for all licenses, of course, not just the GPL.

In terms of Duke Nukem that'd mean that I could use the JFDuke code under the GPLv3 (because it's GPL2+, emphasis on +) but none of the later additions and changes. In this particular case the old code is worthless, though, because it is fundamentally incompatible with 64 bit, so good luck using that on modern systems.

[Rachael]

Even the original author cannot revoke a license.

Yeah I meant to say that - I guess it didn't come through clear enough in my post. But this is what I meant that even if you change your code license, what was once GPL will always be GPL - meaning if you down the line decide to go for a more restrictive license for your once GPL code, anything that was previously released under the GPL still follows the terms of the GPL and that cannot be changed.

Boy this subject is complicated as hell to explain - but it's a lot easier to think of in terms of time slices - every individual point of time existing in a vacuum independent of other points going forward or backward in the time line.

[Chris]

I have a program that is licensed under a non-GPL-compatible license.
I have a library that allows building both a GPL compliant and a non-GPL compliant variant with different feature sets.
I want to provide a means for the program to use the library, but obviously ensure that the licenses' conditions are being honored.

Give the library's non-GPL (or the GPL) version a different filename? If you have a non-GPL-compatible program, to violate the license you would have to knowingly link against the GPL-named library, and vice-versa. This would also allow them to be distributed side-by-side, as long as the licenses allow such redistribution, and each app will link with whichever it needs without stepping on each others' toes.

Even the original author cannot revoke a license.

Yeah I meant to say that - I guess it didn't come through clear enough in my post. But this is what I meant that even if you change your code license, what was once GPL will always be GPL - meaning if you down the line decide to go for a more restrictive license for your once GPL code, anything that was previously released under the GPL still follows the terms of the GPL and that cannot be changed.

That's licensing in general, and can just as easily work against the GPL too (actually more easily, I'd say). For instance, if I have some code released under the BSD-3 Clause license, that allows people to make any proprietary changes they want and keep the result closed-source. If I then decide this is unfair to use my work and make improvements that neither I or other users of my work can benefit from, and relicense it under the (L)GPL, it's doesn't change what was already released. People can still take the old version and make any proprietary changes they want without disclosing what changes were made (they have to say it is modified, but don't need to give any further details). Worse, any additional changes I then make to the (L)GPL version could be integrated into someone's modified BSD version without anyone knowing since the latter is closed source (and it would be very difficult to prove if you suspected it, especially for hobbyists that don't have the means for a long court battle).

At least if you switch away from the GPL, the modified versions of the old GPL code needs to remain open source and can be more easily looked at for violations like integrating incompatibly-licensed changes from future releases.

[leileilol]

yeah I don't think Debian downstream will find that roland-derived soundfont and FM timbres ripped from other videogames taken in from bisqwit's driver very Free. Probably not the brightmaps either.

In my Debian experience i've had a downstream division for OA because i've committed the sin of including .qvm bytecode in the data pk3 because the LCC used to compile it is non-Free EVIL!!!! (but however packing the qvm's necessary for the cross-platform support and code security as checksum checks occur on the pk3s, and I can't ensure the same for binaries outside the pk3s, ironically making the debian version less secure). Hypocritically, in the meantime they have obvious flagrant copyright/trademark violations like Eat The Whistle, Pingus, Neverball, etc. rotting in all of their release archives because the concern is priority on different COPYING files than snapping recognizable stuff directly from pop culture...

[SanyaWaffles]

Honestly I get licensing is important but it seems like this is ultra complicating something so the layman cannot understand it. I've been trying to go over this thread and understand alot of the licenses being mentioned... I consider myself to be good at reading comprehension and yet I find these incredibly hard to understand. And the fact there's so many complicates things... and so many of them are incompatible and so many of them are driven by their own needs and agendas... it seems really difficult for someone like me to understand it.

Honestly from what I've heard about 'Free Software' it seems ironically very restrictive, especially if you want to dare actually put food on the table.

[Rachael]

Honestly from what I've heard about 'Free Software' it seems ironically very restrictive, especially if you want to dare actually put food on the table.

That's the thing.

The Free Software Foundation definitely has good goals, but in many ways their rules hurt the very people they are trying to help. The GPL is just one example of that.

What would be far better is if creators are rewarded for their work in some way, even when it is shared to all, but that's not something any software or source code license can do on its own. Luckily, companies like Patreon exist, and while a lot could be said about it how it's not 100% perfect, it's better than nothing.

[SanyaWaffles]

So... the FSF definitely has good intentions but their execution has been incredibly lackluster. That pretty much sums up everything in the world.

[dpJudas]

I'm pro open source but very much anti-FSF. Their vision of the future, their unrealistic ideas of how I'm supposed to make money as a software developer, along with their war on proprietary software (especially hardware drivers) is something I don't want to have anything to do with. They don't care how much collateral damage something causes as long as it furthers their agenda.

[Chris]

Honestly I get licensing is important but it seems like this is ultra complicating something so the layman cannot understand it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of copyright. Licensing is a requirement, as without a license no one receiving the code/program could do anything with it. A license is what grants a user rights to it. There is what's called an implied license (when selling/transferring ownership of a copy, for instance), but that's a whole other can of worms about when it applies and what exactly it entails.

Honestly from what I've heard about 'Free Software' it seems ironically very restrictive, especially if you want to dare actually put food on the table.

Unless you willingly let it into the public domain, any license will be restrictive in some way. It's just a question about what restrictions and against whom. For instance, GPL (or "copy-left" style) licensed code can be freely modified and distributed, but you can't prevent others you give that code to from having those same rights to modify and distribute if they want to. Someone modifying the code is restricted from adding further restrictions for the recipients. Meanwhile, BSD (or "permissive" style) licensed code can also be modified and distributed, with any additional restrictions for the recipients as desired. Someone modifying the code is free to add more restrictions to others.

These are different philosophical points of view -- are you free to make it non-free for others? -- but in the end, someone will be told "no, you're not allowed to do that" regardless. That's the nature of copyright and licensing, and won't go away short of giving up your copyright (which some jurisdictions don't allow doing, funny enough). Copy-left and permissive licensing are just tackling the issue of non-free/proprietary software from different perspectives.

[Rachael]

And that all looks good in writing, but in practice it's more trouble than it's worth. Just ask the simple question "can I put GPLv2 code in a GPLv3 project?" and you have effectively summed up GPL's problems in a nutshell.

I'm not as anti-FSF as dpJudas is, but I have pretty big problems with GPL and its invasiveness. By licensing BSD, do I lose control over my code when it reaches someone else's hands? Sure. But I am not a control freak about it, I'm not going to flip my shit over it (unlike SOME people do in the Doom community) every time someone skirts just barely outside the line. At the very least, my BSD code can be stuck in someone else's GPL project, be it GPLv2 or GPLv3, and it doesn't matter.

Generally, the way I see it, good people will give you credit and share-alike just as you shared to them. You can't force everyone to be a good people - all you can do is remove yourself from any situation dealing with them.

[SanyaWaffles]

For me the problem is when a layman can't understand your licensing and you need a lawyer to understand it, that's a problem... and even if you dare decide to use a license that's as simple, if it's not compatible with these other licenses you can't use it. So it becomes a problem.

Honestly I pretty much agree with Rachael.

[leileilol]

Honestly from what I've heard about 'Free Software' it seems ironically very restrictive, especially if you want to dare actually put food on the table.

That's the thing.

The Free Software Foundation definitely has good goals, but in many ways their rules hurt the very people they are trying to help. The GPL is just one example of that.

Yeah. Recently there's been "vision" and discord shaming by those who make nothing but play bad faith. It's very much got the "free speech" fandom part down alright.... ages ago i'd get shit for making models in blender than having 'human readable source' by having characters made out of scripted spheres or some shit to comply with the GPL or so. The length some go for "free for me but not for thee" gatekeepery... hobbyist open source gamedev shouldn't mean being stuck on mailing lists/irc arguments with ever-unsatisfied loud old men eternally.