Dawn of Light

PostPosted: **Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:51 am**

Cor thinks to think we are all violating the GPL by holding back custom code or scripts..

I have always taken it as core modifications really, not unique shard features or scripts.

And yes in an ideal world, everyone would share everything, but the world isn't perfect we know this.

I am bringing this up because of the few comments Cor said to me when I brought up Tobz posting some of Dracis custom code that he stole from our server machine itself on these boards which I removed, what kind of leg do I have to stand on here?

I usually have no problem sharing whatsoever, I used to post every single thing I wrote on the Data Dump, until it was all stolen from me, and I became closed source, so hrm.

What do you guys think.

PostPosted: **Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:23 am**

FYI: Tobz posted your lootable graves script on DOL Datadump.

As far as the GPL:

The lawyers where I work would say that Cor is right and if you modify any code in a GPL'd product, or bind any code to a GPL'd product (even scripts inheriting core classes would count as this in their opinion) and then you PUBLISH the work then you must release your derived work under the GPL.

The lawyers would also say that putting a server online available to the public counts as publishing your work. Only if you ran a server in your own home for your own personal use would they say it isn't publishing.

So basically in the web based products I develop for our customers I am not allowed to use any GPL'd code. Ever. If I do it they will shoot me. We are a closed source shop.

Now I am allowed to use MPL and BSD stuff, as well as LGPL as those licenses are different, and I can bind to the libraries all I want and only have to release the source for modifications I make to those libraries, not code I bind to them. The difference between binding is the biggest difference between LGPL and GPL. It's why LGPL exists (it's closer to MPL in that regards).

So anyways... according to those lawyers virtually the entire community of DOL Server operators who run public servers is in violation of the GPL as they shoud all be releasing all of their source to the community, unless DOL is licensed as LGPL or MPL vs. GPL.

Now that said, Smallhorse, etc. have never pushed folks to do this, and have allowed code to not be released by them. I'm just saying that by the strict interpretation according to the laywers I work with they could.

PostPosted: **Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:06 am**

The fact that running a server mean publishing the work can be discussed, as it is a service provided, and the whole gameserver bin isn't released to the public.

Here it the Article 3 :

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

But if your lawyers says that running a server count as publishing, then yes, you're all violating the GPL licence and you can all be pursued, then a court judgment can force you to release your code.

But as I said, I'm not sure about that, as you didn't receveid any copy of executable/ object code.

PostPosted: **Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:57 am**

... in theory

1) DOL should provide all neccessary features and shard owners would only need to fill DB's and or custom scripts

2) DB's and custom scripts do not count as DOL changes I think. After all they are external and do not modify the code basis of DOL.

3) Core changes that require a recompilation are a change of the server and those changes need to be publically available

That is the theory so far I think. And this is a good theory. It would allow Shard owners to have custom content and really cool features because they can make their own scripts (and in theory whole DOL should be modificable by scripts

) and also their own DB content.

This means that shards can differ a lot and they are not forced to publish. If they add core features however they are required to publish them which would help DOL and the whole community.

PostPosted: **Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:28 pm**

Perhaps you could publish this statement on the boards for users to read?

So they know stealing someones entire custom script codebase is wrong

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:20 am**

Smallhorse, I respect your opinion and I'm fine with it as I said in my message above. But I just wanted to mention regarding this:

2) DB's and custom scripts do not count as DOL changes I think. After all they are external and do not modify the code basis of DOL.

By the definition of "linking" that the lawyers I work with use, scripts would have to be GPL'd as well, unless they do not link to any DOL core libraries. To allow folks to be able to link to the DOL core libraries without consdering the scripts GPL, the DOL core librariers should be licensed under the LGPL according to them.

I don't care what you let people do but from a legal standpoint someone could possibly challenge this - not sure why anyone would but I figured I should point it out.

Alex: RE: Publishing - if publishing is only redistribution of the executable, then any company could rip off any GPL'd product, customize it, and re-use in a pay-to-use self hosted web based product they sell to their customers. Folks who are interested in the GPL (free software foundation, etc.) would go apeshit if I ripped off some open source portal site, enhanced it, and then sold access to it to my customer base as part of the web based platform we publish for our customers without releasing the enhancements.

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:37 am**

Hmmm, but that is a bit confusing XMLDude ... I admit, I am the last person to know about the exact law of GPL, but there is so much software out there that is totally commercial and on the homepage or the readme of the software you read things like the following:

"This software uses the GPL licensed library XXX to do XXX. You can get the full source code of this library at XXX"

For me this means they use a GPL library which they have not modified. But just by using it they don't have to publish their own work around it...

Unless I am totally wrong here and mixing things up I think that it is the same with DOL, isn't it?

And anyway, if those things really are as you say we really can consider a license change in one of the next releases... though I am not sure if a license change from GPL to LGPL can be done easily

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:20 am**

When I first went public with DOL I had anticipated that once the server was mature enough people were going to try to keep their scripts and modifications to themselves. It was for this very reason I chose to release all of DOL (scripts included) under the GPL from the very beginning. I wanted the law to be on my side should I ever decide I needed to force someone to release their scripts/code modifications. Even if the scripts weren't explicitly released under the GPL they are dynamically compiled into the core at runtime, in essence the emulator compiles itself, and thus the scripts are a part of the actual core (which is of course covered by the GPL).

DOL was founded with the free proliferation of information in mind. If it hadn't you yourself smallhorse (and most everybody else) would've never joined the team as DOL would've just been another CoAD. Etaew - Tobz did not steal your code as you are in violation of DOL's license (the GNU GPL) by not making it publicly available. I could cite all of the GPL passages but I think XmlDbDude has done an excellent job of that already.

Again with the public release of DOL it was my intention to force everyone, legally speaking, to make all of their scripts and modifications public. If you guys decide to change the license for any portion of DOL over to LGPL or a seperate license that is your business (though personally I hope you choose to keep it GPL). We have all put a lot of time into DOL and making it freely available. If it wasn't for us doing that nobody would have anything so I have nothing against forcing our users to do the same.

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:10 am**

He went onto a private server.. he took code without permission.. he stole it.. Cor its not that hard..

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:54 am**

I agree that scripts and fixes which add features that mirror live should be made public, however, custom features that make servers unique should remain property of that server.

The way this communiy seems to work is.. "X Shard has ### players, they have Y custom feature. Lets mirror that and get the same number of players, we can easily download their scripts and make the same server that they have."

I don't want this to happen, which is why we decided to not release the dracis code, atleast not at that time.

The fact that tobz used an account we gave him to test CL and went into areas of the server he was not authorized to go to, downloaded the code, and used information found in the test server xml db's to login to the server and wreak havoc on the client base (countless 50's, plat handed out like candy, rpts flowing like water, etc) was proof that his only intention was to cause damage.

I support a license change which lets administrators create their own content without the obligation to share every piece of custom code they create. and forces them to publish bug fixes and live-like features (RA's, Pets, Horses, etc)

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:47 pm**

He went onto a private server.. he took code without permission.. he stole it.. Cor its not that hard..

The GPL gave him permission to take it, something you fail to understand despite the fact that XmlDbDude has already made it quite clear as to why.

The fact that tobz used an account we gave him to test CL and went into areas of the server he was not authorized to go to, downloaded the code, and used information found in the test server xml db's to login to the server and wreak havoc on the client base (countless 50's, plat handed out like candy, rpts flowing like water, etc) was proof that his only intention was to cause damage.

Doesn't matter what his intent was. His right to the source code is still protected under the GPL.

If you go and read the license agreements and readme's that shipped with DOL from v1.0a to v1.4.1b you will see that all of this has been made quite clear from the very beginning. I have copies of almost every single DOL release up to the point where I left for training (v1.5b) if you'd like me to show you.

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:51 pm**

He does not have permission to take code in progress which WAS going to be released anyway.

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:54 pm**

It seems there is a misunderstanding.

In no way do I want closed content or allowing to keep secrets!

But there has to be a way for shard owners to keep their own scripts (not core features or additions, but unique server features) to themselves. If that possibility does not exist, then there won't be a shard variance and no shard owner would like to work on custom features because he would have to share them with all other shards.

As said, I am not talking about adding basic features that should be in all DAOC servers like keeps, housing, fight-system, spells etc... but what if a shard writes an own quest? ... a huge quest with hundreds of hours of work put in. Nothing secret about this quest, no new features for the server or any specialilies, but a nice story and a cool gameplay and stuff.

If we would force those shard-admins to share the quest, then they would not write it in the first place ...

Also I am still not convinced that scripts are GPL forced because you can say they are external text-documents that are processed by DOL. That they contain code snippets or are used by DOL in any way isn't important IMHO.

For example, imagine some GPL utility that processes Word documents. Perhaps a spell-checker... It loads, manipulates, converts, perhaps even saves those word documents or executes macros inside them... still those word documents hardly need to be GPL ...

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:55 pm**

DOL is code in progress but everybody has the right to take it do they not?

PostPosted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:57 pm**

Its the principle of taking before ready, and the cirumstances of his stealing was terrible, in a business environment we would be calling the police.