Oolite Bulletins

Cmd. Cheyd,

Thanks for explaining this a bit in-depth. This stuff is completely new to me.

I can't seem to understand the conclusion you are taking about Oolite's oxps not building upon Oolite, though. The Creative Commons license says: "If you build upon a work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or a similar license to the one you built upon."

Now, with Oolite itself being CC, and oxps quite obviously being made for Oolite, not as wallhangings or graphical artifacts, how can that not mean that oxps have to be CC either? I mean, if I follow the argumentation you have laid out, the above sentence from CC would become entirely meaningless.

If even the mods for a game that can't seriously be used for anything else are not building upon that game, then what is? In other words, if you are correct, CC can eliminate the whole "build upon" sentence from their licensing texts, as you can always say "I could also study this printed out while hanging upside down Golden Gate bridge, so it is not restricted to such-and-such, it is not building on that one".

Slowly I get the bad feeling that one or two media lawyers with experience might have to be asked this question to get the obstacle of not knowing unambiguously what the legal part of the whole situation really is cleared up.

I would not have understood your reply as anyhow boycotting the OE idea, btw. You are trying to clear things up. And this issue has to be cleared before and if any other issues are cleared: Who is actually entitled to what on their own.

L

Lestradae, if it helps at all: oxps are applications that need Oolite in order to run.

Sure, without Oolite you can't run oxps, but it's not quite the point. Without m$ windows, you can't run any windows programs. Programs that run on top of windows - and that use windows api - are not derivatives of windows. If they were, I'm sure microsoft would be more than able to use all their lawyers to sue anybody who wrote a windows compatible program for being derivative, and to force every single windows app to be closed source.

Same thing applies for Linux - the vast majority of linux programs use a variety of open source licences, but there's quite a few commercial closed source applications & kernel level drivers. Yet again, the linux licence does not apply to programs and drivers, even though those programs & drivers would be useless without the underlying operating system.

If you were to change Oolite and distribute that changed copy of Oolite, sure, then you'd have to distribute that under GNU GPL, or CC-by-NC-SA.

However, oxps
a) are not part of the Oolite distribution package.
b) as a rule, they're not made by the same people.
c) they're not using any Oolite code.

Once more, they are not covered by the Oolite licence, just as Oolite (or photoshop, or open office) is not covered by the Windows licence.

I hope this helps - it's early in the morning and I'm 'a bit' rushed for time, so this might not be the clearest explanation ever!

Take care,

Kaks.

Lestradae wrote:

Now, with Oolite itself being CC, and oxps quite obviously being made for Oolite, not as wallhangings or graphical artifacts, how can that not mean that oxps have to be CC either? I mean, if I follow the argumentation you have laid out, the above sentence from CC would become entirely meaningless.

They are made for Oolite, not derived from it in most cases. The only exceptions, as noted by Ahruman are those which use textures/models/scripts from trunk or based on trunk, where those are derived from something under the CC license, hence the OXP that contains the derivatives also must be.

Oh and for general reference and as something else that would need to be clarified, would translation from XML to openStep (or vice-versa) count as a derivation? Unfortunately I think it would technically? Comments people?

Thargoid wrote:

Oh and for general reference and as something else that would need to be clarified, would translation from XML to openStep (or vice-versa) count as a derivation? Unfortunately I think it would technically? Comments people?

Changing a plist from xml to openstep would still contain the same raw data, so for all intents and purposes it would be a slightly elaborate form of C&P...
However, since the file checksum would be different, it would indeed be an alteration of the original work, so technically a derivative work.

For the record, I'd be more than happy for someone to do the grunt work of converting everything to openStep on my behalf!

Am I right in thinking that this whole legal issue is a result of people complaining that their OXPs have been incorporated into another Lestradae "One OXP"?

Licensing nightmares abound, it would seem. I'll be honest about this and provide an opinion rather than a legal standpoint. One of the things about this community that made me want to participate was the ability to create something that would be useful and appreciated. It was simple to do, it was simple to maintain and it was something I enjoyed.

I know time factors slowed down my work, and the last thing I was able to finish was the Mk2 Imperial Courier. That work was based on useful feedback from board members and my own wish to improve the model and make it more balanced.

Les, no offence is intended by the following paragraph. Apologies if anything is controversial.

The last thing that made me lose interest in the process was, to be honest, the advent of the RS OXP, since it now took all the OXPs and made them part of itself. My original objection was that, although I loved the RS concept and what it did, I didn't like the fact that everyone's OXPs had to be rolled into it and thus maintained independently.

I like source control. I like to try and make sure that stuff I write has one single definitive version so that everyone is working off the same page (aspects of project management there, sorry). Les originally refused to remove the V1 Imperial Courier despite my request to do so, and that meant that an OXP I wanted to "retire" was now being distributed more, not less.

So I lost interest in doing any more OXPs. What was the point, when my own wishes about my own creation were not being honoured? So I stopped. I have a memory stick full of ship designs (including the Dream Team stuff) that will never see the light of day, partially because of the advent of all of this licensing chaos. The development of new stuff became lower and lower priority for me when it became clear that more attention was being given to how to normalise OXPs and roll them all together into one place. At least, that's how it felt.

If there's a licensing model that gives me a say in how my stuff is distributed and allows me to say "if you want to use my stuff then can I please retain creative control over it and if I develop a new version you replace your version with the new one" and so on, then I would be happier to keep designing stuff.

My worry, and the point I'm trying to make with all that rambling, is that if this is how I (as a long time and loyal member of this community) feel, then any new designers/contributors may think twice before wanting to be part of it.

Ive got a bit lost by the detail of this thread.

But to me, it all comes down to a simple point, which I think L acknowleged a page or two back.

All this can easily be managed by (better) communication between OXP authors and a bit of flexibility. Im sure most people are happy to see most of their work used by others. Where people are not happy for this, they ought to be removed from RS/OSE, but even then, I expect people will be happy with a commitment that it will be done "when possible" -- I dont think anyone will be having their door kicked in by the authorities any time soon.

The only real problem is with orphaned OXPs which have sometimes been adopted and are in a state of legal limbo. And that is, to me the tradgedy of people not being explicit about their licensing arangements -- it means that if people disappear, it is not at all clear what can be done with their legacy. Can we even fix their bugs? Legally, I dont think we can.

But lets not get all witch-hunt about this. Nothing has been done maliciously, and I think there is a real desire to make the best of it moving forwards.

Selezen wrote:

If there's a licensing model that gives me a say in how my stuff is distributed and allows me to say "if you want to use my stuff then can I please retain creative control over it and if I develop a new version you replace your version with the new one" and so on, then I would be happier to keep designing stuff.

My worry, and the point I'm trying to make with all that rambling, is that if this is how I (as a long time and loyal member of this community) feel, then any new designers/contributors may think twice before wanting to be part of it.

Very valid feelings & concerns. In my view if people in a similar situation as yours were to issue CC No Derivative licences in the future, (with waivers on a case by case basis) we should have the best of both worlds, as per my mega-ramble on the other page. You'd maintain creative control, and the way OE can incorporate the new stuff would follow clear precedents, already established within the FOSS world.

There seems still to be a bit of confusion on Lestradae's part about the difference in licencing terms between Oolite and OXPs, centered on what 'derivative' actually means. Hopefully this possibly lingustic issue is just a minor one: when discussing the practical aspects of ND OXPs & OE we seemed to be in total agreement.

Lestradae wrote:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

It says there:

1) You are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work.

2) You are free to Remix — to adapt the work.

Note that point 2 exactly covers the topic of derivative works debated here.

It also says below (amongst other things):

"Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

Note that what you’re looking at is a summary, not the actual license.

Lestradae wrote:

And there we have it. Build upon this work. This is exactly and logically undisputably what Oolite's oxps do. They build upon Oolite itself.

The reason? Oxps can't be seen as "independent" of Oolite in any way, or something that "runs alongside". Without Oolite itself, they are completely useless lines of code that do nothing in and of themselves. They can exclusively be used together with Oolite! Therefore, oxps most definitely are derivative works of Oolite that build upon it!

This was the argument of the famous Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. case (about sale of Duke Nukem add-on bundles) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. It was, I’m happy to say, shot down. It would have been an extremely bad precedent; for instance, one might have used it to argue that Microsoft owns all Excel documents. (You can read the verdict on Wikisource if you have trouble sleeping. Fun fact: the “routinely vanquishes” line is not wiki vandalism.)

As far as I’m aware, the argument hasn’t been tested outside the US.

As for the issue of compilations: the copyright laws I’ve read (all three of them) have treated derivative works as separate categories subject to essentially the same rules. However, the “legal code” of CC licenses specifically allows inclusion in collections, under the original license. This only applies if it is literally the original work.

…Which rather suggests that if you really want to create a compilation of OXPs, you’d be better of designing a distribution infrastructure which can manage groups of OXPs. You’d need a back-end and front-end web coders.

Kaks wrote:

Same thing applies for Linux - the vast majority of linux programs use a variety of open source licences, but there's quite a few commercial closed source applications & kernel level drivers. Yet again, the linux licence does not apply to programs and drivers, even though those programs & drivers would be useless without the underlying operating system.

The binary drivers thing is a point of contention, you know. The FSF and Linus Torvalds tend towards Lestradae’s interpretation. The idea of the “Free Software Foundation” taking FormGen’s side is really a spectacular irony… wait, did I drift off topic there?

Thargoid wrote:

Oh and for general reference and as something else that would need to be clarified, would translation from XML to openStep (or vice-versa) count as a derivation? Unfortunately I think it would technically? Comments people?

Yes, definitely. In the particular case of CC licenses, it falls under “Adaptation” in the legal code.

Selezen wrote:

The last thing that made me lose interest in the process was, to be honest, the advent of the RS OXP, since it now took all the OXPs and made them part of itself. My original objection was that, although I loved the RS concept and what it did, I didn't like the fact that everyone's OXPs had to be rolled into it and thus maintained independently.

I feel I must point out that the shipdata_overrides and shipyard_overrides mechanisms were introduced – with significant advance notice – specifically so that Lestradae could rewrite RS in a way that didn’t duplicate OXP contents and also didn’t take the choice of which ships to use away from the user. As you may have noticed, this has not happened.

Ahruman wrote:

I feel I must point out that the shipdata_overrides and shipyard_overrides mechanisms were introduced – with significant advance notice – specifically so that Lestradae could rewrite RS in a way that didn’t duplicate OXP contents and also didn’t take the choice of which ships to use away from the user. As you may have noticed, this has not happened.

I was wondering about that, actually, when I wrote my last post - the fact is that Meta OXPs can now be created that don't need to have anyone else's work rolled into them. The question to be asked is why OSE doesn't use that functionality...

Thanks for that, Ahruman.

For the record (and I'll repeat this elsewhere) I just read that Little Bear has thrown in his development towel because of all this. That makes me angry and sad and is a sign of just how far this situation has taken us all.

i'll tell you what, all this legal obsession stuff is really deleted me off.

Lestradae, GIVE IT A deleted REST!!!!

we all write OXPs for pleasure and to add to a community. all because some people took offence to you changing work w/out asking ~ which as i said in an erlier was more a case of manners rather than legality ~ you seem to have gone off on major campaigns to prove that the licence says you can. well frankly, i don't give a good goddamn if the licence says you can or not. Let's put it simply : You CAN. okay? You CAN take any OXP and change it or tweak it or perhaps introduce bugs, and no one here is going to serve a lawsuit on you.
what is also will do, is not make you very popular at all if you do it w/out permission. so you decide how you want to play it. but frankly, deleted about all this legal deleted cos it's killing the community and it's already driven away one HIGHLY respected creator.

christ.



apologies all, but after losing Little Bear this is really making me lose my rag.
Moderator: Edited out harsh language. KW, using l33t5p34K and abbreviations does not change the fact that the comments are inflammatory. Yes, I understand how you feel.

Killer Wolf wrote:

what is also will do, is not make you very popular at all if you do it w/out permission. so you decide how you want to play it. but frankly, deleted about all this legal deleted cos it's killing the community and it's already driven away one HIGHLY respected creator.

That's exactly the thing that is going to stop me continuing to work on this.

Concerning the popularity issue:

1) I'm not here to be popular, I am (and perhaps soon was) here to invest my energy, time and creativity into this game.

2) I have not driven anyone away at all. This is again, simply, the usual flaming.

3) I am sure you old boys network who wanted me to go away from day one will be very popular by many players if I decide to pull all my work due to this "debate". Just to let you know, Realistic Shipyard download numbers stand around the 5300s atm.

4) I always wanted to debate things out, and when I ranted, it was a response at best. And very rare. Reread my threads and convince yourself. I am not responsible for this flamewar. YOU GUYS ARE.

L

yeah, why don't try and be a bit more martyr-complex, that post didnt' quite make it.
you're not here to be popular. what, you're struggling here to make an overring OXP for all our own good, though we're obviosuly too blind to see it? yet still you struggle on despite all the trial and tribulations. thanks, that's very noble. when it's completed i'll makes sure i download it so i can benefit.

you haven't driven anyone away. seems a thread elsewhere would give you an argument on that point.

old boys network. well done on being condescending. the only network here is a network of people who love creating stuff and take a huff when someone messes w/ it. look at the strop you threw when McLane's OXP altered your work. campaigns, poll, the lot. how would you feel if you proudly finish months of work on OE, and two weeks later i release an OXP that includes a cannibalised version of it w/ a dozen inconsistencies and bugs, and bits missing?

sorry for the previous post Ahruman, i'm saying nowt more ont he matter cos it's like talking to a brick wall. we've made sensible suggestions on how to go ahead from this point but still seem to stuck in a quagmire of legal debate.

Anybody who's downloaded buzzer.oxp may assume that LGPL v2.1 or later applies. (I've just updated the OXP to make this clear; there are no functional changes.)

Take a deep breath y'all...