How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

should "Disallowed licenses" paragraph in guidelines be changed?

NO
26
70%
YES:REMOVE COMPLETELY
2
5%
YES:BUT STILL DISALLOW SELLING THINGS FOR MONEY
3
8%
YES, MORE RESTRICTIVE = DISALLOWING MORE LICENSES
5
14%
YES, DO SOMETHING ELSE
1
3%
 
Total votes: 37

User avatar
Hume2
Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 08:24
GitHub: Hume2
In-game: Hume2
Location: Czech Republic

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Hume2 » Post

KGM wrote:does anyone care about the end user who finds less mods and subgames cause you are disallowing licenses????
No, we don't. Quality vs. quantity.
Why not, there are many minetest forks around, and mine would be the best anyway!
And perfectly LEGAL!
Yes, you should have already done it. Good luck!
If you lack the reality, go on a trip or find a job.

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
Posts: 3217
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
In-game: Linuxdirk
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Linuxdirk » Post

KGM wrote:does anyone care about the end user who finds less mods and subgames cause you are disallowing licenses????
You mean, your mods and subgames, right? Everyone else (your sock puppet accounts or your buttys will disagree on this of course) is absolutely happy with the current status.
KGM wrote:> Then go elsewhere, or start your own community.

Why not, there are many minetest forks around, and mine would be the best anyway!
Okay, bye then.

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

> your sock puppet accounts or your buttys will disagree on this of course.
Look at poll, and then tell once again I have sock puppet accounts!
Just one vote for my opinion! mine!
> Okay, bye then.
no one said I don't post my stuff in the wip subgames section, beside making a minetest fork. (also most likely first, because Im not fammiliar with deb packages and compiling) (maybe your community changes)
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
rubenwardy
Moderator
Posts: 6972
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 18:11
GitHub: rubenwardy
IRC: rubenwardy
In-game: rubenwardy
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by rubenwardy » Post

Hi, posting things with forbidden licenses in WIP sections will result in their removal
Renewed Tab (my browser add-on) | Donate | Mods | Minetest Modding Book

Hello profile reader

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

Why, wuzzy said it's ok.
This paragraph only affecs Mod Releases and Game Releases forums. Note the WIP sections are open to everything, even the most user-hostile licenses and fully copyrighted works are permitted there. So if you think this rule is a form of censorship, that's simply not true.
and the guidelines that forbid that are only in the release forums. :{ )
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4786
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Wuzzy » Post

@rubenwardy: Oooooh! I didn't know. It's not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines, isn't it? This should obviously be fixed.

Anyway, KGM. It is now clear why the thread was made. You obviously like to release your stuff under a no-derivates or some other restrictive license and want to dictate us what (not) to do. That's the only reason why thread was made. Instead of complying with the rules, you want the rules to be changed.

Well …

First of all, let me say that many claims in your posts regarding licensing are plain wrong. It's time for a debunking post!
Also, it's not impossible to legally fork a no-deriv software, you just have to convince the copyright owner to allow you doing so!
That's true. But also here lies the whole problem. You have zero guarantee that the copyright holder will actually grant you the permission. Remember the copyright holder wields near total power. If the copyright holder doesn't grant permission, you're screwed. Either the copyright holder is busy or gone and cannot be contacted. Or the copyright holder just doesn't like your nose and never grants you permission, even if you offer a ton of money. Worst of all, if the copyright holder dies one day, the work might continue to fall under the restriction FOR DECADES.

So this is just a permission society, in which you must ask for permission for every minor thing, and in many cases it will be impossible to get. We want to be better than that.
Your enemies are not the ones using no-deriv licenses, but the ones who copy your stuff, change it a bit, and then sell it for money!
(see minetest clones)
You are wrong. Proprietary software is, by definition, the enemy of free software, and no-derivates is by definition proprietary.
On the other hand, “earning money” is not immoral in itself and also not against the free software idea. The problem is not the money in itself. With a free software anyone can use it to earn money as long they don't go against the license. But so can anyone offer it for free. Capitalism is optional, not mandatory. The REAL problem is when you use the law to try to monopolize something. The monopolization is the critical aspect here, not the money. That way, you can ask for money, but you can't really force anyone to only obtain the work from you or to force everyone to not earn money except you. This distinction is critical.

The problem with Android forks is also not that they are (more or less) commercial, but that they often fail to give credit or share sources.
No-deriv allows you to stop perfectly legal missuse!
it's not the enemy, It's the rescue!
The flaw in your logic here is that you think any form of derivate work is automatically a form of abuse. This is not true. No-derivates forbids a TON of benefitial derivates works, it's a huge collaterral damage you are implicitly accepting here.
No-derivates means that even the tiniest change is forbidden. Bugfixes, translations, typo fixes, documentation fixes, improvements, etc. All of this is forbidden.
With no-derivates, a big part of our modding landscape would NOT exist, because our community heavily relied on derivate works. Insisting on this freedom was and is absolutely crucial.
KGM wrote:You know, at first, I also developed under gpl, but then I realized that it doesn't protect your work from being missused, since everybody knows what missuse means, but no one can define it. => you can't disallow it if you can not define it!
What are you talking about? The GPL is crystal clear.
The GPL very clearly states that common forms of abuse are ruled out, like failing to share the sources or giving credit. Or making a proprietary fork of the software. Evidence: Just read the freaking license! xD
While I am not a cheerleader for the GPL, at least get the facts right, please.
This is simply the polar opposite of what we stand for.
That might be true, but I think that this two poles can work together perfectly![/quote]
No, this is complete nonsense.
Proprietary software and free software are enemies forever, by definition. They can not work together. There is no middle ground. A software is either proprietary or it isn't. It's a binary, not a spectrum. “Working together” is also not possible unless either side decides to give up their principles and join the other side.
How about someone forking my work, changing it a little, taking the same license, mentioning me in a readme at the end. thaking all the credits :-( (*w*) >:{ ) #*!@!.
If someone takes credit for the whole program without actually putting any work in it while at the same time pretending the real core developers are just some unimportant short-time contributors, that would probably considered a violation.
And If they thake little addicted kid's pocket money using their forks? Thats far more worse than disallowing derivates as it deals true damage!
This is a real problem, but not one that should be solved with … umm … copyright. I mean, WTF?

There are all sorts of unjustices happening via software. But it would be unwise to try to fix them all using software licenses only. If you would design a license which disallows all sorts of usage of the software which you perceive as unjust acts, the license would just explode with paragraphs, it will become absurdly complex, with tons of regulations that are hard to understand and easy to violate even if you are well-meaning. That's also the reason “usage of the software” is one of the four freedoms of free software. It really should be obvious why this freedom is so essential. I mean, if you can't even use the software unrestricted, then you are not free.
then why not allow it? as you say, 99% of the software posted in Mod/Game Releases would stay free anyway!
do you really need that 1% ? :3
Your community has grown, and most members prefer free licenses, thus the few guys who prefer no derivative licenses wont "poison" it at all.
No, we probably don't need “that 1%” (probably the percentage is lower), that's why we had no problem in forbidding no-derivs.

Even if it would be 10%. It doesn't matter. It's a matter of principle. To us, no-derivates is absolutely unacceptable.

Let me look it the other way around: We did just fine with zero no-derivates software for years. So why should that change?
No-derivates software is simply not benefitial to our community. Our community heavily relies on derivate works, it will deal damage if we touch this freedom even just a bit.

I also think it is completely unjustified to allow no-derivates only because you, who apparently don't even fully understand the licenses you criticize, demand it.

Let me also remind you that Wikipedia + Wikimedia Commons have strict free-content-only policies and look: They still managed to become something awesome.

PLEASE do understand the licenses you apparently have a problem with. If you have good a specific question about a particular license, you probably get an answer.
You know, all minetest users look for subgames on the forums.

In SUBGAME RELEASES!!!!

If one can't put the subgame one made there, one have to make a minetest fork with the subgame as default!
Look. The thing is: Your arguments so far have been weak and show a serious lack of understanding of the subject matter. You claim that perticular licenses allow/forbid things which they actually don't do.

Here's the big picture as I see it:
You seem to be afraid that as soon you publish your work as free software, the evil vultures will come only waiting to hurt YOU.

I also like to clarify that there is nothing to be afraid of that when you release a software as free software. Actually, you might even benefit from it.
I have written and released a ton of mods (free software, of course) and never got screwed over.

Has the fact that usage of any kind was allowed harmed me? No. I think it's just really, really silly to first make a software and then forbid to use it in one form or another. I want the software to be used, so why should I forbid it?
Has the fact that free copying and distribution was allowed harmed me? Hell no! Why should I prevent people from distributing my work? I made mods to be used, and for that they have to be spread.
Has the fact that derivs were allowed harmed me? No. Quite the opposite, for MineClone 2 I had several people contributing patches and models (shoutout to 22i!).

My story is not unique, many heavy modders here have a very similar story.

---
Finally:

So, yes, there is a tiny minority of people who really desperately want to get their software under non-free terms out. Fine. But I draw a red line when those people want US, the community, to actively endorse and advertise such work. This is not the goal.
My argument still stands that those who insist on non-free are a tiny minority. If we lose a very few mods because of this, so be it. We still grow.
Note we do not (and can not) forbid you to create more mods under any license, but you can't just go around and demand from us to host your non-free mod as if you had a right to it.

Most people here do understand and accept the huge benefits for them and the community for following free software principles.

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

A compromise (License proposal) :
the work = the work this license comes with.
owner = the one who has the rights on the work
derivative = works based on the work.

how about a license that is like gpl, but when the owner thinks the work get's "stolen",

the owner can forbid that particular derivative that he thinks is to similar to the original.

the owner needs no reason for forbiding a derivative.

the owner can even forbid any further usage of the work as base of some type of derivatives. (if someone just creates a new one every two weeks).

"all derivatives" is also a valid type of derivatives.

if the owner wants to forbid a specific derivative, the owner must first send a warning to the person who published the derivative he wants to forbid.

If someone who published a derivative to whom the owner sent a warning does not remove his publication in two weeks (from the time the warning was sent to him on), the owner can send a cease and desist to him.

everyone who publishes a derivative based on the owners work has to offer the owner a contact to send a warning to (if nececary) without additional costs for the owner when doing so. this contact information must be connected to the publication. one must be able to find it easily when one found the publication. (most likely E mail link that comes with publication)

the owner can directly send a cease and desist to someone who published a derivative that belongs to a type of derivatives that was forbidden before the "someone" published it there.

the owner can not directly send a cease and desist to someone who published a derivative that belongs to a type of derivatives that was forbidden after the "someone" published it there.

the owner can not directly send a cease and desist to someone who published a derivative that belongs to a type of derivatives wich the owner never forbid.
Last edited by KGM on Tue Jul 24, 2018 13:34, edited 3 times in total.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
Posts: 3217
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
In-game: Linuxdirk
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Linuxdirk » Post

KGM wrote:A compromise:
A tl;dr of your text could be “I have no fucking clue how licensing works and what free licenses are about.”

Please stop embarrassing yourself and accept once and for all that no-one here except you wants software under non-free licenses in the forums.

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

the license sould not be free, it should fit your needs.
> Please stop embarrassing yourself
read forum rules. rude language is not allowed!

to explain the idea to you (i know, the proposal was very poorly formulated at first) :
if someone missuses the freedoms he got, the coder can take them back. (but he can't send a cease and desist directly if the freedoms where not taken back before the publishing that uses that taken back freedoms hapened)
Last edited by KGM on Tue Jul 24, 2018 13:32, edited 1 time in total.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
solars
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 15:16
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by solars » Post

KGM wrote:how about a license that is like gpl, but when the coder or a hair (who the coder choosed to get the rights on his work) thinks the coders work get's stolen,
If the code is under the GPL, it is stolen, when the fork disregards the rules of the GPL. In this case, you can forbid the fork or demand to stick to the GPL.
If the fork stick to the GPL, its not stolen.
KGM wrote:everyone who publishes a derivative based on the coders work has to offer the coder or his heir a way to send him a warning without additional costs for the coder or his heir. this contact information must be connected to the publication. one must be able to find it easily when one found the publication. (most likely E mail)
This is common on all legal webpages that allows uploads. You will find a address or a webformular on every page of this kind to report copyright violations.

I would say cool down. But this is impossible in Bonn Germany at this moment...

Image
weather.jpg
weather.jpg (52.59 KiB) Viewed 776 times
[/size]

They said High 33...
My big Minetest map Karsthafen: English thread / German thread / Youtube / German webpage

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

I know, gpl is smart (copyleft), you cannot build non gpl work on gpl work ; )
BUT, one can steal credits!
imagine i make a subgame, then someone else adds three mods, posts the whole thing under gpl, his version gets popular, mine does not, and he gets all the credits? wouldn't that be "stealing" a work to? this is exactly the case i'm worried about : (

this is THE CRUCIAL POINT!!!!!!!!!

if anyone finds a license that evades this thread without being "forbidden", that would be great!

btw, I once lived in bad godesberg, but we moved away... where I live now there are 'only' 32° C max

and that's good because these days you can't go out in bad godesbreg at night safely... ...to quote a game : too many fights happening around there...
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
solars
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 15:16
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by solars » Post

KGM wrote:BUT, one can steal credits!
imagine i make a subgame, then someone else adds three mods, posts the whole thing under gpl, his version gets popular, mine does not, and he gets all the credits? wouldn't that be "stealing" a work to? this is exactly the case i'm worried about : (

this is THE CRUCIAL POINT!!!!!!!!!
It's part of the GPL, that you can NOT steal the credits!
You can't get a GPL software, fork it and say it's only yours!
You can say, it's your version, but you must mention the original authors at the copyright text.
So everybody can see, who is the original author and who is the actual author.

If you write your programm from the scratch, yours is the original and the forks will be the forks. And all forks must name you as the original author.
My big Minetest map Karsthafen: English thread / German thread / Youtube / German webpage

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

It's part of the GPL, that you can NOT steal the credits!
You can't get a GPL software, fork it and say it's only yours!
You can say, it's your version, but you must mention the original authors at the copyright text.
So everybody can see, who is the original author and who is the actual author.
Can't you just mention yourself on your website, the download page, the wiki, and mention the original author in some readme noone really reads, at the end : "btw, this all is his work"
Last edited by KGM on Tue Jul 24, 2018 14:24, edited 1 time in total.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
Posts: 3217
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
In-game: Linuxdirk
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Linuxdirk » Post

KGM wrote:I know, gpl is smart (copyleft), you cannot build non gpl work on gpl work ; )
BUT, one can steal credits!
Sigh … I give up.

User avatar
Hume2
Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 08:24
GitHub: Hume2
In-game: Hume2
Location: Czech Republic

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Hume2 » Post

Linuxdirk wrote:Sigh … I give up.
That's a good idea! I give it up too.

And please, everyone, leave this topic too. This guy is harmless if you let him be. Really, there's no point of continuing this discussion. The rules are be still the same, even if we don't manage to convince this guy. Just, please, leave this topic, everyone, thanks.
If you lack the reality, go on a trip or find a job.

User avatar
v-rob
Developer
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 03:19
GitHub: v-rob
IRC: v-rob
Location: Right behind you.

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by v-rob » Post

KGM wrote:does anyone care about the end user who finds less mods and subgames cause you are disallowing licenses????
Less by maybe 10 mods in all? And as I said, I would never use a closed source mod. Whether it's posted or not, I wouldn't use it. I care about the end user in the way that I care about them having more freedom to do what they want with the mod.

So yes. I do care about the end user.

Oh well. I won't try to convince you, and I think you should do the same. We're all set in out ideas about the forum rules, and this discussion is frankly doing nothing except use up more memory on the forums, so I probably won't post here any more.
Core Developer | My Best Mods: Bridger - Slats - Stained Glass

User avatar
LMD
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 08:16
GitHub: appgurueu
IRC: appguru[eu]
In-game: LMD
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by LMD » Post

"I would never use a closed source mod"
- sorry, please gimme some time to laugh...
remember this is LUA...
It was not about closed-source licenses. The licenses KGM intends to use should only permit people from taking credits for KGM's work, which is already happening countless times all around the world : People are claiming others work as theirs.

"Less by maybe 10 Mods in all"
- unfounded estimated number...
Quite wrong, too - you have no clue of how many work KGM has spent into his (Sub)Game LOTH.

Therefore I can totally understand it if it's far too risky putting it here under some free license - all that work could be claimed by somebody ELSE.

And if that guy would also manage to advertise it better than KGM, I'd start to see RED.

See the relationship Minetest-Multicraft.
My stuff: Projects - Mods - Website

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

Would it be okay if I allowed derivates but only onder strict conditions concerning where they are posted?
(that i choose a place for all forks and everyone may put his one there and only there?)
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

sfan5
Moderator
Posts: 4094
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 09:44
GitHub: sfan5
IRC: sfan5
Location: Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by sfan5 » Post

KGM wrote:A compromise (License proposal) : [...]
You're describing a non-free license, since it doesn't unconditionally grant the fourth freedom.
LMD wrote:It was not about closed-source licenses. The licenses KGM intends to use should only permit people from taking credits for KGM's work [...].
It's still a "non-free" license.
KGM wrote:Would it be okay if I allowed derivates but only onder strict conditions concerning where they are posted?
No.
Mods: Mesecons | WorldEdit | Nuke & Minetest builds for Windows (32-bit & 64-bit)

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4786
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Wuzzy » Post

A compromise (License proposal) :
Your license proposal basically means that the copyright holder still has total control. If the freedoms the users got granted can be revoked at any time, they haven't been really freedoms in the first place. It was just an illusion.

So, this license is useless. It is basically just the same as copyright itself. So nobody has won anything. So this is not even a compromise.
Would it be okay if I allowed derivates but only onder strict conditions concerning where they are posted?
(that i choose a place for all forks and everyone may put his one there and only there?)
No. Sharing files freely over the Internet is one of the key freedoms of free software.


KGM, I hereby assign you a reading list:

Basics:
https://questioncopyright.org/understan ... ee_content
https://questioncopyright.org/how_to_free_your_work

Definitions:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
https://freedomdefined.org/Definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

The GPL:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl

Interview with an artist who struggled and struggles with copyright:
https://questioncopyright.org/nina_paley_sita_interview


Have fun.

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

"Disallowed licenses

Any game or content included therein that disallows derivatives cannot be published on this forum. These include CC NoDerivs and pretty much any closed source licenses."

Let's make a license that allows you to make and use derivatives, but that does not allow you to publish them. :-)
Any server owners will be fine with that, and your forbidden license stuff is fine with that, too.

In short, I grant you freedom 0 and freedom one ;-), the rest you have to ask for!

plus, look at this!

Image
____________________________________________________you^________________me^

that's not two poles! actually, both mental attitudes are NEXT to each other!
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4786
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Wuzzy » Post

Let's make a license that allows you to make and use derivatives
Hooray, you are finally OK with derivates! What changed your mind?
but that does not allow you to publish them. :-)
SIGH. Look. Here is what I don't get. Why are you so desperately trying to restrict the freedom of other people? What possible gain do you get from that? Nothing!
Any server owners will be fine with that, and your forbidden license stuff is fine with that, too.
I am, in fact, not fine with that. I did not write the rules, I merely commented them. How can you claim that any server owners are fine with that? Just because they might not “need” the freedom? What if they are not just a server operator? Some server operators like to post their modified versions they use on the server on the Internet. But for some reason this seems to an evil thing to you, so you want to forbid that. Where's the logic behind that?

And I agree, this is absolutely stupid that forum policy does not explicitly demand to allow redistribution. It shouldn't be that way. I am not sure if the writer of the policy actually meant that it's actually OK to forbid redistribution. So I wouldn't be so sure if you can actually publish such a mod here.

The graph does not actually proof that free software is a “spectrum”. Note there is a sharp line between FOSS and proprietary. There is no “just a little bit FOSS”. My statement holds true. free software vs proprietary IS a binary. Also note that software in the Public Domain is automatically free software too, as long you have the source code.
The word “protective” actually refers to copyleft, this is something entirely different.

I don't know where the “arrows” are supposed to be pointing, but in my font, yours are pointing to “Trade Secret” and mine points to “Proprietary Software”. o_O Weird.

Sidenote: You personally stand on the proprietary software side (for now).
I stand more on the public domain / non-protective FOSS license side, most of the mods I made myself are under a non-copyleft license. But I can still accept protective FOSS licenses. I draw the line at “proprietary”.

User avatar
LMD
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 08:16
GitHub: appgurueu
IRC: appguru[eu]
In-game: LMD
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by LMD » Post

I guess this is how the arrows should point : Image
:P
My stuff: Projects - Mods - Website

User avatar
KGM
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 19:57
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by KGM » Post

You know, i worked very hard on my subgame loth, and I want to get the credits!

I don't think that there are many vultures around in this community, but 1/one/a single/ein/un vulture is enough to do all the bad thinks, and if I release it under a free license, neither I nor you can stop this vulture if he/she exists,

so can you say that this community is 100% vulture free?

it's a binary! 1/one/a single/ein/un vulture is enough to do everything bad!

i use foss stuff, too, but if someone wants to publish a derivative that is far away enough from the original, I would most likely allow him to do so.
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them.

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4786
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy
Contact:

Re: How do you think about "Forbidden license" paragraph?

by Wuzzy » Post

Then just choose a license which requires credits. Where's the problem with that?
Some examples:
CC BY
CC BY-SA
GPL
LGPL
Asking for credit does not turn a license into a non-free one. And no, there is no way for someone to just weasel out of the requirement for giving credit. The freedom of derivates does not mean you can fake the credits, if they are required by the license. If you don't believe me, just take someone else's mod, remove all the credits, claim this has all been your hard work and no-one elses, then count the number of minutes until you get banned.
I really don't get it. You are imagining yourself a problem which does not exist.

It doesn't matter if the community is 100% vulture-free if the rules clearly say that you have to give credit properly.
I have yet to meet someone in the forums who deliberately and maliciously fakes credits, however.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: birdlover32767 and 13 guests