@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.