RunUO Community

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The low down on RunUO Scripts.

Status
Not open for further replies.

pex

Wanderer
Umm pex to use the script you are compiling otherwise it wouldn't work Runuo compiles them on start the script as a standalone is nothing without the Core server to compile it

Yeah, to use it. I'm saying that once its 'used' in any manner, it's a derivative work; up until that point, it is not. And what that would mean is I could code a script, and without testing it through RunUO (as testing would cause it to become GPL'd as a derivative work), and it would not be GPL'd itself...

and that relies on answering the question I put forth.
 

swtrse

Wanderer
Well every rule as an workaraound...

For example:
Class A is under GPL.
You write an class B that are a childclass of A.
Well it's true that this class has to be under GPL too but...
From that class B you can make calls to a class C that you write and this class C (that is a standalone class, that does not make use of any codes or objects that are under GPL) can be published without having to be under GPL. Class C can contain for example high academic algorithm you created.
Many companies use that method so it's not uncommon. The only thing that is to do to confom with the GPL is an informationtextfile that lists the parts that are GPL and the parts that are not.

So I don't understand why people are so upset about Ryans statement. However his statement is only half of the truth.

PS: Since RunUO scripts are compiled at runtime it would be a lot of work to change the behavier so that the given example can be realized with RunUO (class C has to be included in the linkprocess so core changes are nessesary).

PPS: And don't misunderstand me I am a great fan of free sourcecode and sharing my sorces (that are worth of sharing), but I don't like that gaging parts fo the GPL, however the main idea was good but there are better licences out there (my point of view).
 

Rift

Wanderer
pex said:
Yeah, to use it. I'm saying that once its 'used' in any manner, it's a derivative work; up until that point, it is not. And what that would mean is I could code a script, and without testing it through RunUO (as testing would cause it to become GPL'd as a derivative work), and it would not be GPL'd itself...

and that relies on answering the question I put forth.

if ya not going to use it then why write it there no point and Ryan is stating that the scripts that uses the classes or any the base classes are included in the GPL..... as long as ya not distributing it it really don't matter or compiling in in to a new object that includes GPL'd code and distributing it

swtrse said:
Well every rule as an workaraound...

For example:
Class A is under GPL.
You write an class B that are a childclass of A.
Well it's true that this class has to be under GPL too but...
From that class B you can make calls to a class C that you write and this class C (that is a standalone class, that does not make use of any codes or objects that are under GPL) can be published without having to be under GPL. Class C can contain for example high academic algorithm you created.
Many companies use that method so it's not uncommon. The only thing that is to do to confom with the GPL is an informationtextfile that lists the parts that are GPL and the parts that are not.

So I don't understand why people are so upset about Ryans statement. However his statement is only half of the truth.

PS: Since RunUO scripts are compiled at runtime it would be a lot of work to change the behavier so that the given example can be realized with RunUO (class C has to be included in the linkprocess so core changes are nessesary).

PPS: And don't misunderstand me I am a great fan of free sourcecode and sharing my sorces (that are worth of sharing), but I don't like that gaging parts fo the GPL, however the main idea was good but there are better licences out there (my point of view).

if ya planning on making a class C that B can interact with why bother with a script turn the Class C to a dll as long as it nots using code from any the other classes a dll would be fine I would think and not needed to be opensource......
if ya leaving class C in script form for the compiler its already in source form might not be GPL'd but its open anyhow so no biggie
 

swtrse

Wanderer
Well for RunUO scripts it realy don't make much sence to make a construct like that.
I'm just pointing out the posibillity to do it.
 

noobie

Wanderer
I have been a developer of an open source product(GPL licensed) about 2,5 years. It is unquestionable that all of the scripts you have written are licensed under GPL.

It doesnt matter that it calls the base classes indirectly. (Class b,c,d,e,f whatever)

If it would be that easy, some open-source products wouldnt have been using double licenses. (one is GPL, the other is kind of commercial to allow others to make their derivative works closed source)

Do not keep this nonsense discussion anymore please.
 

swtrse

Wanderer
Well you should be known better what you are working with....

The way you look at the thinks MS Windows has to be under the GPL too, because you can call Windows-DLL from GPL code.....(see whats your error is?)..so just as I sad before an class (of course in an own dll) has not to be GPL even if it's called from GPL code.

The rest can be discussed via private message. You are right thats GPL hardcorediscussion that is not understandable for many people and therefore should not be in this forum.
 

Courageous

Wanderer
swtrse said:
The rest can be discussed via private message. You are right thats GPL hardcorediscussion that is not understandable for many people and therefore should not be in this forum.

The FAQ entry for the GPL is not actually a license term, and therefor can offer no legal clarity for the GPL itself. There are many questions indeed whether or not simple derivation of a class would constitute a derived work under standard derived works definition of both black letter law and court procedure. Rhetorically, is it true that the name of a class, and the name of a few methods constitute a protectable element of a protected work?

It would be best for Ryan to enforce GPL headers for all posted scripts, as well as putting an "Agree" click thru on the scripts submission forums, so that posters of scripts are aware that they can only be offerred on a GPL basis. Ryan should then purge non-complying scripts.

It would be trivial for someone to write scripts in such a way that they did not satisfy the laws derived works requirement, in the same sense that RunUO by passes the laws own derived work rules for UO itself. For example, one could write a plugin loader, offer it under the GPL, but then write plugins not so bound. The plugin loader would be bound by the license, but nothing it loads would...

If Ryan wants the scripts posted to be GPL, he'll need to enforce that. It's good that he's taken this step to clarify things, because the GPL is actually somewhat vague about some of these areas, and the law even more so.

GPL has been well understood for library linkage for many years, however this can be different from derivation. To wit: in linkage, one is literally incorporating the behavior of the protected program into one's own program. With derivation, it can be entirely the opposite (although it's true that when one derives classes one also tends to call the methods in the base class).

For fun I have asked Richard Stallman to provide some deeper thoughts on this. Should be interesting if he elects to give me some of his rare keyboard time.

C//
 

Courageous

Wanderer
So i guess what i am really saying.. What is the point of fighting over who did what and why not try to work together like a community should?

Personally, I think that fighting is pointless, and you're right.

C//
 

darkstorm

Wanderer
The way you look at the thinks MS Windows has to be under the GPL too, because you can call Windows-DLL from GPL code.....(see whats your error is?)..so just as I sad before an class (of course in an own dll) has not to be GPL even if it's called from GPL code.

wrong wrong wrong

The license says, that it EXCLUDES system libraries:

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.

You still may not link to non-system libraries that are not compatible with the GPL from GPL code.
 

Courageous

Wanderer
Darkstorm:

That section of license does not cover what is considered a derived work, but rather what one is required to do when one distributes the original work or derived work. It is saying that the special exception is that one is not required to distribute "system" libraries that are linked with. IOW, it removes a burden of distribution for products that are otherwise generally widely available and so forth.

Some of Linux's original system libraries were full GPL'd, and Linus backed that off, precisely so that people could link with the libraries without being forced to be GPL (which the GPL would otherwise force).

C//
 

Cerberus

Wanderer
Can i just point out that the debate here is pointless..

Ryan has stated the position of RunUO as far as their interpretation of the GPL is concerned and that should be an end to it .. I dont think this thread was originally left open for the subject to be debated upon.

Its a typical situation where anyone can interperet the GPL to suit their own needs BUT the RunUO position on it has been made clear.

Sorry if you dont all feel the same way about the subject but I vote we just lock this thread and move along.
 

Courageous

Wanderer
Can i just point out that the debate here is pointless...

I don't agree. In talking through intellectual property issues, we all get to think things over, and as a consequence... learn. And since many of us are actually software professionals, or soon will be, the topic is broadly germaine to us as developers.

C//
 

swtrse

Wanderer
Cerberus said:
Can i just point out that the debate here is pointless..

Ryan has stated the position of RunUO as far as their interpretation of the GPL is concerned and that should be an end to it .. I dont think this thread was originally left open for the subject to be debated upon.

Wrong.

Ryan can say it 100 times how he interprets the GPL.
The only thing that counts is how a court in a process (if someone get accused for that) is interpreting the GPL. So discussion is not forced to be over after Ryans statement.
 

noobie

Wanderer
You cant have a single referece to GPL licensed libray directly/indirectly.

This is not open to discussion.
 

Courageous

Wanderer
"
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
"

This would seem to suggest that RunUO scripts are considered derived under terms of the GPL itself, if and only if the scripts are distributed with RunUO by the scripter. There are certainly people in the community who have said this sort of thing before, FYI. I am uncertain of Stallman's exact position on it, no less what the courts have had to say about it. What constitutes a derived work under the law and courts has always been a bit murky.


What I do have to wonder is this: if the RunUO team believes that the referencing something as trivial a class name and a few method names generates a derived work, how can they not believe that the wholesale incorporation of hundreds of megabytes of OSI original content into their server, on a regular basis, and as a matter of reduction to practice true for virtually every known RunUO instance in existence, does not likewise make their own source code a derivative work of EA's intellectual property?


This is a bit of a conundrum. I would argue that because RunUO is distributed without OSI's intellectual property, the distinctly separate act of distribution exempts it from derivation. But note, the same rule would apply to scripts, regardless of Ryan's opinion about it. The GPL is protecting his server, not the work of the various scripters.


Hence my suggestion to Ryan, to force submissions on the site to be GPL'd. No GPL, no submission allowed.

I'm personally okay with that.

But I am also of the opinion that the legal basis of Ryan's opinion isn't as sound as he would like to think.


C//
 

arul

Sorceror
These GPL things makes me wondering... theoretically, if Microsoft would have GPL' ed their System.Object class, then all .net applications in the world would have been GPL' ed too ? :confused:
 

swtrse

Wanderer
Well thats some people who do not understand GPL likes to think.

In fact it has not to be under GPL. The only rule is that you have to distribute and mark every GPL part along with your work. Thats if you just use some Librarys/Classes/Objects that are under GPL. If you update or bugfix an GPLed work of course the update/bugif is under GPL too.

So I think (and I would wonder if I'm not right)
-writing an new class from an Interfacte that is under GPL does not force the class to be under GPL too.
-extending an Interface that is under GPL does force the extention to be under GPL.

For people who do not belive think about Gimp and Gif-Support (can be support for any licened picturecompressionformat ^^^).
 

A_Li_N

Knight
Whereas I agree completely with Ryan in the fact that all things released are released to the public and the individual releases all 'ownership'.

However, even though the GPL can be interprited that way, I believe that there is still some sort of ownership of the scripts, if nothing more than the fact that 'I' made it (by 'I', I mean whoever made the script) and the idea and concept and work (effort) is mine.
Also, nobody knows what was going through 'my' mind when I was creating and writing the code, so nobody can know exactly what the system is suposed to do. When they try to update it or 'fix' it, they change it. This is completely 'legal', but it can cause confusion to the community that is trying to use it. I found this out when me and Lucid were working on All Spells...he had something that was working and I took it and changed it. Same concept but completely different implementation and I know it caused problems with people deciding (one reason I'm discontinuing it).

Also, in reference to 'me' doing the work, when someone takes that work and adds/changes/fixes it, technically it's not required to give credit, but as far as I know, this community runs on a good deal of respect and in the least, it's respectful to mention that the base of your release was someone else's.

Again, you don't HAVE to, but it's good practice and people will respect you more by doing so. That's just my opinion though.
 

Courageous

Wanderer
Whereas I agree completely with Ryan in the fact that all things released are released to the public and the individual releases all 'ownership'.

A GPL licensed entity is hardly "public". For that to happen, the law requires that the owner expressly state that the work is released into the public domain....

And setting aside the GPL discussion (let's talk about original code, not things that are arguably derived), and looking at posted code in general, one could conceivably post code with a license in the code that doesn't allow any use at all, other than, say, viewing it on the site. This would be both legal and actionable. I.e., if one were to violate the license, and were caught, one would have to stop, and a court would make one stop.

C//
 
Ryan said:
The scripts of RunUO are GPL. Not just the scripts we write, but the ones you write also.

These scripts are derivative works of the RunUO Distribution Core and Scripts thus are governed by the GPL. When you post a script here it is automatically licensed under the GPL. You are bound to the terms of the GPL.

If you do not like that, if you choose to not to support our licensing (GPL) then you are welcome to find another project that is not GPL based.

The entire point of the GPL is to ensure that the works are free to be distributed. That's why we chose it.

Learn it, live it and love it. Or get out of it.

The choice is yours.

I beg to differ on this. I believe that any work I do no matter what this code I create is supposed to run on is my wark and my decision where it goes when why and at what cost and under what conditions.

If you have some type of legal proof that what I script for runuo is as you say bound to the license of runuo then fair enough but I cannot see this as a legitimate recognized legal standing of any license.

I do not say this to protest the issue or anything but this is how I view it and would like to see further proofs of this statement before I simply go believing anything I do must be bount to a license I did not choose.

I do believe that if you have an agreement we all must accept before using runuo and this statement is included in that then yes this would be a solid fact and not just some statement I am hearing is supposed to be a fact.

Well like I said I am not exactly saying I am against this or protesting but would surely like to see where this is legally outlined somewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top