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.
- Thread starter Ryan
- Start date
- Status
Every release up till RunUO 1.0.0 required you to agree to a license. Incase your wondering, that license gave the rights to your scripts to RunUO.
The Scripts directory and Core are both protected by a GPL license. By using ANY code from RunUO directory, you agree that your work if released to the public will be released under the same license.
This means clearly you have to release the source code to your work.
Why are you making a big deal about it, I don't see alot of your work being posted so you don't have to worry about anything.
Courageous
Wanderer
The only license one agrees to is the GPL, which relies on basic copyright law, generally without modification, for its definition of what constitutes a derived work.
On a DOS box, I sometimes write .bat files. Are these scripts, which definitely incorporate behaviors from cmd.exe, derived works of cmd.exe and therefore belong to Microsoft? When I write Java programs, which often subclass files in the JDK, are these derived works of Java itself, and belong to Sun? Is there any scripting environment that you know of, where it is the accepted practice of the community that the scripts belong to the person who wrote the script engine?
I say no.
And I'll repeat my discussion from before: if one thinks the answer is "yes," why does one believe that the trivial act of using a few names and methods from a class, which is relatively minor, count as making a significant bit of code "derivative", where the major and wholesale incorporation of EA intellectual property into RunUO (namely in the form of the base maps that are used in virtually every RunUO shard and notably the RunUO author's shards) does not?
It's my belief that what separates RunUO from the EA material is the distinct and separate acts of distribution. The fact that it is distributed as an atom, makes it an atom. This belief of mine isn't held in a vacuum. There's a long history of legal precedent.
If you'll notice, that's how scripts are usually distributed: distinctly and separate.
C//
Courageous
Wanderer
I don't understand the problem, if you don't want to release your scripts and thus be forced to release them under the GPL license then don't release them.
There is some disagreement that releasing a script constitutes a derived work that GPL would therefore cover. Not a derived work, not something that the GPL addresses.
C//
There is some disagreement that releasing a script constitutes a derived work that GPL would therefore cover. Not a derived work, not something that the GPL addresses.
C//
Courageous
Wanderer
The fact is there is almost no code you can create that does not use GPL code in some fashion.
RunUO uses EA copyrighted material in "some" rather significant fashion.
The separation of the runuo code as its own thing, distributed separately, is what saves it.
I've said this thrice now.
C//
RunUO uses EA copyrighted material in "some" rather significant fashion.
The separation of the runuo code as its own thing, distributed separately, is what saves it.
I've said this thrice now.
C//
Courageous said:
You can say it as many times as you want, you can say as authors we have rights to our code, it doesn't make it true.
If Ryan says my code, is protected and released under the GPL license then I accept it. Unless you release code it shouldn't matter what the policy is, because you can only be held to that license if you release your work.
A_Li_N said:
Respect is really the main issue here from what I see as this came about (the discussion) due to a few people updating 1.0 scripts. Give credit where credit is due no matter what because they are the ones that made the effort to create something unique for others to enjoy and that is one major thing that keeps RunUO great, people sharing with others and everyone attempting to contribute for a common goal. Give credit when credit is due is all I am saying and show respect to the original person that worked hard in creating their work.
Zippy
Razor Creator
I'll grant you that it may be true that scripts which inherit from RunUO classes are questionably covered under the GPL as derived works.... But honestly how many scripts do you think are written that do not contain any code from the distribution scripts? AFAIK using original RunUO scripts (which are GPL) as a base means the GPL will apply to the new script. Since those are GPL, any code based on them would also ne GPL, etc....
This case itself covers probably 90-95% of all scripts created for RunUO. I cannot think of a lot of instances when coding for 2 different servers that I created entire scripts (other than a few basic monsters/special items... nothing of consequince) that didn't start with some other similar or related script as a base.
This case itself covers probably 90-95% of all scripts created for RunUO. I cannot think of a lot of instances when coding for 2 different servers that I created entire scripts (other than a few basic monsters/special items... nothing of consequince) that didn't start with some other similar or related script as a base.
Courageous
Wanderer
Emphatically agree with you, Zippy. Delta'ing a runuo script is without question a derivative work.
I do hope everyone reading and participating in this thread doesn't lose sight of one simple fact: everyone who's publishing scripts indeed has elected to share. That's a good thing, I think we can all agree.
Most people don't specify the manner in which they are sharing. I specify. I say that use for a shard is allowed. This is what the act of publication here on this site would imply, to any reasonable mind, but I do go to the trouble of making it clear. If someone were to delta and republish my code, however, I might get cranky. It would all depend.
Consider my LOS code. This is a significant whole work in and of itself. I have not made a decision to GPL it, and don't consider it GPL'd. I might consider it, if asked, but I don't consider myself to have been asked. I did not begin my work with the belief that what I was doing required that. And since I have not licensed it in such a fashion, there is nothing to require that it be that... not even a court.
As for the finer points of what copyright law requires, or what the GPL requires or purports to require, well, some of us "scripters" are actually professional programmers (or certainly will be some day). Examining, learning about, arguing about the particulars of intellectual property licensing is important to the all of us, know it or not.
Take Ryan for example. If it were true that the actual law and court reduction-to-practice for something like original scripts did not mean they were derived works, and Ryan intended for all such scripts to be GPL, Ryan might need to think about engaging his community differently. As would the others on the core team.
C//
Courageous
Wanderer
Ryan:
While the judgement of the courts and the law with regards to what does or doesn't constitute a derivative work is murkier, the rules with regards to remedies and license compliance are not. They are crystal clear. Any entity, even if they are ruled to be infringing, is not required to submit to a license of this sort. Choices are cease distribution, modify the work to not infringe, or submit to the license.
It's not just me that isn't GPL'd. It's everyone on this site who has yet to agree. No agreement, no GPL. In the world of intellectual property, the rule is this: "everything not expressly surrendered is entirely witheld".
What I am saying here is that you have a bit of a site wide problem. Those works that are clearly derivative copies of your work really don't apply. They're obviously GPL.
But those things where the authors may not have agreed to be GPL, and did not believe that writing code (or in my case, submitting code much rewritten from Java from 5 years ago!) constituted a GPL submission, are under no obligation to actually do that. They have other choices.
C//
While the judgement of the courts and the law with regards to what does or doesn't constitute a derivative work is murkier, the rules with regards to remedies and license compliance are not. They are crystal clear. Any entity, even if they are ruled to be infringing, is not required to submit to a license of this sort. Choices are cease distribution, modify the work to not infringe, or submit to the license.
It's not just me that isn't GPL'd. It's everyone on this site who has yet to agree. No agreement, no GPL. In the world of intellectual property, the rule is this: "everything not expressly surrendered is entirely witheld".
What I am saying here is that you have a bit of a site wide problem. Those works that are clearly derivative copies of your work really don't apply. They're obviously GPL.
But those things where the authors may not have agreed to be GPL, and did not believe that writing code (or in my case, submitting code much rewritten from Java from 5 years ago!) constituted a GPL submission, are under no obligation to actually do that. They have other choices.
C//
Courageous said:
There are many things I don't agree with that Ryan does, I won't list them because thats not my place to do so, those things also have nothing to do with this discussion. Don't get me wrong, I also agree with Ryan on alot of things, this is one of those things.
If you don't want to agree to the GPL license its this simple:
DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR WORK TO THE PUBLIC!!
Nobody can force you to use a license with private work, infact the GPL license protects non-public work in exactly that way, your only forced to use the GPL license once you release work that is protect by the GPL license.
If Ryan says the Core and Scripts directory is protected by the GPL, as the project leader he speaks for the owner(s)/author(s), and thus work is protected by the GPL.
Your talking about legal rights and courts, and alot of pointless bullshit, because lets face it your still posting on his property. I learned along time ago that Ryan's word is the law around here, and there isn't a point in making your views if they don't agree public, this isn't out of fear its out of respect at least on my part.
I expect the same out of the users of my website, and even more so when I was paying for my hosting.
Courageous
Wanderer
Phantom:
I, and most of the others I'd wager, have known for a long time that we are not required to release our scripts.
C//
I, and most of the others I'd wager, have known for a long time that we are not required to release our scripts.
C//
pex said:
If you don't agree with the fact, any work that is based on GPL work, is itself protected by the GPL license then you should release your work.
Regards to what Ryan's post was talking about, as much as Ryan would like to control what goes on other sites, he cannot control it. What will happen is no matter what the author claims, is the fact if he releases it its till released under a GPL license.
If you don't agree to this, then don't release your work.
Courageous, your not making alot of sense and your not going to win any discussion regards to the rights to your work around here.
Courageous
Wanderer
Phantom: this is hardly about me. With so many people so repeatedly making posts about you, you should know better. Truly.
The deal is very very simple. The fact that all the runuo scripts don't actually have GPL headers on them is a terrible error. You see, it is those headers, and ONLY those headers that actually grant other people the rights that the GPL offers. The GPL doesn't actually force anyone to GPL their work, even when what they write legitimately is derivative of some GPL'd work.
All the GPL does is offer the original owner the right to sue for redress: to request a remedy (and perhaps damage) even if there is an indisputable infraction. The GPL does not at all mean that the derivative work is or ever will be indeed GPL'd.
Example.
Evil Company rips a GPL'd work, adds a bunch of source code to it, and resells it to the world without honoring the GPL (this has happened a number of times, actually).
What's the original author to do?
Well, he can sue.
But what can he ask? He can ask this:
1. That Evil Company cease and desist distributing.
2. That Evil Company remove all of the code that isn't theirs.
3. That Evil Company comply with the GPL, as was originally intended.
Thing is, Evil Company and ONLY Evil Company can make the decision to pick option 3. The original author's only right is to make them pick (and to receive redress for damages, if there are any such).
What I'm trying to make clear here is the scope of Ryan's power. He only enjoys three significant powers that I see. The very narrow choices the law offers. The moral and ethical support of the community, whatever that may be. And finally, whatever powers he enjoys as being both the webmaster as well as controlling party for the RunUO core.
To attempt to force a 1-2-3 outcome by declaring all posted scripts GPL is beyond his power under the law, as well as site admin.
Neither the law nor his webmaster position can cause a refit of code posted to a GPL license. He can, however, do other things.
He can politely request that posters with current distributions actually license their submissions: i.e., an appeal to the community to do the "right thing". This requires that old posts and submissions be refitted.
He might have some ability to marshall the community with an appeal for moral and ethical support ("do the right thing"); however, he's behaved in a heavy-handed manner, which will be unappealling to some at this point.
He can (and should) also enforce that all code posted on his web site have a prominent GPL header. He, plainly, is not required to carry any content that he doesn't want to carry.
There is the matter of old posts by lost posters, gone to the community. While on a mere legal technicality these still aren't GPL'd works if not properly labelled, most of these are "abandonware" entries by people who neither know nor care about their "intellectual property," such little as it is. If people can successfully get away with distributing entire games for which the games companies have gone away, surely little bits and pieces of code here and there and long forgotten are far past irrelevant.
My hope, Phantom, is that you find this post helpful.
C//
- Status