Is Bukkit really discontinued?

Discussion in 'Bukkit Discussion' started by Jinli, Oct 25, 2014.

?

Do we?

  1. Yes unfortunately

    50.0%
  2. Nope. you can stay on bukkit

    50.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Offline

    AdamQpzm

    Shaggy67
    So really it depends on how the law actually works. Clause a of the first paragraph - "provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license" - does not apply, as Wolvereness has terminated the license, I assume. Clause b - "permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation." - also wouldn't apply, since he's been quite clear the whole time that he's enforcing his copyright. I don't think that anyone doubted that.

    So the 2nd paragraph would be the one it depends on - "Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.", more specifically that last clause...

    As I'm not a lawyer, I don't know for certain how it works. I'm not sure if Spigot "cured the violation" by removing their downloads. Personally I don't think it does count, as the violation is still there, it's just not accessible. If it does not count as curing the violation, then their license cannot be reinstated without Wolvereness' approval. If it does count as curing it, then I would assume their license is reinstated with or without his consent.
     
  2. Offline

    Shaggy67

    Distribution is the violation (copyright law is based on authorized distribution). Once spigot removed the downloads, they stopped violating the license. I believe they did so within 30 days of the DMCA being issued.

    FYI, here's now the FSF describes the termination clause:

    I believe both of those apply. IE, Spigot ceased their violation within 30 days, and it's been longer than 60 days since they did so. Meaning, in either case, the license is reinstated.
     
  3. Offline

    timtower Moderator Moderator

    Shaggy67 Please don't double post. Use the edit button instead.
     
  4. Offline

    Wolvereness Bukkit Team Member

    The actual license uses the word cure which carries a dramatically different legal meaning than cease. Cure would be to adhere to the license (release Spigot under GPL; impossible without Mojang), cease would mean to stop completely.
    If you violate the GPL, you technically have your license revoked immediately. When you stop (voluntarily; not having been informed by the owner), you get your (provisional) license back immediately, and a 60-day timer starts for the owner to explicitly terminate the license before it becomes permanent. However, this doesn't apply, as I did reasonably inform many parties of their violation:
    Note the use of the word cure. As of now, no one has cured the violation of adding restrictions (read: Minecraft EULA) to a combined work that includes my word.
     
    AdamQpzm likes this.
  5. Offline

    Shaggy67

    Has a lawyer told you this, or is this your own interpretation?


    FYI, based on the definition here:
    http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/cure.html

    I would say stopping to distribute would be "eliminates" and distributing a legal version would be "corrects". Either would be acceptable, based on the definition found there.
     
  6. Offline

    asofold

    You can't have a violation with a file that is both downloadable and inaccessible. So you say the violation exists with the code, wherever it is? Assume there was a fork only consisting of the CB code with all nms removed. Would that fall under violation/dmca? Would such a fork need a point of time of creation, in order to be or not to be violating anything?
    It could also depend on law. Licenses are not above the law, after all. I am curious...
     
  7. Offline

    AdamQpzm

    asofold I never said licenses were above the law. But the license is a legal one, and it was agreed to, so it has to be followed.
     
  8. Offline

    Maximvdw

    Why all the hate, make love not war :) Just go with the flow
     
    ScuroK and timtower like this.
  9. Offline

    asofold

    May or may not be the case that it's "legal". Law rules, most licenses contain formulaes or implicate things that don't apply with current law in many countries. Especially if you have to to interpret the meaning of words like "cure". The more interesting part should be the first paragraph i wrote up there, though.
     
  10. Offline

    AdamQpzm

    asofold Maybe, but this is the GPL we're talking about. Pretty sure it would have been noticed by now if it didn't have any legal standing.
     
  11. Offline

    asofold

    The GPL has not been tested at court in all details, neither within all possible contexts. It certainly has "some" or "a lot of" legal standing, but for a specific case like this you will need to keep re-checking the results of current law. Often enough EULAs get partially invalidated in various countries. Here "it" involves the interpretation of "special terms", which may or may not apply logically and/or may or may not carry through.

    Of course you may take any stance you like, i was just going for the general point, that even the "best" licenses use to have flaws and that not all implications they may demand can actually be supported by law in all cases. And again, there is not only one kind of law on this planet.

    Apart from that... if the license is met, people can be happy.
     
  12. Offline

    ColonelHedgehog

    That's right! Who cares about license violations? Who cares about people being cheated? Let's all pirate things in DMCA-protected countries and "go with the flow."[/sarcasm]
     
    pookeythekid and AdamQpzm like this.
  13. Offline

    brianj64

    I don't get something: The big difference between LGPL and GPL is that with LGPL you are allowed to distribute LGPL code into other code, basically making your only requirement is a valid link to the original source code and a license.txt

    Isn't Bukkit LGPL? That basically makes it that there's no infringement in the license of the LGPL'd code(Leaving Mojang's EULA aside).

    Wolvereness's code was GPL.

    Who the hell ever merged GPL code into code that's LGPL, that basically makes LGPL completely invalid. I don't wanna be a party pooper but the guy who did that doesn't have brains. If all of Bukkit's code was LGPL there would've be no problem whatsoever.

    Hopefully this is a lesson well-learned. Don't(Never!) use GPL for game modding, and never merge GPL code in game modding. LGPL is the way to go, or some other license
     
  14. Offline

    pookeythekid

    brianj64 I'm not sure if LGPL and GPL are compatible, but that's not the entire issue. The rather brainless move was to use Mojang's server code in CraftBukkt in the first place. From the very start of the project, using Mojang's non-(L)GPL code with GPL-licensed CraftBukkit code was a big mistake, which has finally just taken effect the moment the DMCA was issued.
     
  15. Offline

    asofold

    I don't think that's brainless by itself, because Mojang is ok with it. It's more risky than using patching technique, because Mojang can stop it more easily, but up to now it has been "ok" and also would allow for faster development. The real problem is to have the GPL with the Bukkit API being used in CB, in addition to distributing it together with unlicensed code. That seems to be what makes the DMCA work in the first place. Using a more permissive license in Bukkit (and maybe CraftBukkit) would have allowed to use that technique up till now and further.

    From there on the next steps of freedom would (only) be:
    • Build your mod such that Mojang can never ever prevent distribution of what you have already released. (Nice to have, but more work and no guarantee that you can continue distributing once consent is gone.)
    • Write your own game from scratch, be it similar (then GPL, maybe - much more work).
     
  16. Offline

    pookeythekid

    asofold Mm. Okay. Well if Mojang was okay with such a license mess for so long... why do they suddenly care so much about the DMCA? I would think that they're on just as shaky ground as some claim Wolvereness to be.
     
  17. Offline

    asofold

    Mojang doesn't seem to do much about the DMCA. They also have not been doing anything against Bukkit.
     
  18. Offline

    pookeythekid

    asofold I thought Mojang were taking the DMCA pretty seriously if Vu Bui bothered to make his much-debated post.
     
  19. Offline

    Gnat008

    Yeah, and what has Mojang done since that post?
     
  20. Offline

    pookeythekid

    Gnat008 Your point is exactly what fuels my curiosity.
     
  21. Offline

    asofold

    I just want to make the point that Mojang seems to be doing nothing. One can't really know and probably it's secret anyway :p. At least it seems, that they have not taken active measures against the way CraftBukkit has been made, though right now that method seems to be barred by the DMCA, with Spigot having worked around it, as it seems.

    Maybe i read your post wrong, of course it's shaky ground, legally and community-wise. For Mojang it's also a risk to go there, even if they win, which could take ages. It's probably not unreasonable to "just" let the community deal with it (see Spigot), even if it looks as if Mojang wasn't caring (even if they weren't). The idea that some biggo-Monster has to deal with it all isn't always the best :p, in my opinion they could add smaller dragons as well.
     
    pookeythekid likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page