AGPL on Skins added to a HUD needs to be clarified.

[Outworldz]

The AGPL license is strong copyleft license, designed so that anything copyrightable, and in particular an item used on a network such as Ruth, will always be available for free. For example, Ruth's body can be sold along with accessories, but the seller always has to include a link to where Ruth, or any modifications to Ruth or the HUD are also free. This does not apply to accessories that are not a part of Ruth.

However, there is a possible conflict with items such as the HUD. A designer of proprietary for-sale or restricted transfer skins could theoretically be blocked by AGPL from adding them to Ruths HUD, which does not help us spread the goodness of Ruth. I think we want designers to support Ruth accessories, including skins.

AGPL has no ability to be modified except for a few special purposes, and excluding skins is not one of them. But there is an out: for textures added to the HUD, we just declare skins to be part of the "System Libraries". System libraries are NOT covered by the AGPL. Skins can then be added to the HUD's "library" without violating the aGPL.

From the AGPL:

"The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component...."

The copyright is a collective ownership on Ruth, so I think we need a majority of the 5 core devs to vote on this.

What do you folks think? For or Against?

[mdickson]

I honestly think https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ is more appropriate for this case. It would protect the original project, if someone edits the mesh and does a derivative (of the mesh itself) it requires that be released under the same license but doesn't taint or in any way limit doing commercial works including distributing or using proprietary textures with the HUD components. Though honestly I think saying that putting textures in the HUD somehow requires they also be released as AGPL is incorrect for even the existing license. It specifically calls out that you can do works that combine elements with multiple licenses so long as you dont restrict in any way the use of the original material.

CC-BY-SA-4.0 is also, btw, AGPL compatible. Its just designed to be used with anything (data, etc) and not specifically software. And yes I understand there is a single "Out" that says you can define the components in your release as "Software" so long as its clear what those are (its not IMO at present). But why do that. Use a license thats appropriate for whats being released.

[mdickson]

I noticed the deleted reference to Manuel Bastoni's Lab release. Is the original mesh derived from that project? And if so isn't giving attribution required? Regardless he takes essentially the approach I mentioned with his "content". It's dual licensed under the AGPL and CC-BY-SA-4.0

http://www.manuelbastioni.com/guide_license.php

[aiaustin]

Hi folks? I am just back from travel and will be catching up with what has been happening Ruth-wise in the coming week.

I agree with Mike that it seems odd to think that adding texture content into the HUD somehow means that such addon “content” has to be also made available under the same licence. Maybe just stating that in some way along the lines that Fred suggests making it clear the Ruth content parts themselves itself must reman freely available via a pointer ir to is sufficient if we want to stick with AGPL.

I had not come across the AGPL licence before Ruth... for many years I have used LGPL (NOT GPL) to ensure a non-viral flexible licence to ensure our work is able to be reused in any way, but also ensure it remains free. These days a Creative Commons licence might be a good base... CC-BY or with CC-BY-SA if you want to ensure modifications are also shared freely.

[Outworldz]

@mDickson. I removed that as Ruth is not a mod of Bastioni's avatar. None of the mesh bits, UV maps or anything else was derived into Ruth.

[ingen-lab]

I agree with you Fred @Outworldz, the LSL scripts make references to items like animations and textures but they are not part of the Major Component(Ruth 2.0) and should be considered system libraries.

As the original creator and license holder of most of RUTH2.0, I believe AGPL is the perfect license to use for this project.

[SundanceHaiku]

Sorry for the delay in voting. Since I'm about to load a huge amount of work into GitHub, I want to research this some more before voting.

One thing that is highly important to me is that we continue in the spirit of openness and maintain the free and sharing nature of this project that Shin so well established in the beginning.

I'm not a SL or OpenSim merchant, and I don't intend to sell things in the future. I'm happy to continue to do projects for Ruth on an open source basis. At the same time, however, I understand the need for us to provide a way in which people can maintain ownership of their creations.

I think Ruth & Roth is, and will be ever more in the future, rich and fertile ground, an incubator of all sorts of amazing and wonderful ideas. I believe that we need to encourage that by allowing people to keep the rights to their creations. On the same vein, I hope, as well, that we can provide a reasonable standard of security so their work is not easily ripped off.

So . . . those are my hopes for the Ruth project. How best we provide a legal basis for that, I'm not sure. But I promise to do some reading and research - to use a legal term, my due diligence - and report back.

Sundance

[Outworldz]

I just finished writing a response to a concerned person. It is important to realize that AGPL is just GPLv3 ( with one addition - that modifications to her source files must be published even if the binaries are not distributed. This "A" is one step beyond GPL and one step beyond CC-BY-SA. Shin and I chose this license as it prohibits people in closed worlds from keeping changes to her source to themselves because her binary only run on their servers. We want we everyone to share in improvements to her.

AGPL does not affect any additions, such as adding textures, added scripts, clothing, or wearing of other items. It only talks about "modified works". In the GPL to "modify" means "to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy."

Consider linking in a shirt, or clothes. This is allowed. Linking would be making an exact copy, and the AGPL does not care if you make an exact copy. Your rights are still the same, to use Ruth freely, as you see fit, to sell it, use it, give it away, etc.

The license does not prohibit commercial use. Anyone is free to sell Ruth, alone or in combination with 'proprietary works', for any price, including free.

~ Fred

[SundanceHaiku]

Fred, one thing that I specifically state on my scripts is that they can not be sold. They are intended to be free. Can I retain that right - or do I lose that right under AGPL?

[aiaustin]

Sundance... quite a few parts have other open source type licenses... see licenses.txt in the codebase. So maybe the HUD and scripts you are creating can be under the license you prefer and mention that in Licenses.txt. Fred and Shin though might want real core elements essential go Ruth to ALL be under AGPL.

[Outworldz]

You are free to license your original contributions as you see fit. If they are based on modifications to AGPL licensed work, then they are by definition AGPL. We are discussing this here and so are open to suggestions.

[SundanceHaiku]

Okay, after doing a quick review, I find that I agree with much of the AGPL license. However, what I have difficulty with is the selling part.

The materials on AGPL website emphasize that the term "free" means freedom but not price. This seems to be a pretty solid tenet on which the license is based. They fully support the selling of AGPL licensed products.

My preference is to keep my work cost free. Or, at the very least, whoever wants to sell it should ask permission. For example, if Second Life - and or some very successful Second Life merchant - started selling my stuff, I'd want to the right to say no.

I can't tell from a cursory look that it is possible to modify AGPL to include restrictions: such as products must be cost free - or, if sold, then permission required.

Certainly, if any of the prime Ruth developers want to sell items that include my work, I would have absolutely no problem. But I would have a problem with folks making money off my work who haven't contributed to this project.

So, I guess my question is: can the AGPL license be modified?

[mdickson]

Sundance if its your unique work you can use whatever license you want with it and add additional restrictions. Scripts you write for instance that are developed completely by you but that are used with the AGPL'd mesh bits can be licensed under any terms you like. They're a separate work from the AGPL licensed Ruth bits.

[Outworldz]

I agree with Mike Dickson. Ruth is open to contributions using any license. I suggest adding your terms for your code to the license file.

But Ruth is AGPL, and no further restrictions can be placed on her except those exceptions listed in Section 7 -

You may add terms such as:

a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.

[aiaustin]

Sundance... it sounds to me like you want something like CC-BY-NC for your own parts. There are other CC licences for parts that can be used with Ruth already, like the bento head.

Using CC-BY-NC as the base licence he can additionally ask anyone wanting commecial use to contact him which he can then either refuse or talk terms. It would though mean anyone wanting to use it non-commercially could do so without further correspondence with Sundance (which would be a great help long term or if Sundance became unavailable... it happens) and would not need to contribute back any changes made to his own contributions (use a CC sharealike licence if you want that). That’s what I do with our AI Planning MOOC open educational resources and materials wher I want to encourage widespread NC use but limit or prohibit commecial reuse.

[SundanceHaiku]

Thanks everyone for the flexibility. I'll dive into this and spend some time researching what might be the best way to approach it. Thanks for your suggestions. Will report back in a couple of days.

[Outworldz]

Kitely says they are going to prohibit any AGPL code by making a change to their TOS. Ilan Tochner seems to think that anyone loading an AGPL prim or script in-world forces him to release his proprietary source code, even when his TOS says otherwise. Whether AGPL does or does not do that seems debatable, as we have been sending long, very time-consuming emails back and forth about this for several days now. His actions will effectively ban Ruth, Roth, and any Bastioni avatars and some Makehuman avatars from Kitely.

This is likely to become a discussion point in various communities, so we might as well get it out into the open,

No other virtual world has a ban on AGPL code. I've checked Second Life, Sansar, Unity, Sinespace and High Fidelity and none of them ban the AGPL, GPL, or any other license. Yet Ilan still insists that anyone can demand access to all of his, or SL's source code by merely loading Ruth onto that world.

He suggested that we consider the LGPL, which is used in the SL viewer. However, LGPL allows users to modify Ruth and Roth, and not give back the changes on closed worlds like Inworldz and Second Life. And all of us would have to agree to switch.

My personal opinion is that he is wrong to do this, but obviously he can. I'll just leave it at that.

~ Fred

LGPL link: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html

[mdickson]

I hesitate to wade into this again. IMO the issue here is the AGPL is normally used for code. And yes I agree given definition of terms you can use the AGPL for something thats not code. Ruth is data. And using a license primarily targeting code generates all this paranoia (which is what it is) over code being "tainted".

Fred both the Makehuman project meshes and the Manuel Bastoni meshes are dual licensed under AGPL and CC and IMO its precisely this reason that they've done that. Both projects recognized the problem with the AGPL w/data and offered dual licensing terms so their work wouldn't receive limited use.

Personally I doubt there's anything remarkable in the Kitely code to protect like this but it is his right. AFAIK Shin owns the copyright on the mesh. I'd urge you to dual license w/a CC license (I mentioned CC-BY-SA-4 above) and put this all behind you.

[ingen-lab]

The original intention of the project was to provide a learning platform (a complete step by step project) that someone can easily duplicate to create his or her own. I still want to think that is still the case.

So that there is no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that I still believe AGPL is perfect for Ruth and Roth and anyone who does not think so should need to stop being a contributor to this project. I will be more than willing to pull out your contribution thus far. Even if it means I have to reset her to day 0.

With all the noise that the commercial sector is making towards AGPL and how it limits their proprietorship to a certain product (even when that product was meant to be always "FREE") only strengthen the value of AGPL in protecting our project as it was intended to be, otherwise we would not hear any noise regarding this matter.

The real important question here is this:

What happens to RUTH & ROTH 2.0 if the project remains AGPL?

Certainly, Grandma & Grandpa shop can still use it to learn HOW IT'S DONE. I'm happy with that and if you are a contributor to this project and you don't feel the same then I urge you to reconsider your decision to help with this project. There are plenty of projects you can get involved in, R&R is just one of them.

As for what Kitely wants to do? I certainly have no plan to interfere with the way they run their business.

[SundanceHaiku]

Well, gosh. This certainly casts a black shadow over the day. I've been so excited about this project and then this bit of news. Fred, is Ilan Tochner getting advice from an attorney - or is this his own interpretation?

I spent much of the day today working through each sentence of the AGPL comparing it to other licenses, and I certainly don't see anything there that would be threat. I still don't like the idea that AGPL allows wonderful projects like Ruth which are basically free, non-profit, educational endeavors to be picked up and sold to consumers by small and large commercial interests.

I wonder if it's not the license, but something political that is driving this.

There's a simple answer. The copyright law give copyright holders the right "to sell or cede these rights to others." We just copyright our contributions normally, and include a simple clause which allows for non-commercial reproduction. No license. No threat to Kitely. Just a simple statement.

[aiaustin]

That seems a weird interpretation by Kitely but they have to have their own rules. Shin has made clear his aim in using AGPL and, as much discussed, anyone can use what licence they wish for their own contributions. We can’t be driven by decisions made on a commercial grid. This is a project of an open source minded community.

[aiaustin]

Whoops.. wrong button. I certainly did not mean to close the issue :-)

[aiaustin]

Mike I looked at the Makehuman license... as you will know I am sure... that project is only AGPL and if you make any changes those must stay AGPL. Its just a user’s own avatar creations using the tool and such generated content exported from it that can be used in any way under CC0.

R&R is very different. The core contribution here are the models themselves and the desire is to ensure those stay freely available and improve as others make modifications.

[mdickson]

Ai, yes Makehuman is actually Python code that runs inside the Blender application. They have licensed that code AGPL which in my opinion is sensible. It Is code and they'd like modifications to benefit the community. But if you refer to section C in their license, http://www.makehuman.org/license.php They have dual licensed the "data", the models and textures produced, with a very permissive CC0 license. So far we agree and this reflects what you wrote. But I think its very comparable at the mesh level. R&R are data and in this case comparable to the dual licensed output from Makehuman. To address the main comment by Fred, you could upload a makehuman based avatar as CC0 and not run afoul of the kitely license issue.

I want to say a couple of things because I tend to pick up a bit of veiled hostility in some of Shin's comments that I think are targeting me based on my contributions to this discussion. If not its still worth saying....

I think R&R are an awesome contribution and one of the BEST things to come along for OpenSim and VW grids in general in a long while. I totally get the desire to make sure both models remain open and stay that way. It should be clear by now that I think a CC license would be more appropriate but its not my decision and as has already been stated the decision is already made. But I also think the project is seeing some of the knock on effects of using AGPL. Kitely's actions, which IMO are wrong headed, are one example. Everything I'm personally doing with Ruth in InWorldz is preserving the original content and licensing. I dont intend to profit from this, more to the point I'm hoping that it increases interest for merchants that make products for it. In short my hope is the work I'm doing BUILDS up OpenSim based grids. In my case specifically Halcyon and IW. I'd like to see R&R generate lots of interest and a very lively ecosystem around it. And I do understand licensing. I've been doing software for 30 years now in some very senior roles. Hopefully my comments here are welcome. I'm not done with my scripting work but I would like to contribute some of it back. I'd like to think that would be welcome but if not I understand. But I am going to finish my "project" for InWorldz so they have the benefit of the work from R&R in a form that suits the closed grid.

[aiaustin]

Hopefully no one is negative here even if positions are firmly expressed and the discussion is useful... even if such licensing issues always come up... I too am a software engineer and have a lot of licence experience... over 40 years in my case... I tended to use LGPL as I wanted maximum use... but I accepted that people could profit from our contributions and not give back or share alike. That is not what is wanted for R&R. And yes I really am that old :-)

[SundanceHaiku]

I would like to see how each of you feel about some basic principles behind the project and see if there’s some common ground. (It would really be good to bring Ada into this conversation if possible.) Below, I just put together some important ones that have been part of the discussion, but feel free to add.

Which one of the following two definitions of Open Source do you feel are most appropriate for the Ruth Project?

1a. Open Source Initiative, AGPL, etc. Their definition: Open Source is software that can be freely accessed, used, changed, and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone. Under this definition "anyone" means that any individual, business or corporation can sell Ruth Project avatars, scripts, HUD’s, etc.

1b. Literal Understanding of the Concept. Open Source is software that can be freely accessed, used and shared. Same definition as the OS Initiative & AGPL, except that selling is not a part of it.

There are two definitions of Free Software. Which one is important to you:

2a. Open Source Initiative, AGPL, etc. Their definition: “’Free Software’ and ‘Open Source’ are two terms for the same thing.” "Free" under this definition means freedom to distribute software, etc., but it does not mean the software is free of cost. Free Software, under this definition, can be sold.

2b. Literal and mostly public understanding of the word "Free." Free means free of cost. Can not be sold.

Which of these are important:

3. Individuals creating clothing, skins and accessories for R&R can charge money for those items.

4. Individuals should only create free (free of cost) clothing, skins and accessories for R&R.

5. When possible, code contributed to the project should provide a decent level of security so that an individual's creation (skin, clothing, accessories, etc.) are not easily stolen.

You probably know which direction I lean toward in # 1 and # 2. I prefer #1b and #2b in each case when it comes to my contributions to the project. But I have no absolutely problem if others prefer the first two ways of dealing with Open Source code. That is, after all, the current state of the Open Source movement in the computing world right now.

Both # 3 and # 5 are important to me. I think that people will start making all sorts of fun things for Ruth and Roth. I disagree with # 4. If individuals want to create some free items, that’s terrific, but it shouldn’t be a requirement.

So, let me know what you think.

[aiaustin]

Here surely its very straightforward, the Ruth (and Roth) core meshes and resources are AGPL and hence anything based on them is also by definition AGPL. Addons such as skins and things not using the core resources or modifications of them can (as stated by everyone before) be kept in a way that a creator can charge for them or restrict distributions on platforms that allow permissions, restrictions and rights management. The creators of such items which are derivatives of or include the R&R things are just required to respect the original licences for those and provide attribution and pointers back to the free items in all cases.

This sort of discussion can go on forever you know Sundance and its been well rehersed in many many forums where "keep it free and share alike" open source contributors work with those who feel communites work best where there is also a commercial marketplace. It can annoy or turn off those who have seen the arguments before and just don't want such hassle.

My own main aim in resources (code, models, etc) I have made available via open source licences over the years is to ensure assets are available long term in a form that allows for free distribution with rights to modify and use as a basis for related items. I think it is valid then for an individual contributor to decide to allow any sort of use including commercial derivatives or to prevent money making on your contributions. Its also valid to insist that people share back changes they make to your contributions or just allow them to make changes and not share back. A lot depends on your original motivations for the work or constraints on what you can choose to do because your own work depends on some other person's assets.

I don't know what you are getting at with your #5. You surely must not put things such as skins** and scripts into the R&R Guithub repository that you treat as proprietary as anyone can see and download those and use them in an illegitimate way whatever licence you place on them. Keep those separately wherever you want or in commercial marketplaces. Only put items into the Github that you mean to be openly and freely shared under the terms of the licence you have selected.

** Fred has carefully not put skins into the Github unless they were clearly labelled as available under a suitable open source licence.

[SundanceHaiku]

Ai, let me clarify #5. This refers to individuals who are creating things for Ruth. These creations include items like Skins, Clothing, etc. These would not be going into the Github. These are individual creations that would be sold - or, in some cases, they might be given away. What I'm saying is that we would want to make sure, within reason, that our code provides them with reasonable protection that their creations are not open to theft. I think that's a reasonable goal on the part of the project - and it would certainly reassure those individuals who are making things for Ruth.

[SundanceHaiku]

The last thing I wanted to be doing is spend all of my week dealing with license agreements. All I really want to do is to make some cool components to go along with the Ruth 2 Project.

I’m sorry to belabored this issue with my questions and my attempt to understand everyone views, but it’s important to me. And this is why . . .

If commercial entities like Maitreya, Belleza and others can just take my Fingernail Master HUD start selling it without even asking permission, it literally crushes me. This is something that is meant to be free.

I’ve spend the entire winter working on this HUD. I’m not a proficient scripter, and consequently, I’ve literally spent hours and hours of time on this project, trying to debug it and trying to make it work. It’s just a Fingernail HUD, but by golly, I want it to be the best damn Fingernail HUD out there.

I intended this work be free. Free in the sense of no cost. Free for non-commercial uses – and not to be used to bolster a commercial package.

It has been suggested that it is possible for me to prepare a license that better fits my views on open source. I have done that. And Fred, I'm sorry this has gotten off-topic, so I'll start another issue to deal with the license proposal.

[aiaustin]

CC-BY-NC-SA with additional note of how to contact you for use beyond that sounds close to me.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Also, in terms of needing to contact you for some types of use, hopefully those will be clearly permitted in the license without contacting you. But even for use begond that let me encourage you to think about what happens if you are no longer active or available. It happens with software and assets intended for long term use. If the core free NC license gives all you intend that is fine.

[ilantochner]

I'm not part of this project so I appreciate my input may not be viewed positively. However, as I've been mentioned here I'd like to explain our stance on the AGPL and why we think it would be very unfortunate for your project to adopt it. Also, I'd like to clarify why I think the LGPL would achieve your desired goals without the downsides that are inherent to using the AGPL.

First, the AGPL was designed for code, not for data. The license language can be applied to data but doing so creates legal uncertainties that can be unacceptable not only to grid owners but also to content creators who wish to create proprietary add-ons to that data (such as skins, hair, cloths, HUDs, etc.).

[I'll intentionally avoid the exact legal terms used in the license as those have been contended in multiple other places that have had this discussion and instead try to write the following in as non legalese as possible.]

The GPLv3 and AGPLv3 both have copyleft provisions that take affect once the GPL/AGPL code is combined with other code in a way that makes them tightly coupled. When it comes to code that usually means static or dynamic linking of the GPL/AGPL part with the non-GPL/AGPL part. When that is done then the entire combined work needs to be licensed as GPL/AGPL. The LGPL was designed to address this by enabling the non GPL/AGPL part to remain licensed using a different license and only requires releasing the changes made to the LGPL code as LGPL as well.

This is all clear when you deal with code but once you AGPL data things become murky. A skin designed for a GPL/AGPL model can be said to be using the model's API (application programming interface) and as the viewer renders them both together as one combined textured mesh this could be interpreted by a court of law to mean that the skin too needs to be licensed as GPL/AGPL. If that sound's questionable, consider that changes made to the mesh (for example skeletal deformations) will also affect the skin and thus it could be said the skin not only implemented the mesh's API it also changes dynamically with it based on user input.

Now for a script: the HUD that changes the mesh isn't just passing data to it. That script is compiled by .net/mono into a DLL that is linked to OpenSim and then makes changes to the mesh using interfaces provided by OpenSim with function calls made to and from that DLL to OpenSim. As that code changes the AGPL mesh, it too may need to be AGPL and by copyleft the entire OpenSim server that is using that DLL will also need to be AGPL. As the mesh is not just a presentation layer but also affects physics, networking and other components, it would not be inconceivable for a judge to rule that everything tightly connected to that OpenSim server should be licensed using AGPL.

This would not have been the case if the mesh had been LGPL. As for saying that the LGPL would allow closed grids to keep changes they make to the mesh private: that would only have been true if the mesh was only ever kept on their servers. But, the way OpenSim/SL work is that meshes are sent to the viewer for rendering. The mesh is transferred from the server to the end-user's computer and saved in their viewer's cache. This constitutes giving the user a copy of the LGPL content and thus requires the source used to create that content to be LGPL as well.

I am not a lawyer and you can argue with this analysis, Fred and I certainly have been for the last few days. But it is one that quite a few people on the net share and one that many corporate lawyers espouse (which is why many organizations bar the use of GPL/AGPL code from being included in their offering). It's up to you to decide whether you are willing to bet on how a judge will see this if this ever gets to court. I for one hope you'll choose the safer path and use the LGPL so that your potentially transformational contribution to the metaverse can be used by people that take copyrights seriously.

[HanHeld]

I for one hope you'll choose the safer path and use the LGPL so that your potentially transformational contribution to the metaverse can be used by people that take copyrights seriously.

Implying that Apple, IBM and others who use the GPL or GPL-akin licenses don't take copyrights seriously.

It's my opinion, personally speaking, that it's not Shin's job to make life easier for commercial entities. Personally speaking, I raise an eyebrow that this project is being asked to change it's license to a license that would allow people to horde changes instead of sharing them back.

I would like potential contributors to consider the fact that it was the "share alike" nature of the GPL which contributed to the success of Linux. The reason for that was because no one had to worry that their contributions would be horded and used against them.

It made for a level playing field ...and so does the AGPL.

I am not one of the coders or designers so this will be the last I'll say on this matter ...Shin and Fred are more than capable of handling this, and I for one support their stance.

Keep up the great work, y'all! :)

[ilantochner]

Implying that Apple, IBM and others who use the GPL or GPL-akin licenses don't take copyrights seriously.

Quoting a part of a sentence and ignoring what it relates to then saying the speaker implied something which he didn't is a strawman argument. As I've explained in my long comment, using GPL/AGPL is a liability for the content creators and grids that will potentially use this project. Big companies use GPL code under certain circumstances but if they ship any such code then it is after legal review. I welcome you to show me where AGPL data was evaluated by the courts. As you'll be hard pressed to find a clear legal precedent for it then assuming it will be handled the way you'd like it to be handled is a big legal liability. Which means that choosing a path that doesn't create that liability is the safer option.

[Outworldz]

Ilan, your input is appreciated and I would encourage you to continue to discuss this and research it.

GPL is AGPL, less one clause, #13, And GPL has been tested in US courts. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/13/gnu_gpl_enforceable_contract/

Clause #13 is only for companies offering MODIFIED Ruth software as a service, i.e. not distributing. This clause does not apply to Kitely, unless Kitely plans on modifying her. If you do, give us her changes. That's your sole obligation in the AGPL. This leaves the WILDLY popular GPL ias the only thing left to discuss.

You seem to be saying mesh avatars cannot be copyrighted. I don't think you really mean that, if so, copybotting of anything would be legal. AGPL covers anything that can be copyrighted, including data. Data can certainly be copyrighted. Copyright protection, at least in the US, must be expressive and creative. Data can be expressive and creative. It can also be argued that she is not data. She can be considered a compiled program that an interpreter uses to paint a moving image of her. Programs are data. If data is merely measurements of facts in the world, it would not be copyrightable. Almost anything that contains enough original expression to merit protection can be copyrighted, except factual data, ideas, or a function. Your laws in Israel may differ, but in the USA, Ruth is clearly copyrighted.

I would like to point out that we cannot change your TOS by wearing an attachment, (Ruth is an attachment) or running a script. Your TOS already covers that your code is 100% your code. We must agree to that to use your server. You do not have to accept the AGPL unless you personally make a copy AND modify her or redistribute it personally. And then all you have to do is provide source for that change. You are not legally obligated to do anything just because someone else is doing it on your server, in any country that I know of.

Your comment also mentions a library that is AGPL linked to non-GPL programming in an inseparable way. That does not apply. Ruth is open, your library is closed. Ruth is not a library. Nothing links to her in an inseparable way. And linking a AGPL program to a non GPL library is allowed in GPL/AGPL. It is quite specific in the AGPL that this is allowed under "System Library". You can't reverse the words and draw a different legal conclusion. You have to use the words as they are written.

All other worlds including Second Life, Sansar, Unity, and SineSpace allow AGPL licensed mesh and code to be uploaded. This is because it i s a non-issue per the AGPL. And it is not possible to blame or ban the AGPL, either. Using your argument, I can just write an AGPL-like clause in a notecard, stick it in a prim, wear the prim., visit Kitely, and you suddenly have to give us your source code. Nothing like that is enforceable under any legal system! There is no agreement that it is enforceable between us that allows that. If I, a user, a HG visitor, or a Kitey user run XYZZY-licensed code that demands a million dollar payment if executed on your server, do you have to pay us? No. Its ludicrous.

The idea that you "make a copy" when a viewer downloads mesh to let someone look at Ruth is also covered in the AGPL and GPL. It says that such a network activity is allowed, as it does not violate a copyright to download an unmodified binary of her. We want to encourage people to look at her! You do not violate a copyright by letting people download a copy her to view her. It is expressly allowed, and in fact, encouraged. Its the very reason for GPL and AGPL. The AGPL is strongly copyleft precisely so you can do this. We literally cannot stop you from copying her.

If such a rule that looking at Ruth was illegal, we had best all quit right now, because simply looking at a copyrighted prim would carry a $15,000 dollar-per-view penalty. It just ain't so.

Regards:

Fred

[ilantochner]

Hi Fred,

At no point did I say that data, or meshes specifically can't be copyrighted. That is simply another strawman argument.

What I said is that if you license a mesh using GPL/AGPL then even if the mesh is considered to be data and not code then using the process I described above a judge can find that the texture, HUD, OpenSim and other software tightly connected to it need to be GPL/AGPL licensed as well. I make a distinction between the two because the GPL/AGPL licenses have been heavily discussed in cases related to code and there is very little legal precedence for how they will be treated in court when the data is what has been licensed with the GPL/AGPL. These distinctions show up in many discussions you can find on the web, regarding if GPL/AGPL copyleft previsions come into affect when two pieces of code only exchange data and are otherwise not combined into a single program.

The DMCA protects companies from copyright infringements made by their users as long as certain takedown processes are followed. There is no equivalent legal protection for companies running user code that is legally licensed but in a way that creates liabilities for the companies running that code. TOS may prevent users from uploading GPL/AGPL licensed code but the companies running that code on their server only have a license to do so if they agree to follow the terms of the GPL/AGPL license. If they do not follow these terms then they must remove that content from their servers as soon as learn of its existence or risk losing their DMCA protections for hosting unlicensed content. In other words, if it is the case that the GPL/AGPL behaves as I've described then not banning such content from our servers while not complying with its terms will result in us knowingly violating the licensing terms of that copyrighted content.

The same applies to content created by content creators for this mesh (again as described above).

AGPL copyleft provisions are triggered when propagating the content to the end user. Stating that if you do so you also have to give that user the source of that content with an AGPL license. Note the exact language used in the license:

To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

You seem to think that OpenSim sending a copy of the copyrighted work (the mesh) to the user's viewer and having that copy saved to the user's computer (in the viewer cache) does not "enables other parties to make or receive copies". We all know copybot clients do exactly that with the data they are sent, they enable the other party (the user accessing he server) to make/receive a copy of the content they see inworld. As that is the case, the OpenSim server that runs the world where the AGPL mesh is rezzed is conveying that mesh to visitors to that world and therefore needs to provide the source code used to create that mesh to those visitors.

As for "System Library". This is the exact language used in the AGPL license for defining it:

The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

Note the exact definition of "Major Component" that is used in the definition of "System Libraries". Your operating system is a Major Component, and with a stretch maybe Mono/.Net would be considered as well. But OpenSim is not "a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system" and thus isn't a Major Component. And neither is any of our proprietary code running on it or connected to it. As a result they are also not System Libraries as defined by the AGPL license and do not benefit for the exceptions the license makes for System Libraries.

To summarize, the exact language used in the license is of vital importance when trying to understand its legal meaning. It's not a matter of common sense or what the implications would be if you read it one way and not another. Just like you do yourselves a disservice by making strawman arguments, you do yourselves a disservice by ignoring the exact wording of the licenses you wish to adopt. When there is any ambiguity then it becomes a matter for the courts and if you leave it at that and hope for the best you may wind up with a result that is very far from what you expect.

[Outworldz]

Ilan, go read your TOS - it says you own your code. That is an enforceable contract no matter what License we use. That should be the end of this discussion.

We are not changing our license. And frankly,I think it is a terrible idea for you to even consider banning the only free, permissively licensed Bento avatar, yet you allow known copybotted avatars to be used in Kitely. Your DMCA red herring is not relevant, but I must point out that your DMCA exclusion will not protect you, as you already know these works are stolen, as stated in HG Business and by Digiworldz. This makes you an accomplice under the DMCA law. You already know which ones they are. The DMCA exemption applies only to innocent grid owners. It is trivially easy to see they are stolen - just look at the notecard in some of hem. It says it is stolen! So when are you going to ban the stolen works?

Please, read the SL TOS, the Sansar TOS, the Unity TOS, SineSpace's TOS or World of Warcraft. Search for the word GPL. It's not there. And read yours, Osgrid's Metropolis, and Inworldz, too. There are tens of millions of people and billions of licensed items on on those systems, and not one of those companies uses the word GPL or AGPL, or cares about it.

Your claim that Opensim is not an essential component to run Opensim is prima facie evidence there is something misunderstood here.

The Copybot User is making the copy in a user-accessible form. Not the viewer, not your server. The license says . ... "To propogate... ... except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy" It's quite plain from these words that the copy that is executed on a viewer is not propagating it. Secondly, the viewer data is not accessible to the end user no matter what the license is. As another, simpler example, clicking Next User No Copy means you have no license to copy it again so wearing a prim and letting others 'download it' would be a crime. That's nonsense, but logical, from your words as I understand them. They have certainly committed no tort with Ruth - we specifically allow copying by anyone, anywhere at any time.. They are allowed to literally download her, provided they pass our license on.

If you think viewing is copying, please send me $15,000 statutory damages for viewing my copyrighted personal avatar as it has no license at all, but it is copyrighted and your viewer downloaded it and rendered it without my permission. Sounds crazy, right? Well, that's my conclusion of the chaos that will happen if what you say is true.

System Libraries... include anything, other than the work as a whole ..." It should be quite clear the that "System libraries .. include anything, other than the work as a whole". It's plain as the words. Also, "the work" is defined as our work, not your work. The AGPL never mentions your source, or your libraries, except to exclude them. Flipping this around and claiming Ruth is a library (as you keep trying to do, and as LGPL does) is not allowed. If A, then B does not mean if B, then A. That is a logical fallacy. The identical wording in both AGPL and GPL licenses says quite plainly that your System Libraries are exempt.

And anyway, there is a glaring logical fallacy you face. Under your rules, anyone can upload an AGPL prim like Ruth, and you seem to say they can sue you and get your code. So you ban AGPL code. So I just upload a custom XYZZY license with a few words changed and sue again and I will win ( according to you) . After you lose in court, and pay me my $15,000, you decide to ban XYZZY, so I simply write a YAL license (Yet Another License), log in and sue you again and you have to pay me $15,000 plus attorneys fees every single time! And give me your source code again and again. That's silly. You simply cannot exclude an infinite number of licenses. Plus one more.......

You will also have to ban my unlicensed HG-enabled full perm prims too, as you are violating copyright law again. That's just wrong on many levels. An infinite number of licenses plus one. Go read your TOS, which also covers this situation.

Please feel free to download and compile and link and run VNC (GPL licensed) or do it to POV-ray (AGPL) and render away. There are no repercussions from running GPL or AGPL software unless YOU link with YOUR code in a deep way. And we both know that is not going to happen.

~Fred

[emperorstarfinder]

Good morning,

I have been watching this project quietly for a bit now and I must say I am quite impressed. Keep up the good work on the project.

As a grid owner, I have been a bit reluctant to weigh in on this issue as it is not a project my team manages. However, I hope you will indulge me a bit here as I can speak from the point of view of a content creator, a grid owner, and while i am not an attorney, i am someone who has taken enough law school courses to know better.

The fact you are having a conversation about licensing for the project is a healthy conversation to have and quite frankly I wish more open source projects would have that conversation. These types of conversations allow your project community to have their input heard and helps the project managers make the best decision possible based on all the input, the legal concerns, and what they feel the values of the project should be.

As a grid owner, I can say both Fred and ITKitely have valid points. However, there is a very dangerous precedence being suggested that leads down a very steep and slippery slope.

Let me first address the dangerous precedence I have mentioned and then I will address the DMCA upload, download matter.

The Slippery Slope - By Kitely saying it will not allow AGPL licensed content on its grid, is a very bad idea. The reason is, that when you ban one license you are starting yourself down the path of others expecting you to ban licenses they do not like or agree with. By this, you would have to ban GPL, LGPL, BSD, Creative Commons licenses, etc. until such point where you have effectively banned and prohibited open source projects completely from your grid. Likewise, by going down this slippery slope you will be hurting content creators who use components from open source projects in their commercial projects, whether it be an avatar, script, prim objects, etc. At some point, this will hurt the ability of the content creator to be creative and then you will not have outstanding content and you will have very dissatisfied users. By going down this slope while you can claim you are being proactive from a legal standpoint regarding copyright infringement, you really are just using a volatile argument in reaction to a concern based upon a report someone made regarding what they believe might have been in violation of copyright. Having read the Hypergrid Business article relating to their actions on possible copyright infringement I would say this was more overcompensation or reaction to a situation that could have caused them a legal headache as opposed to there being actual objections to the AGPL.

Content Licenses - When you upload content to a virtual world grid, whether it is Secondlife, OSGrid, Kitely, Metropolis Grid, InWorldz, Second Galaxy (my grid), or any other grid, you are granting the grid owner a minimal license to use and display your content on their grid. Under this minimal license, the grid owner has the right to render your content in-world for other users of the grid to see and the right to display the content you create and upload to their grid for the purpose of marketing their grid.

The real concern here for the grid owner should be this and not the slippery slope I described. Why? the answer is very easy, the reason is that if a court finds that the person who uploaded the content, did not have the right to upload the content or is not the actual creator or owner of the content, then the minimal license the grid owner has been granted to have that content on their grid is in jeopardy.

Courts will look at the various licenses only to determine if someone has used or distributed content in a way that violates a condition of that license. But generally, a court cannot even get to that until they determine ownership.

The key question any grid owner should ask and this is what the terms of service of the various grids out there contemplate, "Does the person uploading the content own the creative rights to the content, and if not do they have proper permission to upload that content?"

Why do we ask this question? The answer is because if the person uploading that content does not own the creative rights or does not have permission to use or upload that content, then they do not have the right to grant the grid owner a minimal license to use that content on their grid. This is where DMCA applies.

Generally, as a matter of law, the copyright laws that will apply to content will be the laws of the country where the content resides and or is being used. Therefore if your country is a member for example of the European Union, not only will that country's copyright laws apply, so to the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive) apply. If your servers are in the United States and the content resides on your server in the United States, then the DMCA (Digital Media Copyright Act) will apply and will be the superseding law that takes precedence even if your corporate headquarters is not in the US.

The end result here is it really is not up to the grid owner to tell an open source project what license they can or cant, or should or should not use. Likewise, a grid owner should stay neutral and not worry about what license content is using but rather does the person uploading that content or creating that content in-world have the actual ownership of the creative rights or the permission to use that content on their grid.

Conclusion

As a grid owner, I applaud Kitely's willingness to be proactive with copyright infringement and hope all grid owners will start being more proactive. It is a very fine line and unfortunately not a very easy line to walk when it comes to copyright issues. Grid owners like everyone else, are imperfect and do make mistakes. The hope here from what I have said is that we avoid the mistakes that we really should avoid making, and to provide some educational commenting on what should really be the focus.

[aiaustin]

Wow.. plenty of reading and study matter this morning :-) I hope those not interested in the tecnicalities of licences and just want to get on with creating some great open source assets are averting their eyes!

Ilan... the detailed explanation of why you are concerned with AGPL content on Kitely is much appreciated as that concern seems to be the root of the issue raised here. I did wonder what the issue was and thought it might be mostly related to the difficulty of checking Kiteky marketplace items that might not respect the AGPL of the core Ruth 2.0 avatar. On that I had assumed much like DMCA the items could simply be delisted if an issue was raised after checking.

It seems that the core issue is whether using Ruth 2.0 under AGPL or modifications made that respect the licence can be used as CONTENT and rendered via OpenSim/Kitely. I believe it is anyway... but just to cover legal questions that some raised for such share alike licences I actually thought that was explicitly covered by AGPL just to make sure....

A "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

Surely OpenSim, your platform and the viewer are fully covered by “an object code interpreter used to run it”.

In any case... will this discussion serve to act as a clear indicator of intent on the part of the creators of Ruth 2.0?

I speak as someone who has employed lawyers for significant multi-national project code and data audits, licence type reviews for systems with dozens of contributing elements and who has licenced data and 3D models under open source licences.

[ilantochner]

I'll answer in reverse chronological order:

First: Hi Ai Austin.

The questions of what software is the "object code interpreter used to run it" is a key question in determining whether our code will be exempt from needing to comply with the AGPL copyleft provisions if we wish to be able to legally host AGPL content. I contend that it isn't OpenSim that is that object code interpreter but rather Mono/.NET CLR that runs the C#-derived code that OpenSim is written in. It isn't OpenSim that compiles the DLLs used to enable xengine scripts, nor is it OpenSim that is the one handling just in time compilation to turn them from the representation used by .NET libraries to machine code. That function is handled by the Mono/.NET CLR and it, and not OpenSim, may potentially qualify for an exemption as a Major Component.

There is nothing in OpenSim that makes it any different from numerous other programs written in C#, running on the CLR and loading DLLs for program functionality extensions at runtime. If one were to accept your assumption that OpenSim is the Major Component then one would need to accept that any C#/Java program that operates similarly to OpenSim is also exempt from needing to follow the GPL/AGPL copyleft provisions. That would make any significantly complex C# and Java based programs immune to the copyleft provisions of the GPL/AGPL and I've yet to see anyone try to make that claim. Is this what you are claiming? If not, what makes OpenSim inherently different from any C#/Java program that operates similarly to it.

[aiaustin]

Okay Ilan.. thanks. Good to get to a core issue.

[ilantochner]

Next: Hi Emperor Starfinder.

I'll assume that you'll now agree that we've established that OpenSim isn't a Major Component as defined in the AGPL and thus doesn't get to use the exemption from following the copyleft terms permitted to System Libraries. If you allow for that, you should also see how my first posts describes a valid interpretation of the AGPL license terms; and how having the mesh be under AGPL can result in grids (that allow AGPL content to be used within them) to be required to AGPL their own proprietary components that are tightly connected with OpenSim or fail to comply with the licensing terms permitting them to use and convey the AGPL mesh to other parties.

We don't intend to AGPL our proprietary components that are tightly connected with OpenSim and therefore we know in advance that we will not have a valid license to use or convey any AGPL-licensed user content. This licensing problem isn't just true for the AGPL, there are numerous other licenses that people can define that would create the same issue. Our TOS therefore need to make it clearer that uploading content that requires us to take certain actions in order to be legally hosted by us is not allowed.

This isn't a matter of people not liking certain licenses. This is about complying with what those licenses require from us to be able to legally use what they cover and/or convey it to others. Some people may not like CC/BSD/MIT/Apache/... but those licenses don't require anything from us which we have an inherent issue with. Our removal of content is based on legal reasons not people's personal preferences.

In other words, we would be knowingly violating people's chosen licenses if we knew of an AGPL-licensed content added to our system and we didn't act to remove it. Doing so creates no risk of a slippery slope for banning more permissively licensed content as there is no legal problem for us to host that more permissively licensed content.

My point about the inherent problems of the AGPL relate to your main concern (under Content Licenses). The user has a valid license to upload AGPL content due to its copyleft provisions. But the grid owner that doesn't wish to comply with the AGPL doesn't have a valid license to use and/or convey that content to other parties unless the grid owner agrees to AGPL their own proprietary components that are tightly connected to OpenSim. The only way this would not be the case is if we were exempt from needing to AGPL our own components, but we've already established that it is very plausible that we aren't exempt from doing so if we knowingly allow AGPL content into our system.

[ilantochner]

Lastly: Hi Fred.

The DMCA requires us to take action when we become aware of a specific case of infringement, which we do. As we don't moderate what people upload into our system, we don't know of specific cases of infringement until we are notified of their existence. Saying a certain mesh is illegally licensed is not the same as pointing to an instance where that mesh is present in our system and saying that that mesh is illegally licensed. That is the distinction that makes the DMCA safe harbor provisions useful in protecting online service providers from liability from hosting unlicensed content. I suggest you read the DMCA to see what it actually says before you try to interpret whether our actions comply with its safe harbor provisions.

"Your claim that Opensim is not an essential component to run Opensim" <= that is a very weird strawman argument to make as people can easily read what I've written and nowhere do I say anything even resembling that.

I've already explained how the language used in the AGPL license defines conveying and why having a server that enables some software (e.g. copybot software) to download and make copies of the AGPL content means that the exemption you're trying to use isn't valid in this case. You're repeatedly reading just parts of the license and ignoring the parts that define the terms used by the license. That isn't how contract law (which governs such licenses) works.

The rest of your comment if full of many other strawman arguments. I suggest you take a step back and reread what I wrote without trying to add claims which I haven't made.

This is your project, I'm only commenting here because I think that this project is important for the Metaverse and it would be a shame it you footgunned it due to false assumptions about the legal language used in the AGPL and LGPL. If my explanations fall short of convincing you then I suggest you consult with an IP lawyer before you decide to stick to your guns and circle the wagons.

[SundanceHaiku]

Ilan,

Thank you for your in-depth comments on AGPL. Are there any other commonly used licenses that you have concerns with? For example, do you have problems with any of the Creative Commons licenses - or Lawrence Rosen's Open Software License v. 3.0 (OSL-3.0) (https://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0)?

[emperorstarfinder]

I'll assume that you'll now agree that we've established that OpenSim isn't a Major Component as defined in the AGPL and thus doesn't get to use the exemption from following the copyleft terms permitted to System Libraries.

IIan, this is an interesting question. The definition they use in the AGPL License Section 1 states:

"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

Under this definition, if you don't define a virtual world grid as an Operating System (which is a bit of a stretch to define it as), then yes OpenSim is not a "Major Component".

I am not so sure that the definition of "Major Component" is your real concern here because you are providing a service with Kitely, just like I do with Second Galaxy. I think your real concern there is pertaining to the "System Libraries".

If you allow for that, you should also see how my first posts describes a valid interpretation of the AGPL license terms; and how having the mesh be under AGPL can result in grids allowing that AGPL to be used within them to be required to AGPL their own proprietary components that are tightly connected with OpenSim or fail to comply with the licensing terms permitting them to use and convey the AGPL mesh to other parties.

This here gives me a little pause. The reason is a virtual world grid provides a service. You store data and render that data to the end user. Plus from reading Sections 4 - 6 seems to me to allow you to convey the content (Avatars, skins, textures, scripts, etc) in the Ruth project here because you are not selling it with your proprietary code, nor are you selling your proprietary code. Therefore if my interpretation of those sections is correct I am not so sure that it would require you to change your source code for your architecture to AGPL.

I also suspect that if your interpretation there was the case, even Linden Labs would have concerns about AGPL and other similar open source licenses.

Your point about how this would relate to the relationship between the grid owner and the end user I am also not so sure I would go that far with as well. The reason is again, your providing a service your not the one uploading the content. All your doing is storing it for the end user.

We had similar concerns about some of the open source licenses on my team but we did find a way to avoid having to block content using an open source license. The way we did it was by adopting a policy (which will soon be on our website and in our TOS) which regulates how content derived from open source projects is used and handled on Second Galaxy. The policy requires the following:

Normal Users (includes content creators)

a) Users uploading content from an open source project must have a copy of the license including the link to the site or location for that project in the folder with the content and inside the content's inventory. b) Users may not sell content from an open source project for In-World currency or real life cash through our service. c) Users must ensure that the project allows them to upload the content of that project to a virtual world service. d) Users understand that Second Galaxy developers and staff do not sell content and only provide and maintain a service. Further our architecture code which includes our proprietary code is not sold or traded in any way and is sperate from any content rendered in-world or on our websites. e) By uploading content to Second Galaxy users indemnify the owners, developers, and staff from any liability arising from complaints relating to the licensing of the content.
f) Users recognize and understand that all conditions in accordance with DMCA requirements apply.

Open Source Project Teams (who bring their projects onto our grid)

a) The project leader must register the project with Second Galaxy. The information provided must include the following: 1) The name of the project 2) The name of the content In-World 3) The Real life name of each member of the project team 4) The In-World name of each member of the project team 5) Contact information for the project team 6) A copy of the license the project licenses its content under 7) A link to the website or location both in-world and off-world where the project source can be found. b) Users understand that Second Galaxy developers and staff do not sell content and only provide and maintain a service. Further our architecture code which includes our proprietary code is not sold or traded in any way and is sperate from any content rendered in-world or on our websites. c) By uploading content to Second Galaxy users indemnify the owners, developers, and staff from any liability arising from complaints relating to the licensing of the content.
d) Users recognize and understand that all conditions in accordance with DMCA requirements apply.

We could have taken the approach your apparently considering, however, we realized why that might be a mistake. This comes down to what I described in the slippery slope. If we were to ban open source licenses starting with AGPL (which yes there is a valid reason to have concerns with), we would find we would have to be fair and ban other open source licenses to. And by doing that we would limit the ability for content creators to potentially be creative with the content they create. If you go that route you might (or might not depending on the situation) wind up in that boat. If it might help you, I can send you a copy of our policy relating to this to give you a potential way to solve this, once our attorney has given approval of the legal language.

We have found the way we are going in this regard will be a better approach. Partly because we are working to build a strong relationship with our users and content creators to ensure that there are both trust and the sense of being part of something bigger. We also are working to provide our users and content creators with the tools and knowledge of what to look for should they find a reason to believe content they find on our grid might be in violation of licensing or DMCA.

Ultimately we prefer not to prohibit licenses from being used for open source content on our grid and would ban a license as a last resort if we find too many problems caused by the license.

The point I am trying to get across here is that banning content which uses a particular license that you don't like from your grid seems to be overreacting to a situation. You likely will find you will go further if you find ways to allow it while ensuring your architecture code isn't changing its licensing. Which you do not need to change your license because again your not selling your architecture or proprietary code.

I would encourage the project devs here to communicate with the owners of the various grids to see where they will come down on the licensing concerns however as AGPL may create headaches down the road.

[ilantochner]

Hi Sundance Haiku,

The following is my I-am-not-a-lawyer-and-this-isn't-legal-advise opinion:

I have no issues with Modified/Revised BSD (3 clause), MIT License, Apache 2.0 License, and LGPL 3.0 for distributing code. I think they are a great way to share open-source code.

I have no issues with CC0 or any of the Creative Commons 4.0 licenses for distributing content. I think they are a great way to share content. Even the ShareAlike ones don't create the same types of issues I specified in my aforementioned comments about using AGPL for content.

I haven't thoroughly read the OSL-3.0 license so I can't really comment about it.

[SundanceHaiku]

Emperor Starfinder,

Your "Normal Users" requirement ("Users may not sell content from an open source project for In-World currency or real life cash through our service") addresses my problem with AGPL. Namely, the problem being that the license permits commercial interests to sell my work created in an Open Source project which was done for non-commercial purposes and was done completely free. I would like to keep it free, and thus, I would be very much in favor of such a requirement.

But doesn't this requirement, in itself, create a potential problem for you. The ability to sell Open Source work is an important part of the AGPL license. They go out of their way to promote this aspect of the license, even resorting to re-defining the public's understanding of "free" to mean freedom to distribute rather than free of cost. Couldn't someone say to you: "Hey, I have a legal right to sell the Ruth avatar (for instance) because my license specifically allows me to do that" ?

[emperorstarfinder]

Sundance,

Ideally, the users (i.e. normal user, content creator) should not be selling content they get from an open source project as a standalone product. This is what we are specifically targeting. If the user sells their product they have created but that content in itself has open source components it would need to have the permissions from the original creator.

We aren't necessarily targeting an individual license with this policy because we have found we need to enforce a universal standard for all open source projects that may be on our grid or where components from scripts, avatars, textures, mesh, primitives, etc might be found. Ideally, because the current open source licenses do not really take into account content used on virtual worlds, we would prefer to see one universal open source license that all grid owners and content creators can agree on (wishful thinking, I know). But this would ideally be the way to solve the open source problem in-world.

Our policy requires 3 readings of our governing body and passed the first reading on Sunday, March 11, 2018. The first reading is for the core developers to state the principles of the policy and what we want it to accomplish. The second reading is so our in-house legal counsel and our outside counsel can review it and draft the legal language. The third reading is the final adoption at which point it will go into effect within a 30 day period. (assuming it passes the 3rd reading).

But doesn't this requirement, in itself, create a potential problem for you. The ability to sell Open Source work is an important part of the AGPL license. They go out of their way to promote this aspect of the license, even resorting to re-defining the public's understanding of "free" to mean freedom to distribute rather than free of cost. Couldn't someone say to you: "Hey, I have a legal right to sell the Ruth avatar (for instance) because my license specifically allows me to do that"?

You raise a very good question and I will definitely pass that on to our legal counsel for them to review and take into account in the final language for the policy.

[Outworldz]

Ilan, what is your opinion if this clause was in your TOS? Would this suffice?

COMPANY, and all the Content (other than the User Generated Content mentioned above), including without limitation, the graphics, photos, texts, data, personal data and information, business and technical data and information, guides, manuals, specifications, any proprietary resources, presentations, sounds, music, videos, interactive features, software (whether in source code or object code), scripts, designs, interface functionality trademarks, service marks, and logos (collectively, "Intellectual Property"), whether or not registered and/or protected by copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents or other proprietary rights and laws, are solely owned by or licensed to COMPANY and subject to copyright and other applicable intellectual property rights under Israeli laws, foreign laws and international conventions. Except as permitted by applicable laws, you are not granted, expressly or by implication, estoppels or otherwise, any license or right to use any of the Intellectual Property without the prior written permission of the Company.

[ilantochner]

Hi Emperor Starfinder,

First, I appreciate your willingness to share your policy updates. I fear, however, that your stated policy won't help you comply with the terms of the AGPL and thus if you knowingly host AGPL content on your service and grant people the ability to view it inworld via the the viewer then you will need to either comply with the aforementioned requirements regarding your own proprietary system or you'll lose your license to host the AGPL content. If you don't comply and continue to knowingly host that AGPL content then the copyright holder of that content can sue you for copyright infringement. As you knowingly ignored a specified case of copyright infringement you won't be able to rely on the DMCA safe harbor provisions to protect you.

The AGPL license doesn't provide any exemptions from complying with its copyleft requirements if the content isn't sold. The main drive for people using this license is to ensure that if you give a person a copy of some protected work then you'll be obligated to give them the source for that work under an AGPL license as well. Another main drive is that if you create a combined work with that protected work then you'll have to release the entire combined work with an AGPL license. This later part is what makes it different from the GPL. You don't need to provide someone with a copy of the protected work to be required to license your code with AGPL, you only need to provide someone with a product of that combined work. (this isn't the language used in the license, I'm paraphrasing and removing the connecting arguments which I've already stated in my previous comments)

The only relevance of how that protected work got into your virtual world is that if the user uploaded it without having a valid license to do so then you'll be protected by the DMCA safe harbor provisions if you act in certain prescribed ways when you are made aware of the existence of that unlicensed work in your system. You don't get to knowingly continue hosting protected work without a license just because someone else uploaded it into your system. When it comes to the AGPL, the user actually has a valid license to upload the content it is just your grid that doesn't wish to comply with the copyleft provisions of that license that eliminates your ability to continue to legally include it in your virtual world once you become aware of its existence in your system.

Lastly, please note that in the case of meshes and OpenSim, the AGPL protected work is actually transferred to the viewer in modified mode (it is converted to LL mesh format on upload). I suggest you direct your lawyer to read the exact language used in the AGPL and explain what OpenSim does with various types of code/content uploaded into it. I doubt that lawyer will give you the all clear for using AGPL licensed content after that.

[ilantochner]

Hi Sundance Haiku,

The LGPL license for code should prevent people from modifying your code and selling it without giving back their modifications using the LGPL.

For content, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International will prevent people from using your content commercially. If you wish to force them to share their modifications using a similar license as the one you gave them then use Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. If you wish to both prevent them from using your content commercially and also force them to share their modifications using a similar license as the one you gave them then use Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

[emperorstarfinder]

IIan,

we have attorneys who are well familiar with OpenSim and copyright laws. We pass on our first reading what our goals and what we want our policies to accomplish. Then it is their job through the second and third reading of proposals before the governing body of Second Galaxy to write the actual legal language. That is what we pay them for.

So you should keep in mind what I mentioned is coming from our first reading and may not ultimately be whats included in the final policy. This is why I said I would be more than happy to provide you with a copy of the finalized policy when it is ready to hopefully give you some ideas on how to deal with it without walking yourself down a slippery slope which would potentially happen.