search

iopleke / MMPLv2

Minecraft Mod Public License v2
http://jakimfett.github.io/MMPLv2/
Other
31 stars 15 forks source link

This license is not Open Source #9

Closed ljfa-ag closed 9 years ago

ljfa-ag commented 9 years ago

This license doesn't go along with the Open Source definition by the OSI. See also their FAQ.

This license doesn't allow the mod to be sold and it doesn't allow using the mod if the user doesn't have a legal copy of Minecraft.

Please don't call this license an "Open Source" or "Free Software" license.

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

o·pen-source adjective denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.

Your definition of "Open Source" is too narrow. The OSI is an important resource for understanding and educating on the topic of open/free software, but it is not the ultimate authority.

In this case, the Minecraft EULA specifically prohibits the sale of mods: "...you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don‘t sell them for money..." (from the OWNERSHIP OF OUR GAME AND OTHER THINGS section)

A prerequisite for playing Minecraft is owning a license to play Minecraft. If you don't own a license, don't complain that you can't (legally) play the game. It's literally as simple as that.

Does this mean mods aren't Open Source? No. Open Source literally means "the source code is open", which is why we're creating this license...to protect people who want to make their code freely available to the community.

ljfa-ag commented 9 years ago

It's not Open Source according to the OSI's definition. Needless to say this license isn't compatible with any of the licenses approved by the OSI or FSF.

A legally acquired copy of Minecraft isn't required if you set up a server and install the mod there. But this license forbids it anyway.

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

Two things you're missing.

First, this license is not the final version. It's barely a rough draft. We're actively working on adjusting the wording to make it better, more easily usable, and more open. Go check the pull requests tab for this repo, you'll see discussion happening about some of these very things.

Secondly, this license makes no claims to comply with the OSI or FSF definition of "Open Source". It's a license intended for Minecraft mods, written by Minecraft modders. You might want to re-read the definition I posted earlier:
o·pen-source adjective denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.

ljfa-ag commented 9 years ago

Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license? Please don't do that. If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will confuse people.

I would just request that you change the wording in the Readme file and avoid using the term "Open Source". "Semi-free" would be more appropriate.

ljfa-ag commented 9 years ago

By the way, I like how the license is coming along and it's nice that you're gonna have a lawyer look at it. I might be using it for my next project. I just feel like it's not appropriate to call it "Open Source" if it restricts selling.

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

Perhaps I wasn't clear before...the license is Open Source. The OSI has a restrictive, incorrect definition of "Open Source".

"Open Source" literally means "the source is open". No more, no less. The OSI can add clauses or write papers or claim that it's different all that they want...but they can't change the meaning of words.

I will not be changing the wording. If you feel it's not appropriate to call it "Open Source", feel free to use one of the "official" OSI sanctioned licenses instead.

cuchaz commented 9 years ago

The "Open Source" moniker usually implies the granting of certain rights to the user. Just posting source code online with an "all rights reserved" copyright isn't in the spirit of open source, even though the source is technically publicly viewable. Sure, the source is readable, but if other crucial rights aren't granted, then most people wouldn't consider it "Open Source." As far as I know, these standards organizations (like the OSI) are in the business of deciding what rights are necessary to be granted to earn the title of "Open Source."

FayeAlephNil commented 9 years ago

@ljfa-ag @cuchaz @jakimfett it is at most a problem of conflicting definitions. It is not that big of a deal

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

@cuchaz just because something doesn't comply with your understanding of the "spirit of open source", doesn't make the dictionary definition of "Open Source" incorrect.

The OSI isn't a standards organization, it's an organization dedicated to promoting open-source software. Subtle difference, but a significant one. The ANSI is a standards organization, a body formally authorized by the US government to define standards. The OSI does not define standards, they suggest them.

As a sidenote...the purpose of this license isn't to prevent people from making money with the code they write. The Minecraft EULA does that. What this license will (try to) prevent is someone else monetizing your code in any way, shape, or form, for example by re-uploading your mod elsewhere and putting it behind a paywall or adfly.

cuchaz commented 9 years ago

The only difference between "defining" a standard and "suggesting" one is how many people agree with the standard. Everything is relative. =P

Anyway, I don't think this discussion is helpful anymore, so I'm going to bow out. =)

If the MPL ends up granting the rights I want, I'll use it. If not, I won't.

ljfa-ag commented 9 years ago

Speaking of definitions: Definitions found in a dictionary are intended to give the reader an idea of what the word means, but they might be short and inaccurate, and as such might not be real definitions. For instance, Wiktionary defines "integer" as "An element of the infinite and numerable set {...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...}". But the mathematical definition is longer and more involved.

It looks like you, @jakimfett , want to just hold on to your short and inaccurate dictionary definition of "Open Source". Oh well, whatever. Go ahead and confuse people if you want.

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

I much prefer short, simple, and concise over complex, somewhat arbitrary, and with caveats.

In the example you gave, the mathematical definition expands on the dictionary definition, but doesn't change it. We both still understand that an integer is 1, 4, -432, but not 1.52492.

Saying that "Open Source" must also mean "able to be monetized" is like saying "despite what it says in the dictionary, an integer has to have a 9 in it".

If I wanted to specify that it can be monetized, I would call it a "Open Source Commercial Reuse" license or a "Open Source Monetization" license. Open Source means "the source is open", and "can be freely monetized" means "anybody can monetize this". Telling people they're the same thing doesn't make it correct, regardless of how upset you are that they don't have the same opinion.

Ultimately, if you don't like the way it's defined, nobody is forcing you to use the license.