Open Rukachan opened 8 years ago
way2muchnoise
commented
8 years ago Just out of curiosity any reason you would bring this up? Cause I never saw someone care about that kind of stuff before. (Except for well BC because that is a Drama generator)
jakimfett
commented
8 years ago Nice sock puppet you've got there. Good job on finding a new way to get rekt on licensing issues.
All sarcasm aside, please go re-read the commits you linked, as it very clearly says "Minechem 5.0.5 and higher" (eg new code that I'm writing and releasing) is licensed under the new license.
That said, this change was far from "silent". I spent a significant amount of time over a period of months tracking down contributors and previous authors to make sure I had permission to change the license. The response I got from everyone I spoke to was basically "do whatever you want with it, it's your code now". Once I had permission, I changed the license. I should probably update the wording to reflect that.
I could probably make it a bit more official by posting all the "permission granted" messages, but that'd take time and effort, and the only people who seem to care are "OSI Open Source" fanatics, so...
asiekierka
commented
8 years ago BC because that is a Drama generator
One drama in five years? That's low.
the only people who seem to care are "OSI Open Source" fanatics, so...
The community likes to have a public record or at least a clearer explanation of what happened, precisely to stop misunderstandings such as this one.
way2muchnoise
commented
8 years ago one about license, but to go a little further into it. Minechem has way less contributors then BC has. And that ones that would matter (being the big ones cause who cares about a few lines) are a very select group.
asiekierka
commented
8 years ago @way2muchnoise - I actually counted almost everyone on my list who made any substantial contribution, where "substantial" is defined as "even a few lines of code, if it's new code". Most of what I skipped was NPE checks and old translations.
jakimfett
commented
8 years ago @way2muchnoise, @asiekierka, I'd really prefer if licensing problems from other unrelated projects not get re-hashed here in the Minechem repository. Perhaps direct messages on Twitter or a private IRC channel might be more conducive to discussing Buildcraft licensing issues?
As far as public record goes, I should probably take the time to document the changes, permissions granted, etc. My limiting factor at the moment is free time, which I have none due to working two jobs at the moment.
asiekierka
commented
8 years ago @jakimfett - Alright. That's why the issue had a question mark, I believe - @Rukachan was confused and wanted clarification. Saying "I will try to provide it later" is more than enough.
Rukachan
commented
8 years ago @way2muchnoise It was easier to bring up than Galacticraft (https://github.com/micdoodle8/Galacticraft/commit/84f6b8f1ef16c898aac747942ada30fbbc765d09)
@jakimfett Hi, accusing me of sockpuppetry is not something I would expect or appreciate, but in any case. I am aware of the notice you highlighted but I am unsure what it has to do with anything. Copyleft licenses are a bit like virus you see. As for you having permissions, that I can't know but it would be nice to publish a proof of that as I simply can't use or contribute to a mod whose license situation is unclear or in doubt.
and the only people who seem to care are "OSI Open Source" fanatics
I have heard free software supporters being called as fanatics (see Stallman) but this is the first time I read something like this.
In any case, I am not interested on accusing anybody, all I wish is to have a clear image on the situation, especially when closing a FOSS project when you are not even the biggest contributor of it and then having patron buttons on every GUI (something that your own, changed license disallows for others) is a bit weird. I will happily wait for the record and will truly appreciate it.Thank you for understanding. I hope anything I said did not sound as offending, in that case, please let me know.
jakimfett
commented
8 years ago ...accusing me of sockpuppetry is not something I would expect or appreciate...
Random uninvolved 3rd party takes issue with a license change at the exact same time as a sockpuppet account (projectilemotion) is causing problems on a different project of mine, you do the math. Could be I'm wrong. I did a bit of digging and you're a pretty strong candidate for the hand inside the sockpuppet...projectilemotion is one of 2 accounts that have starred your project, posted immediately after you to harass BluSunrize about his license, and has basically done nothing else. You're the only user with any connection, and your writing style is...incredibly similar. both accounts use the same types of arguments. Both accounts make similar logical and knowledge mistakes (not actually reading the license bits that are under discussion, lack of legal knowledge). Combine all that, you've got two accounts that act very similar, support eachother in arguments, use the same types of arguments, write with similar styles and wording choices, and post at almost the same time...deny it if you want, but the math says that 2+2=4 here.
I am aware of the notice you highlighted but I am unsure what it has to do with anything
It means precisely what it says...versions 5.0.5 and higher fall under the license, which means versions previous to that don't fall under the new license.
Copyleft licenses are a bit like virus you see.
Which is why I got permission from previous contributors and authors to change the license. If you own all the code, then you can re-release it under whatever license you want.
I wish is to have a clear image on the situation, especially when closing a FOSS project when you are not even the biggest contributor of it
As I said previously, when time is no longer a factor, and there's not some other larger fire demanding my attention, I'll see about adding a "license history" page to the wiki or something.
...closing a FOSS project...
Yaknow, I've gone over this one a lot, and I still say the same thing I said from the beginning. This software is free, the source is open to anyone, which makes it still "free, open source software". Disagree if you'd like, but before you do, go read the multiple threads on this so I can refrain from repeating myself.
...you are not even the biggest contributor of it...
Nice ad hominem you've got there, pity if someone were to...call you out on it.
..having patron buttons on every GUI...is a bit weird...
I'm sorry that you think that a content creator who gives away hundreds of hours of work away for free is weird for giving users of their content a way to voluntarily support the content. I'm curious why you've not complained to Chickenbones or any of the others who do this...on the plus side, when I get time to work on v6, all of these problems will go away because it's a complete rewrite, and you can opt out of the patreon tab completely. Maybe if I wasn't spending time explaining to people that I really am trying to have an open, unrestrictive, end-user-friendly license, I'd be able to spend more time on software development?
...I hope anything I said did not sound as offending...
Nah, mostly just annoyed that I'm still dealing with drama. You could always open an issue, avoid drama, and operate on the assumption that I'm doing my best to deliver the best thing for everyone? Maybe?
Rukachan
commented
8 years ago If you believe that I am a sockpuppet, please, report the issue to the github administration. As for projectilemotion, he is probably a fellow 4channer (both my project, and issue posted on BluSunrize's repo were posted there).
after you to harass BluSunrize about his license
I harassed nobody. Mister BluSunrize claimed publically that his project was Public domain, yet in my reasonable request for license, I got ironic responses. But I do not think this topic is relevant to here, is it?
Which is why I got permission from previous contributors and authors to change the license. If you own all the code, then you can re-release it under whatever license you want.
I am fully aware, this is why I did not comment this on the part where you claimed that you got permission. The wording you used made me think that you were under the assumption that you can license the specific new code under the license.
Both accounts make similar logical and knowledge mistakes (not actually reading the license bits that are under discussion, lack of legal knowledge).
Please, feel free to show me my "lack of legal knowledge" and "lack of legal knowledge". I am open to suggestions and corrections.
This software is free, the source is open to anyone, which makes it still "free, open source software". Disagree if you'd like, but before you do, go read the multiple threads on this so I can refrain from repeating myself.
Let's agree to disagree but this is really not my point here, it is not in my concern whatever you believe in the common FOSS definition or not.
Nice ad hominem
I am not aware how is this ad hominem, nor why did you took offence on it, I though it was a fact. It simply reminded me the Ublock and Ublock origin situation (that's for the donation part, for the license part, as I mentioned, it just seemed weird).
I'm sorry that you think that a content creator
So, I guess you give a fair share to the other contributors of the project, especially the original creators and the contributors with the bigger share, right? But again, this is not the topic of my issue, you can do whatever you like with your donations and GUIs. My issue was not that, nor I am trying to accuse you on that. It simply seemed a bit ironic that the creator of a fork that does this, disallows future forks to do the same.
You could always open an issue, avoid drama, and operate on the assumption that I'm doing my best to deliver the best thing for everyone? Maybe?
This issue was created with this exact assumption in mind, I am truly sorry if it was not clear enough.
EDIT: Actually, even if your claim that they allowed you to change the license is indeed true, they still keep their copyrights, meaning the license of the project applies to you too, meaning also that
You are expressly prohibited from making or trying to make money from the code, derivatives of the code, compiled portions of the code, etc etc.
jakimfett
commented
8 years ago I harassed nobody
Person harassing claims they aren't harassing. Go on, tell me another.
...free to show me my "lack of legal knowledge"...
Mkay.
The term "illegal" refers to something that is in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, specifically a breach of the law. Given your partial information, calling the license change "illegal" was incorrect. It would be similar to seeing someone eating a candy bar with "Wal-Mart" on the wrapper, and calling it stolen because you didn't see it paid for.
The "because there wasn't a CLA, contributors keep their copyright" bit is true, but only applies if the code written by the contributors is still in use. For example, commit https://github.com/jakimfett/Minechem/commit/44fcc885aa1e6fc94785875cbb5631b72eaf4d45 needs no CLA, because the code was removed. Regardless of how much someone contributes under a given license, if their contributions are removed, a CLA isn't required from them to change the license.
Minechem is not "closed". It's changed, it's different, but it's still very much open. I understand that you disagree on this, but "closed source" has specific legal meanings. Minechem is not closed. It's not "do whatever you want" open, but it's very, very close. Technically, it's more on the lines of visible source, open distribution, non-commercial, derivable and re-distribute allowed.
Transfer of copyright ownership gives legal ownership of the content to the recipient. This allows the new owner of the copyright to do whatever they want with the content, whether that is re-license, sell, or convert all the variables to meme reference. It also allows them to make money from the content they own, because they own it.
These are a few of the key knowledge gaps demonstrated.
I am not aware how is this ad hominem
An ad hominem attack is one that focuses on the person rather than the position they're maintaining. Eg the bit "you are not even the biggest contributor of it" attacks me, personally, rather than addressing the logic of my stance on the license change issue. Textbook ad hominem.
So, I guess you...
Again with the ad hominem.
No, I don't pass any of the small amounts I get from Patreon and Curse points on to the other contributors. It all gets put back into things like:
In addition, I throw somewhere between $50-$300 of my own cash at the project each month to keep things moving. I dunno if you have some misconception that I'm sitting on a massive payout from "other people's work" here, but you're wrong.
Additionally, managing an open source project is far more than number of lines committed. It's hours spent writing design documents. It's coordinating with artists. It's building a web presence. It's sending requests to sites that they remove unlicensed content. It's dealing with insulting issue requests in the tracker. The list goes on.
...issue was created with this exact assumption...
Opening with "what you're doing is illegal" is not giving a project the benefit of the doubt. Here's some alternative versions of your ticket that do:
...even if your claim that they allowed you to change the license is indeed true...
Sorry, I misspoke. I worked with previous authors and contributors to obtain the copyright, not permission to change the license. If you don't believe me, the previous developer (pixlepix) tweeted about the ownership transfer. While I can appreciate that you've got some reasonable doubts about the transfer, the fact that an official Github master repo transfer happened (and was approved by Github and the former developer) might be indicative that things are relatively above the board.
Rukachan
commented
8 years ago Person harassing claims they aren't harassing. Go on, tell me another.
ok
The term "illegal" refers to something that is in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance, specifically a breach of the law
Yes
Opening with "what you're doing is illegal" is not giving a project the benefit of the doubt Given your partial information, calling the license change "illegal" was incorrect
The question-mark, the "assuming that there is not anything that I am missing, please feel free to correct me" and "all I wish is to have a clear image on the situation" were there for a reason.
It would be similar to seeing someone eating a candy bar with "Wal-Mart" on the wrapper, and calling it stolen because you didn't see it paid for.
I do not think that this comparison is too similar, as it is in the interest of the FOSS community to receive notification and evidence in the case when copyright has been transferred. Especially when the new maintainer does the stuff that I mentioned above. The way that it was handled was behind closed doors, leading for people to doubt the change in license (or suspect that that it was not handled at all).
but "closed source" has specific legal meanings
This is honestly the first time I hear that. Furthermore I did not say "closed source" anywhere.
The "because there wasn't a CLA, contributors keep their copyright" bit is true, but only applies if the code written by the contributors is still in use. For example, commit 44fcc88 needs no CLA, because the code was removed Transfer of copyright ownership gives legal ownership of the content to the recipient. This allows the new owner of the copyright to do whatever they want with the content, whether that is re-license, sell, or convert all the variables to meme reference. It also allows them to make money from the content they own, because they own it.
Yes, did I anywhere imply anything else?
An ad hominem attack is one that focuses on the person rather than the position they're maintaining. Eg the bit "you are not even the biggest contributor of it" attacks me, personally, rather than addressing the logic of my stance on the license change issue. Textbook ad hominem.
This is taken out of context. Plus it was not meant as a attack (as I mentioned above).
Again with the ad hominem.
I think you missed the point of this part. It was the "It simply seemed a bit ironic that the creator of a fork that does this, disallows future forks to do the same.".
If you don't believe me, the previous developer
I never doubted that the previous developer transferred the ownership of Minechem to you.
CovertJaguar
commented
8 years ago Don't blame @asiekierka for "causing drama" about licenses. I'm the one who's the real influence behind making sure everything is above board on both Buildcraft and Forestry. Though the amusing thing is that more than once I've been accused of attempting to make Buildcraft closed source, despite the fact that was never in my power to do. =P
ljfa-ag
commented
8 years ago "OSI Open Source" fanatics
I see what you did there If you're still having a problem with me @jakimfett then please talk to me directly rather than making sideswipes like that
jakimfett
commented
8 years ago @ljfa-ag you're neither the first nor the last individual to go on excessively about open source and licensing. This wasn't a sideswipe at you. It was a statement encompassing the entirity of individuals who lose sight of the purpose of open source and get caught up in the exact letter of compliance.
@CovertJaguar I appreciate the input, although as I mentioned earlier, I'd much prefer to keep the discussion here focused on this license in particular.
I'm probably going to lock this thread. Sadly, much of what I hate about the Minecraft modding community has surfaced in this conversation thread. It wasn't a productive conversation from the start, and it's pretty much devolved into a circlejerk of angst and passive aggressive almost-insults.
If anyone would like to discuss this further in private, I can be reached via IRC.
jakimfett
commented
8 years ago TODO: Create followup issue for recording the license transfers.
Between August 7 and August 8 of 2014 the license of this mod was silently (as you can see from the commit titles) changed into a non-FOSS license called as "Don't Be a Jerk" (https://github.com/jakimfett/DBaJ) Here are the commits that changed the license: https://github.com/jakimfett/Minechem/commit/3119c271fe0f729df7521f1f834051cae90382ac https://github.com/jakimfett/Minechem/commit/5c33baafcf7f3242e429ef7b14d10f234f206cf1 https://github.com/jakimfett/Minechem/commit/a3042cfff0878f7763e5a9b6704f689657a20bf6
Yet, the license of this mod used to be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ (a FOSS, copyleft, as you can see, license, meaning that while you are free to modify, run and (re)distribute this project, yet you are not able to change the license of it or any programs based on it), introduced at https://github.com/perky/Minechem/commit/c70592c7f3890aea4582b42ea06941eac7181a70. I have noticed no kind of CLA singing (thus the contributors keep their copyright), nor I have seen anything similar to https://github.com/BuildCraft/BuildCraft/issues/3004, making the change of the license illegal (assuming that there is not anything that I am missing, please feel free to correct me).