Open Wuzzy2 opened 5 years ago
rubenwardy
commented
5 years ago A small correction:
“Other (non-free)” (this one is bad for other reasons as well, it encourages proliferation of experimental and/or obscure licenses where the legal implications are unclear)
The "Other" options are used to indicate that the license for a package is missing from CDB, and packages with such licenses can't be approved
paramat
commented
5 years ago Didn't celeron55 decide that some proprietary licenses should be allowed in the CDB as in the forum? I'm sure we recently had a lot of discussion about this (i think it was in the forum) and that celeron55 was to be the decider. Not that i necessarily support his decision, proprietary is accepted in the forum but CDB is different. I'm not sure he should be the decider either.
Anyway, i'm leaning towards supporting Wuzzy2 on this.
sofar
commented
5 years ago I'm very much tempted to disallow -NC and -ND, however I disagree with "proprietary" used as a classification here because even MIT can be considered proprietary.
Wuzzy2
commented
5 years ago I use “proprietary” as synonym for “non-free” which I in turn use as synonym for “not complying to free software / open source standards set by FSF or OSI”. MIT License does not qualify as “proprietary” under this definition.
TalkLounge
commented
5 years ago I'm very much tempted to disallow -NC
Why? When I publish my mods under CC BY-NC 3.0, then it's open source, but I don't want to support apps with ads. That's all. Nobody shouldn't be allowed to earn money with my free work of coding.
Why do you want to ban them? That everyone will use GPL and Multicraft can implement all mods(Because more choice of mods) then and earn more money with it? Because you get money from MoNTE48, sofar? Otherwise I don't understand, why you want to ban them.
That's not the idea of open source. If I want to publish my work under CC BY-NC 3.0 then my mods shouldn't be discriminated. Like here and here. The minetest community should be lucky to have people who write awesome mods for minetest and publish them for server owners and shouldn't disperse them, like it happens with slopsbucket or Festus1965. We should be proud of every member in the minetest community.
If I will be discriminated in the content db, because I don't want to support MultiCraft etc., then I won't publish my mods in future and another coder is gone in the community. When that's the case, why don't rename Minetest to MultiCraft?
(MultiCraft & MoNTE48 is just an example for a minetest app with ads)
Calinou
commented
5 years ago @TalkLounge Please see this page for reasons as to why -NC licenses are discouraged.
We live in an era in which the open source definition is getting attacked on all sides. Let's work on making licensing clearer instead :slightly_smiling_face:
sofar
commented
5 years ago Why? When I publish my mods under CC BY-NC 3.0, then it's open source, but I don't want to support apps with ads. That's all.
No, that isn't all.
It also prohibits private schools from using it. It prohibits RedHat and SuSE from shipping it. And that's just the obvious cases.
-NC has a very long tail of prohibited uses, many of those I would consider damaging enough to the Minetest ecosystem that we should discourage use of it.
Wuzzy2
commented
5 years ago Just to clarify, if your license forbids “commercial use”, then it is NOT open source. There is absolutely nothing to discuss here.
It violates rule number 1 “Free Redistribution” of the Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd:
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.
This website is not some fringe group, it is made by the inventors of the term “open source”. If you're against that, then just say you're against open source. But don't try to sneakingly redefine terms that have been well-defined years ago. That's intellectually dishonest.
sofar
commented
5 years ago That's intellectually dishonest. Please stop doing this. You're completely not helping when you write stuff like that.
TalkLounge
commented
5 years ago Please see this page for reasons as to why -NC licenses are discouraged.
Ok. Now I understand, why core elements like the minetest engine or a linux kernel should allow commercial use. Because companies can use them, but need to publish the source code again, what's useful for the original software project. That's copyleft explained in a nutshell.
But for minetest mods? Let use take the most used mods: technic What would changed, if it license were CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA? Nothing. Except, that MulitCraft can't implement that in the game and earn money with no effort. So if he want to use something like technic, he need to code it. And then he can earn money with it. That's ethical acceptable. Same with other mods like: mesecons, WorldEdit, unified_inventory
We live in an era in which the open source definition is getting attacked on all sides. Let's work on making licensing clearer instead
Yeah, that's because I publish my work under CC BY-NC 3.0. It's for me the easiest license and for other easy to understand. I would define CC as very clear.
It also prohibits private schools from using it.
Oooh, yeah never thought about that. Is there any other license that only disallow earing money when you publish it? So MultiCraft can't use it, but private schools can. And IRL, private school would use CC BY-NC, because nobody care about that. But sure, that's a license violation. By the way publishing minetest on the itunes store, is license violation too. A big one. More than CC BY-NC in content db. But nobody care about it. @Wuzzy2 You should care about them before starting a discussion here. :) Apple need to react and ban them, because of Notice and Takedown(DMCA)
Just to clarify, if your license forbids “commercial use”, then it is NOT open source.
Ok. Then my code isn't open source. But it's still my code and I can decide, who can use it and under which terms. But you shouldn't discriminate my mods in the content db, because that's more damaging than my license. Variety is always good. Or do you want to disallow variety as well?
That's intellectually dishonest.
Good argument as well. :)
Wuzzy2
commented
5 years ago But you shouldn't discriminate my mods in the content db, because that's more damaging than my license. Variety is always good. Or do you want to disallow variety as well?
Nobody, including Content DB, has a legal or moral obligation whatsoever to host and support your proprietary mods for free.
Allowing your restrictive licenses will only benefit your personal interests, not ours. Our interests are in creating a libre voxel sandbox. Non-libre contributions do not advance our goal, they hinder it. Your freedom to pick restrictive licenses means our freedom has to be taken away. We don't like our freedoms from being taken away.
“Variety” is a nonsense argument in this context. Licenses are never about variety but only there to specify what you are allowed and not allowed to do. That's it! It does not matter how many different licenses we allow, but it does matter what these licenses say. What we need is variety in libre games, not variety in (non-libre) licenses.
Oooh, yeah never thought about that. Is there any other license that only disallow earing money when you publish it? So MultiCraft can't use it, but private schools can.
I don't think so. I also think you will have a hard time here if you put such blatant discrimination into your license.
Yeah, that's because I publish my work under CC BY-NC 3.0. It's for me the easiest license
Easier to understand than CC BY? o_O How does that make sense?
IMO the -NC makes it harder to understand. It is one more clause to understand. And it turns out -NC is a tricky clause. Do you really understand what the NonCommercial clause actually means? Have you read the actual license text (yes, the REAL legal text, not just the summary)? And if yes, then I want to see how you will clearly recognize between “non-commercial uses” (as defined in the license) in the real world ... Good luck! Also, do you understand the real-world impact of -NC? https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC is an anti-NC essay, but it also details the real-world impact. Also why CBC banned CC: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/10/cbc-radio-fans-crabby-over-creative-commons-snub/ (note: they probably made the mistake in believing that all CC licenses are NonCommercial, but that's not the point. The point is they cannot use NC content). Finally: About incompability with free software and CC ideology: https://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html
That's intellectually dishonest.
Please stop doing this. You're completely not helping when you write stuff like that.
I disagree. When I smell bullshit, I have to call it out. Explicitly. It is wrong to leave bullshit uncommented because this allows the bullshit to spread freely.
sofar
commented
5 years ago That's intellectually dishonest. Please stop doing this. You're completely not helping when you write stuff like that. I disagree. When I smell bullshit, I have to call it out. Explicitly. It is wrong to leave bullshit uncommented because this allows the bullshit to spread freely.
That comment is borderline ad hominem - perhaps across it, and you know it.
All this talk about your opinion being the right one and nobody being allowed their own thoughts isn't "openness" at all. If people are truly OK with -NC it is their perogative to propose it, and ours to say "no". I think by and large most of the MT community is in agreement that it shouldn't be allowed, and that should be the end of it, and really, it shouldn't be. We should continue to evaluate what is best for the community because the community will always change.
It is definitely not OK to make personal attacks on people who see or feel that OSS isn't a black-white thing but more a very large gray scale in multiple dimensions. Calling it intellectually dishonest is damaging to the open and polite discourse we should have. And I'm asking you to stop doing that.
Unless you're on the board of the OSI, I would politely suggest you tone it down a notch.
Wuzzy2
commented
5 years ago On topic:
I notice that nothing has changed. The Content DB continues to allow -NC.
I still do not understand why. What is the rationale for allowing -NC?
You know my arguments (see first post).
Let's talk about pro-NC arguments I have seen so far:
To which my response is:
Celeron55 argument: Using celeron55's alleged (!) opinion on this is first shaky and second just an appeal to authority. Not convincing.
Discrimination argument: We also discriminate against NonDerivs and most other proprietary restrictions, but everyone is OK with it. But NonCommercial seems to be that one big special exception, in which it is totally not OK?! If this is the argument you are trying to make, I don't see why it makes any sense. Why is NonCommercial more special than the other possible restrictions copyright holders can usually make (NonDerivs, non distribution, no usage allowed if your project is called MultiCraft …)?
TalkLouge will stop modding: I don't consider a threat a valid argument.
MultiCraft argument: It doesn't work like that. If your mod has a copyleft license (like GPL), then nobody can just abuse your mod just like that. The license has to be still obeyed and cannot be stripped away. For example, MultiCraft cannot legally take your mod, change it to their liking and put their own proprietary restrictions on it. They cannot legally monopolize your mod either. They CAN sell it, but so can everyone else. Everyone has to compete with free.
IMHO the best CC license to prevent legal abuse is CC BY-SA instead of CC BY-NC. But please note that Creative Commons licenses are not recommended for software anyway. That's what GPL and the like are for.
Off topic metadiscussion:
@sofar: That's not what “ad hominem” means. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem#Not_ad_hom
I did not say that anyone here is deprived of their own opinion. rolleyes
Calling it intellectually dishonest is damaging to the open and polite discourse we should have.
I meant that attempting to sneakingly redefine terms that have a well-accepted meaning is intellectual dishonest. I did not say that TalkLounge actually did this. I said it more as a warning. And it worked. TalkLounge has explicitly accepted the definition of OSS. This is exactly what I wanted.
sofar
commented
5 years ago I meant that attempting to sneakingly redefine terms that have a well-accepted meaning is intellectual dishonest.
You're calling him intellectually dishonest. This is per definition ad hominem.
Wuzzy2
commented
5 years ago You misrepresent my words (I did not call anyone intellectual dishonest, stop reading between the lines, there's no hidden meaning) and you are still misunderstanding the meaning of “ad hominem” (please look it up). This metadiscussion is leading to nowhere, and I refuse to take part in it from now on. Do you have nothing to say on topic?
sofar
commented
5 years ago stop reading between the lines, So you can read between the lines, do an ad hominem attack on someone, admit that it worked, and I can't. I see where this is going.
TalkLounge
commented
5 years ago The content db is another way to get more force over minetest. That's a fact. In a few years very less people will add mods by downloading them and putting them into the mods folder. Everyone will use the content db. And that's why we should discuss it, what we allow and what we disallow.
I understand, why it's a good idea to put on a big project like minetest copyleft. But copyleft on minetest mods is useless. If I want to use/copy a function out of a other mod, when I am modding, I need to check first what license the mod has. If the mod has copyleft, I can't copy the function of the mod. So there's a function, but I can't use it. And minetest modding is very much copy & paste. Every function was already written by another person. And it's often easier to just copy it, than write it myself, when I know, in which mod the function is. Like this. I think, GPL Mods can use my functions, because I have no copyleft, if they mark my part. But I think I can't use functions from GPL Mods. So which license is more open?
By the way: I will never kick the non commercial part out of my mods. I hate MultiCraft. And there's no valid argument for me, that's more important than defend MultiCraft. Because all minetest devs are cool with MultiCraft. So I need to do what I can to defend MultiCraft. Private schools were the first argument, which was understandable. But not that important than don't support MultiCraft.
So if you will ban -NC or put them on the default blacklist, then there's no argument for me, why I should upload my mods to content db. And then you will ban my mods. I publish my mods, because maybe other want to use them. But after this decisions, I will fall back to past and write mods only for me and my server. And then no other server admin can use my mods, because you decided, that -NC mods should be banned. If you ban -NC there's more damage than use. Is that the open & free community you are talking about? Why you can't accept, that I don't like MultiCraft and defend them?
(On Google Play there a very much games, that is just minetest singleplayer with mods like mods_redo, technic, mesecons with other textures. These games wouldn't be such successful when mods_redo, technic and mesecons were -NC licensed. And I am really sure, that the game owner wouldn't write the mod by himself)
(MultiCraft is just an example for a minetest app with ads)
Warr1024
commented
4 years ago I think that the ideal goal for CDB and the MT Content Browser's roles in this should be to allow users to make informed decisions about what content they want to be offered.
Licenses that prevent unlimited free redistribution, licenses that disallow derivatives, or licensees that are not well-known or well-tested may present legal barriers to the actual operation of CDB and we should consider disallowing them. Licenses with other restrictions, like SA or NC, should be allowed but not necessarily encouraged. Ideally, we would present users with configurable filters.
In lieu of filtration (i.e. since supporting these in the MT menu would take considerable work) prominent warnings could be used. For instance, some warning icons/codes representing specific types of common restrictions (e.g. NC, ND, SA) could be included in the listings. These might have to be "baked in" to description fields or thumbnails to support the MT client, but that way it could be done without needing a client release, and including retroactively providing this information to existing 5.0 clients.
Calinou
commented
4 years ago For instance, some warning icons/codes representing specific types of common restrictions (e.g. NC, ND, SA) could be included in the listings.
I don't think this would be useful, as most people who just download mods to use them in singleplayer will never be impacted by license restrictions. This is mostly about server owners.
Warr1024
commented
4 years ago As a user installing packages in MT for singleplayer use, I do want to know what the licenses are for a package, because it may affect my decision on whether to use it as a base for modding, or whether I want to use it on a multiplayer server, for which I may be play-testing.
S-S-X
commented
4 years ago prominent warnings could be used.
I dont think that actual warnings are really needed. Instead in listing there could be:
Make licence name and decription word clickable and when clicked open form that describes license better and maybe includes whole license.
I have feeling that would be fairly easy to implement, number of licenses is pretty limited and as we can see from github and few other platforms those licenses can be described pretty well in just few words.
Not sure if my selected words are good for anything, I'm not a lawyer and dont have that much knowledge about different commonly used licenses but as I've seen similar in other platforms and it seems to work pretty well then why it would not work here too.
That then gives responsibility to user who is browsing content, it gives enough information to make decisions and then bells & whistles like filtering could be added on top of that later if needed.
It will be helpful with or without filtering and it wont favor one license over other (I think this would be most correct path, I did read few comment threads about licenses around here... really, no need to fight which one is better because licenses have different use cases). Content creators then choose what license they want to use and end users will have easy access to information needed to make decision.
Warr1024
commented
4 years ago Since the last time I weighed in on this, I have become an editor and done some package reviews, provided some support and guidance, and helped address some actual licensing issues with real packages in CDB.
My experience suggests that users, and honestly a concerning proportion of package maintainers themselves, including ones doing otherwise quality work, don't understand and often don't realize why they should care about licenses, and will happily run a project dependent on accidental piracy right up until the point where they get a take-down notice and now it's too late to clean-room anything.
CDB could shove responsibility for this on users, sure, but since we have the resources to help with this, it would be an abdication of responsibility not to try to provide proper guidance. I think we set out to do more with CDB than just provide this community with a shinier footgun.
As for the warnings, yes, something that does not meet at least a broad standard for free or open source should definitely be flagged, as frankly it goes against the dominant ethical standards of the community. That being said, I would ALSO be okay with less-dire warnings (but still warnings nonetheless) for any restrictions imposed by the license beyond "effective public domain", e.g. include an icon for attribution, share-alike, etc. restrictions similar to what CC licenses do. This would be good summary information for users who want to quickly evaluate a set of packages for possible inclusion in a compilation. For instance, if I want to use an attribution license for my compilation, I might be okay with including other packages that require attribution but not others that require share-alike.
It might be simpler just to list share-alike as a flag, though, since (1) attribution can almost always be assumed (and I think in some places it may not be possible to waive that right), and (2) NC/ND restrictions may fall under "non-free" anyway, depending on our interpretation.
Currently, ContentDB allows proprietary licenses, i.e. licenses that are widely accepted as incompatible with free software or open source software.
Namely:
The rules explicitly exclude licenses that restrict redistribution (freedom 1), derivate works and redistribution of those (freedom 2+3). But the rules do not exclude licenses that would restrict usage (freedom 0).
CC BY-NC-SA is widely regarded as non-free (rejected by FSF and OSI and Debian and Wikipedia and many more) as it violates freedom 0. The entry “Other (non-free)” should be obvious.
The rationale behind this is, Minetest itself prides itself as a free software project, the community is a free software community at large, so people will naturally expect the Content DB to be fully committed to free software as well. Plus, Content DB is a major part of the Minetest application itself, so everything on Content DB has this “officially endorsed” aura around it (which is different from just the forums). Also note that Content DB, with current rules, is already close to be free-software only. The only thing that's missing is implementation of the freedom 0. Also, things that restrict usage in Content DB are luckily an exception atm.
(Note: I use “free software” and “open source” interchangably because I believe those are basically the same things.)