Maps and other contributions need to have specific licenses attached to them.

[tvleavitt]

Currently, it doesn't appear that we require content creators (aka map creators) to formally state the license under which their contributions may be used, which means, effectively, that (absent some evidence for a default from sourceforge.net for older contributions) the maps as submitted (and similar materials) are all under copyright (of someone) by default, and thus any reuse or alteration to them is potentially a copyright violation.

I suggest that we mandate that the creators do one of three things via a pull-down form when submitting a new piece of content, or an update of an existing map:

1. Specifically declare that their work is entirely in the public domain and that others are thus free to do whatever they want with them. We can provide language for them to incorporate into their work, and put it in a template as well.

2. Specifically declare that their work is entirely licensed according to one of the six Creative Commons licenses listed at the URL below, suggesting that they adopt CC by SA as a most compatible with the GPL 3's "copyleft" mentality and the goals of the project in general and that maps under this designation are most likely to receive contributions from third parties.

3. Specifically declare that their work is partially or wholly copyrighted, or submitted under multiple licenses, and mandate that this be satisfactorily documented and our right to distribute it be spelled out before being approved for posting.

I don't have an issue with anyone choosing to put restrictions of one form or another on their artwork, sounds, even writing and lore, but: it has to be explicitly spelled out under what terms the work is being submitted for distribution by the project.

They need to also explicitly declare that they are the copyright owners, or document having obtained permission from the original copyright owners, and thus are entitled to declare what license a work is being released under.

All existing maps, unless there's some legacy default I'm unaware of via sourceforge.net, or a statement of copyright or license description in the content, will need to be presumed copyrighted, and we should ask the creators, if at all possible, to resubmit them under non-default terms, and insert a warning that modifications to maps without a license may be subject to copyright liabilities.

Finally, and probably a separate issue, we have to address the use of trademarks in the name of some maps, and potentially copyrighted material. At the very least, we should require a disclaimer, or a statement that this is being made other some clearly documented exemption for fan materials by the copyright holder. I'm not sure how other open source projects handle this. We may be flying under the radar, but we could also be hit with a DMCA take down notice on a map we're distributing at any point, or other legal.

[tvleavitt]

This a follow up to a discussion I initiated in #6994.

[Cernelius]

Are you aware that there is not a single map in TripleA that hasn't been alterated in some way? For example, every game file of every map has been alterated when all "attatchment" have been changed to "attachment". On top of this, several changes have been made overtime, some of which are documented here, and have been made on at least all maps that were in the repository before TripleA 1.9.0.0.3266: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/wiki/Upgrade-Maps-Information

In my opinion, every TripleA map should better be completely free to alterate or reuse or both (all existent ones too), without asking permission to anyone.

For example (amongst many), domination_1914_no_mans_land (the map of the "Domination 1914 No Man's Land" game) uses most of the skin from domination (the map of the "Domination" game), plus other elements from other maps, like the "trench" unit, which I believe is from napoleonic_empires (the map of the "Napoleonic Empires" game). Are you saying that the domination_1914_no_mans_land map should be erased from the repository, barring getting consent from each of the original creators of domination, napoleonic_empires and so on (or their descendants!)?

Regarding GitHub, what I understand is that one can take whatever map in the TripleA repository, cloning and alterating it (making and sharing a variant of the original game), without having to look for any consent or copyright, as long as it remains within GitHub, based on this: https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service

Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control). If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.

Am I wrong? Is my understanding of the above incorrect?

[tvleavitt]

Only a lawyer with expertise in this area could give you an even semi-definitive answer... however, github says here:

You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license. The Open Source Guide provides additional guidance on choosing the correct license for your project.

...and right below that, "Note: If you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other GitHub users have the right to view and fork your repository within the GitHub site."

https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/licensing-a-repository

Perhaps maps could be termed part of our project and thus all GPL3 via the project license. I lack the expertise to judge. While the maps are in our repository, the map creators are clearly not assigning us copyright, in the way the CLA Assistant does for code contributions, and we're not requiring this, so it is very likely they retain the copyright at least, even if they've implicitly granted permission to do X and Y via GitHub's TOS. Also, what you quote there appears to apply solely and exclusively to GitHub itself: "reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub". That's the extent of what you're granting for unlicensed content separate and apart from a project license.

I think it would be pretty dubious to unilaterally declare all existing content GPL3, and unfair to any creators who failed to understand what rights they were giving up by posting their material. The code and the content are very distinct items, and there's no necessity that a map maker distributes their content through our site. They could simply choose to post it to their own site, and TripleA would still load it. There's no requirement ala libraries and the LGPL for the licenses to be mutually compatible.

I'm not suggesting that we remove any maps (although the trademark / copyright issues are real, it is reasonable to simply deal with a DMCA notice if and when it is ever delivered... GitHub might take that out of our hands, too), but that it would be of benefit for the creators of existing maps to assign them a license, and for us to require a license before posting new ones. It's just good creator / open source content hygiene to explicitly list out rights granted to others.

[tvleavitt]

Note here that this project explicitly states in their README.md: "All files on the FluentUI Apple GitHub repository are subject to the MIT license." This despite the fact that the LICENSE file itself contains the MIT license. Now, this may be simply a reminder that the LICENSE file covers all content on the site, or a lawyer may have decided this additional statement is necessary. Also, it explicitly states: "Most contributions require you to agree to a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) declaring that you have the right to, and actually do, grant us the rights to use your contribution. For details, visit https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com." Again, we're not doing that for maps.

Also, again, we're doing something radically different from most code bases by hosting end user-created content that works with our code; it seems pretty dubious to argue that maps are part of the TripleA code base, we don't treat them that way, don't distribute them in conjunction with our code, don't require them to run, etc. I just did a quite scan through GitHub's games section, and I'm not finding another project with a similar process. The Spring RTS obviously doesn't do anything on our own (nor does TripleA), but all the content created using it is hosted elsewhere. I'm having a hard time finding an analogue for what we're doing.

https://github.com/microsoft/fluentui-apple/blob/master/README.md

[mongoose1130]

I just assumed that option #1 was the default, since this is all open source anyway. But I am fine with adding some sort of template language to my maps to be safe. Just let us map creators know where to get the template!

[Cernelius]

Perhaps maps could be termed part of our project and thus all GPL3 via the project license.

@tvleavitt Are you aware that, for many years, a lot of maps were integrally part of the TripleA installation (as a normal user, you were obliged to install them)? If you are curious, try to install 1.8.0.9, still available from here: https://triplea-game.org/old_downloads/ Then go inside the "triplea_1_8_0_9" folder, then inside the "maps" folder. There they are. How can one not assume that at least these maps are part of TripleA? I'm just asking, not stating anything.

[tvleavitt]

No, although it looks like from the autosave files that I first played around with it in 2018.

That might change the presumed equation for some legacy maps, although again it's preferable to have a specific license attached to a set of files easily distributed independently. What happens if at some point we do want the map files hosted independently from GitHub and the project?

Say someone else replicated the maps to an external site... if we believe they're GPL3, anyone could do. What license would they have? The ones copied could be argued to be GPL3, but there's no explicit statement, and a visitor there might not know this. Any new maps uploaded there wouldn't be. What happens when someone posts a map elsewhere, say to a forum, and it hasn't yet been uploaded to GitHub? What license does it have?

We're protecting the rights of the map creators and the integrity of the project by educating them to be explicit about the license chosen from the moment of creation.

Thomas Leavitt

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020, 11:29 AM Cernelius notifications@github.com wrote:

Perhaps maps could be termed part of our project and thus all GPL3 via the project license.

@tvleavitt https://github.com/tvleavitt Are you aware that, for many years, a lot of maps were integrally part of the TripleA installation (as a normal user, you were obliged to install them)? If you are curious, try to install 1.8.0.9, still available from here: https://triplea-game.org/old_downloads/ Then go inside the "triplea_1_8_0_9" folder, then inside the "maps" folder. There they are. How can one not assume that at least these maps are part of TripleA? I'm just asking, not stating anything.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/7021#issuecomment-653643981, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABB5HALKJGRGULGHK33SLD3RZYPQZANCNFSM4OPNGJWQ .

[Cernelius]

it's preferable to have a specific license attached to a set of files easily distributed independently.

Who would be giving such a license? Sorry to keep asking obvious questions, but are you aware that the vast majority (I guess around 80%) of maps that TripleA officially offers have been made by persons that don't appear to be currently active or even around? Moreover, each of some (I guess around half) of them is using one or more elements each of which is taken from an other such map, and some of them are simply massive copy paste with little or no change at the skin level (sometimes called "variants"). It is also common that a map receives one or more additional games without the game maker adding or changing anything else, within the map (in particular, this is the case of most "variants", that I've always understood are just maps created, by cloning an other map's skin, purposely so that persons could add their games to them, that are likely modifications of games of the cloned map). Am I overlooking something?

[tvleavitt]

@Cernelius Honestly, I'm more focused on new, original content going forward; all we can do with past maps is a "best effort", and label the ones whose owners can't be located or determined as potentially subject to copyright claims by the original author (the statute of limitation varies depending on the jurisdiction the case is filed in, either three years from the date of discovery of a violation or three years from the date that the violation occurred).

In actual practice, the likelihood of a lawsuit is essentially zero, as one would have to prove economic harm, although it's possible an owner could demand derivatives be removed (obviously that would make them unpopular). Any future derivatives from an existing, ambiguously licensed map would simply have a license attached to them applying only to the original parts, and then disclaim any copyright to the unaltered portions.

Hopefully, we could eventually flush most of the creators out of the woodwork, and they'd simply add a CC by or CC by SA license or just specifically disclaim copyright and put the material in the public domain.

Here's the CC0 (public domain) license description:

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

They've created a tool that authors can use to generate a binding declaration:

https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/waiver

Note that disclaiming your rights and putting a work in the public domain is actually a bit more complicated than simply adding a standard CC license, which all have standard text that can be just be added to a work (there's also embeddable HTML).

Here's the CC by SA license text (for example):

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

[DanVanAtta]

Ownership of maps is currently a bit vague and explicit clarification would be good. Ideally they would all be explicitly licensed as GPLv3, or at least that made clear. Any map-owners that would not agree then we stop hosting their maps as the license would be a requirement.

If TripleA map maintainer teams (essentially the devs) have actually modified a map is debatable. Is it a modification to change the text of XML but make no outward changes? Is a modification a change to the actual map and an end-user facing artifact, or legally speaking any type of change. Would removal of a comment out line of XML even count as a modification?

This gets also interesting when we move to hosting maps in a database instead of in git repos.

@tvleavitt the interesting background reading on copyright and DMCA is here where TripleA has encountered this before: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/DMCA-takedown-notice-td3251158.html

[tvleavitt]

@DanVanAtta I'd like your take on GPL3 vs. CC licensing. In my view, so long as the content is licensed clearly, and we're explicitly granted a license to distribute and use it as needed (say on bot servers), I don't care what license is used... but I'm obviously not the decision-maker here. It's also legit to require CC by SA (the GPL3 equivalent for content). I think CC is much more appropriate. The XML "maps" are not code, and certainly the graphical, audio, and text / lore elements of them aren't.

@DanVanAtta Separately... have you considered hosting the maps in a separate repo? They really are a distinct element (at this point), completely independent of the engine / code (at least conceptually). That might help, to a degree, with any DMCA / takedown notices associated with them, by helping to create an arms-length relationship between the engine and the content. I scanned through the entire thread you referenced; it didn't conclude with anything of substance, but you're still here, so I'm presuming that the trademark and other aspects of the situation were resolved to Hasbro's satisfaction by relatively minor modifications.

I think we can deal with the ownership of existing maps issue, to a degree, by having a "claim" process of some sort for existing maps, in which the person or persons claiming "ownership" (i.e., the authority to license) assumes responsibility for any legal implications thereof and indemnifies the project as a consequence.

We might deal with unclaimed maps by putting them in a separate repo from the claimed and licensed ones, and then simply requiring people to manually input an additional "repo" URL to access them. Might help with any upsetness from end-users over "removal" of these maps from the "official" repository (and web site). Would also be an enhancement, as anyone could then set up a repo; I'd suggest segregating maps by repo in the actual download folder to avoid conflict if this were done and presenting the top-level selection as list of repos from which maps can be downloaded when more than one repo has been configured.

We might also move potentially problematic from a trademark / copyright perspective maps into that secondary repo. Again, this might annoy end users, as it would be prudent to remove them from the list of available maps on the web site as well, but I do think we could link to "external repositories". Of course, someone would have to take responsibility for that secondary repository, in particular, but right now, the project (and thus anyone listed as a maintainer, I suspect) has an equal level of legal liability, so it's not like anyone would be gaining more exposure than they have now. ...and, again, my understanding is that the financial implications are relatively minimal when no one is making money, and no economic "harm" can be demonstrated.

I agree that hosting maps in a database has implications, it'd probably take a legal expert to determine what, but we'd almost certainly only want to include items that are both licensed, and free of any potential copyright/trademark issues.

Anyone else care to comment?

[DanVanAtta]

have you considered hosting the maps in a separate repo?

FWIW, the maps are each in different repos and also even in a different github organization "triplea-maps" vs "triplea-game".

I think we can deal with the ownership of existing maps issue, to a degree, by having a "claim" process of some sort for existing maps

I think that was attempted in the forums when migrating and very few maps were claimed. Having instructions on how to claim them be put in a consolidated location would be excellent. I've a consistent criticism of using forums for documentation as that is where it was documented. Moving such documentation to the website would perhaps help make it discoverable.

At this juncture, any unclaimed maps are not likely to be claimed. This was the thread that attempted to connect existing maps to owners: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Which-Maps-Have-you-Created-Looking-to-connect-map-authors-with-their-maps-td7589941.html#a7589948

Any maps uploaded since then we have assigned to a map team that has the owners in it.

We might deal with unclaimed maps by putting them in a separate repo from the claimed and licensed ones, and then simply requiring people to manually input an additional "repo" URL to access them.

FWIW, the URL of maps is arbitrary. We host them to be able to monitor updates. For example if someone were to modify a map and inject a virus or other questionable content, we would be aware of the update.

no economic "harm" can be demonstrated.

An entity probably could claim lost revenue. Ultimately at this point the maps are roughly owned by the map maker and they have the trademark liability. Making this clear and the license would be a really great project to complete.

RE: Database

Only some, to some extent it's the same thing. It gets into the publisher vs platform debate. Facebook stores posts in a database of a kind but are not liable for the content uploaded by users. We're shooting for the same model. At the same time we do want to exercise moderation (as we do when we take ownership of a map repo) to ensure a map is okay. We also certainly need to retain the ability to "turn a map off" from download.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. If there is something that can be done to resolve this issue, please add a comment indicating what that would be and this issue will be re-opened. If there are multiple items that can be completed independently, we encourage you to use the "reference in new issue" option next to any outstanding comment so that we may divide and conquer.

[tvleavitt]

Cycling back to this, I think that the most simple argument is, "let's stop digging the hole deeper":

Require all new and updated maps placed in our repository (we can't control others) to have a stated license. If a map isn't updated, we can't state anything about the license unless the creator is otherwise active and willing to issue an update with a license. This, going forward, will give clarity to new and existing map makers as to whether they are free to reuse elements of a map, or make derivatives. This should also apply to any assets contributed to the project (graphics, sounds, maps, etc.).

I suggest, as mentioned before, that the most appropriate license is CC-BY-SA or CC0 (public domain, also allows for re-use), but that any license compatible with our software should be acceptable (which I think is all of them?). Have the notice be embed in the Notes, at the top, so it is easily found.

This is a policy decision requiring no technical implementation, and very limited labor:

• creating some basic documentation around this (templates for including particular licenses); I can help with that part
• adding pointers to this material wherever map-makers are likely to see it
• manually reviewing each map to ensure it includes an appropriately stated license
• we could also add code to the map making tools to facilitate inclusion of licenses if we wanted (maybe?)

All components of a map should have a stated license (some maps may use graphics and sounds that are licensed independently, for example). This protects map-makers from unintended liability by use of copyrighted content (the default if not licensed otherwise) and the project from the administrative hassle of having to remove a map from our repo via a DMCA takedown notice or other legal demand (at least, makes that less likely) and the potential legal risk associated with distributing copyrighted content, and it also gives those map maker's creating original content the ability to protect their ownership of said content if they so wish.

Given the nature of maps and re-use, this becomes more complicated when the map is derivative of ambiguously licensed material; but only in the sense that the map-maker must specify which portions of the map content are theirs. "This license statement only covers changes made to the original map XML (included in this package for reference), and does not cover the sounds, graphic images or the literal map image itself, all of which we disclaim ownership of." (or equivalent).

Two issues that I will address in separate tickets

a) redistribution license b) problematic existing content (as referenced above) in our map repo

[DanVanAtta]

I'm thinking we'll want all map content to be licensed under GPLv3. I think that covers this issue and: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/7752

The plan in the short/medium term is to move maps from repository into a database. Part of that move will really require for owners to be assigned, which is a good time to affirm licensing. Though, we should be prepared that out of the 100+ maps, there are probably active owners for maybe 10 of them. Most are orphaned.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. If there is something that can be done to resolve this issue, please add a comment indicating what that would be and this issue will be re-opened. If there are multiple items that can be completed independently, we encourage you to use the "reference in new issue" option next to any outstanding comment so that we may divide and conquer.