Re: About GPL3 req's for open src?

[Jimjam]

It’s okay, Rogean conceded the next two dragons so it is water under the bridge.

[xurai724]

The GPL is a “copyleft” software licence[1] published by the US-based Free Software Foundation.[2] This means that where a program or other work licensed under the GPL is incorporated (see section 4 below) in a second work, then that second work (if distributed to others) must also be licensed on the terms of the GPL (or a compatible license).

In general terms, if you use GPL-licensed code in your program that you wish to distribute to others, then you must also license your program under the GPL.

For example, if a developer writes and distributes Program A that incorporates a third party’s Library B which is licensed under the GPL, Program A must also be licensed under the GPL. It should be noted that Program A does not automatically become licensed under the GPL just because it incorporates Library B, but it would breach the terms of Library B’s licence if Program A was distributed under a non-GPL licence.

or TL;DR: As soon as you distribute it, it needs to be GPL3. I'm not trying to sound douchey, just observant - currently, it's a closed license, as if the P99 devs own EQ's IP or have a private license (rather than GPL3).

That's why EqEmu is open source - it's not just out of the goodness of their hearts. They are GPL3'd, too.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by xurai724 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

or TL;DR: As soon as you distribute it, it needs to be GPL3. I'm not trying to sound douchey, just observant - currently, it's a closed license, as if the P99 devs own EQ's IP or have a private license (rather than GPL3).

That's why EqEmu is open source - it's not just out of the goodness of their hearts. They are GPL3'd, too.

This. I've been down this very same road before OP, and the issue is that P99 never distributes their fork of EQ Emu (they just use it to power their undistributed server).

[Jimjam]

The server end stuff isn’t distributed though?

[azxten]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The server end stuff isn’t distributed though?

Correct. Someone bumped my old post? Funny. The devs have a strict policy of never responding to me.

[Darksinga]

Trust me when I say, even with P99 open source, you won’t even be able to run the game without an exact copy of the database.

Before the server can even start, you will need every column in the DB to match, on its hundreds of tables.

The only thing it would be good for is to reverse engineer some features for your own version of the server, which would probably start at EQ Emu and be so drastically different you’d be better off to start from scratch.

Im not saying P99 shouldn’t go open source, but, just letting you know I highly doubt it would help your project.

[xurai724]

Originally Posted by Darksinga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trust me when I say, even with P99 open source, you won’t even be able to run the game without an exact copy of the database.

Before the server can even start, you will need every column in the DB to match, on its hundreds of tables.

The only thing it would be good for is to reverse engineer some features for your own version of the server, which would probably start at EQ Emu and be so drastically different you’d be better off to start from scratch.

Im not saying P99 shouldn’t go open source, but, just letting you know I highly doubt it would help your project.

Whether or not I am successful is moot -- and whether or not it's open source isn't necessarily "if" they should -- it's "when" since they are legally bound to share it.

(They were legally supposed to open src it from day 1 or they are making a silent assertion that they own the intellectual property of EverQuest -- or, at least, a private license that's !GPL3, which isn't the case. It's essentially a slap in the face to Daybreak's legal dept).

This. I've been down this very same road before OP, and the issue is that P99 never distributes their fork of EQ Emu (they just use it to power their undistributed server).

Distributions include releases - not just source. If this was the case, we could commercialize anything GPL3 and simply never release the src code.

I came up with a little toon to assist: ♫ If you bend the knee to GPL3, distribution or open source tree, you must share the code to prevent legal load. ♫

They're legally obligated? Hit up a lawyer dawg you got this!

Heck, not obligated to any of us -- just Daybreak. However, if they are aware of the breach and ignore it, it sorta casts Malaise on the devs. Since Daybreak has been on a frenzy loading up progression servers (including premium ones), a simple mgmt change could get P99 shutdown (and they've been having a ton of internal changes). Opening up the src would keep them safe, preventing a license breach.

[xurai724]

Originally Posted by xurai724 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

preventing a license breach.

Resolving* a breach, rather (they're already in breach).

[loramin]

Originally Posted by xurai724 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Distributions include releases - not just source. If this was the case, we could commercialize anything GPL3 and simply never release the src code.

Read the FAQ on the GNU site itself (emphasis added):

A company is running a modified version of a GPLed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?

The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources. The situation is different when the modified program is licensed under the terms of the GNU Affero GPL.

Compare this to a situation where the web site contains or links to separate GPLed programs that are distributed to the user when they visit the web site (often written in JavaScript, but other languages are used as well). In this situation the source code for the programs being distributed must be released to the user under the terms of the GPL.

Is “convey” in GPLv3 the same thing as what GPLv2 means by “distribute”?

Yes, more or less. During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we learned that some jurisdictions used the word “distribute” in their own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings. We invented a new term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be caused by these differences.

[xurai724]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Read the FAQ on the GNU site itself (emphasis added):

First, this was misread:

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.

This is simply saying you can use it INTERNALLY within the company, or for private use. IF you release it, you must open src it. This is why GPL3 is called the "viral" license, since any GPL3 item in your repo turns the ENTIRE codebase GPL3. That's the point of GPL3.

Even then, the second paragraph actually applies to authoritative code like that:

Compare this to a situation where the web site contains separate GPLed programs that are distributed to the user when they visit the web site (often written in JavaScript, but other languages are used as well).

It's not just the server sending static info - the client is making requests to the server => they could either (A) distribute nothing, or (B) respond with data (a distribution). Combined with this note directly from the GPL3 license (rather than your GNU general philosophy of their collection of licenses not specific to GPL3):

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

It can't get much more clear than that. From the GPL3 license, itself.

This quote is directly from the gpl-3 license while your quotes were generalizing GNU licenses (there are multiple kinds of GNU licensing - it's easy to make a misconception if you quote from a GNU Generalization rather than directly form GPL3).

GPL3 is called a "viral" license because once you add a GPL3 item to your code, ALL code (including modified) becomes GPL3. If it's GPL3'd, you need to open src it. Heck, if you had a GPL3 README text file, your entire codebase becomes GPL3. Distributions include binaries and server responses (called "Object Code" in the terms). Very plain. Very clear.