Moderator: Andres Valverde
Marcus Prewarski wrote:Soon I'm going to release a version of my new engine Diablo and I'm planning on including the source as well. I don't expect people to care much about the source and certainly not clone it since it is not nearly as simple as TSCP and not nearly as strong as Fruit or Glaurung. But what sort of copyright stuff do I need? Can I just copy the Gnu general public license stuff into it or should I attempt to write my own?
Marcus Prewarski wrote:Soon I'm going to release a version of my new engine Diablo and I'm planning on including the source as well. I don't expect people to care much about the source and certainly not clone it since it is not nearly as simple as TSCP and not nearly as strong as Fruit or Glaurung. But what sort of copyright stuff do I need? Can I just copy the Gnu general public license stuff into it or should I attempt to write my own?
Dann Corbit wrote:Finally, the strongest protection is software patent, which means that you own the whole idea. For instance, if you obtained a software patent on making a chess engine, then nobody else could make one without paying you a royalty. Literally, it means you own the entire idea.
Greg Simpson wrote:If you use the GPL you will still own the code, but others can modify your code and redistribute it as long as they keep it under the GPL. As the sole owner of the code, you could release it under a different license in the future, either to ease the restrictions of the GPL on the current code, or to keep the source of your future versions private.
The standard GPL has a clause that would enable the software to be distributed under any future version of the GPL, which you would have no control over. I actually think it is best to keep that provision, but you can remove it if it make you uncomfortable.
The GPL is most useful for collabarative programs, or to ensure development on a program can continue after the original author stops working on it. If you only want to let other people look at your code, just put in a standard copyright notice and (perhaps) permission to redistribute the unmodified program.
Alessandro Scotti wrote:This is actually a FAQ question (see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate):
Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.
Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:Hi all,
remember that the world is not only speaking English.
If you make your source available in a country where English would NOT be an official language, it would impossible to commit the benefitery to obay any encountered licence.
Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:Thus for me it is still a huge problem, that GPL and similar licence concepts still have not been translated e.g. into German language officially, which is taking away there any legality relevance from those texts.
...
Volker Pittlik wrote:Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:If you make your source available in a country where English would NOT be an official language, it would impossible to commit the benefitery to obay any encountered licence.
You mean if I use a software which is available only in English (the beta version of the new Microsoft compiler for example) the licence agreement is not valid for me? I severely doubt that.
Volker Pittlik wrote:Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:Thus for me it is still a huge problem, that GPL and similar licence concepts still have not been translated e.g. into German language officially, which is taking away there any legality relevance from those texts.
...
Do you have any reliable sources for that statement?
Dann Corbit wrote:I doubt if there is any difference in legal force whether the contract is in English, German or some other languages.
Certainly, German copyrights are valid in the US. Is the converse not true? That would really be strange.
Dann Corbit wrote:Then the developer can take all the work contributed by everyone else, and steal it with impunity.
Alessandro Scotti wrote:Dann Corbit wrote:Then the developer can take all the work contributed by everyone else, and steal it with impunity.
I think the developer retains ownership only of the parts he contributed. Even then, if he decides to change the license terms the code that he has already published under the GPL is still available to be used by others, etc.
Dann Corbit wrote:Alessandro Scotti wrote:Dann Corbit wrote:Then the developer can take all the work contributed by everyone else, and steal it with impunity.
I think the developer retains ownership only of the parts he contributed. Even then, if he decides to change the license terms the code that he has already published under the GPL is still available to be used by others, etc.
It seems that the developer has special, magical rights that the others do not have. After a few months, who is the developer anyway? Perhaps the other contributors have written ten times as much code as the original author.
.
Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:...
I am not a lawyer, but because from nobody could been awaited that he have to accept contracts that he is not able to understand fully, it is clear that such texts must have used an official local language, or the partners have to sign individual contracts where the ability to understand the contents is made clear.
Have you ever read the documents coming e.g. with Suse Linux? I am interested in Linux for years. But all my attempts to get official german translations of the licensing conditions have been in vain. I regard this licencing problem to be one of the main obstacles to give Linux a higher acceptance.
Reinhard.
Volker Pittlik wrote:Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:...
I am not a lawyer, but because from nobody could been awaited that he have to accept contracts that he is not able to understand fully, it is clear that such texts must have used an official local language, or the partners have to sign individual contracts where the ability to understand the contents is made clear.
Have you ever read the documents coming e.g. with Suse Linux? I am interested in Linux for years. But all my attempts to get official german translations of the licensing conditions have been in vain. I regard this licencing problem to be one of the main obstacles to give Linux a higher acceptance.
Reinhard.
IANAL too, but I found an interesting article on the web. As far as I understood the GPL is completly valid in Germany in whatever language it is written in.
Problems may occur due to some particularities of German law. One point is that copyright is not so easy transferrable, the other point is the liability of the author. GPL says that the software comes with no warranty whatsoever. A statement like that contradicts general laws in Germany.
OTOH judges assume that GPL-ed software is usually a present (downloadable for free). In this case the liability of the author is limited to cases if he intentionally spreads malicious source code.
But if everything is going normal I don't see any problems.
http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~iug04/ospr/thema/recht/deutschesRecht.html
That was just the first Google hit. I guess there is a lot more.
Volker
Return to Programming and Technical Discussions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests