"DFour Games" violated GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" release

"DFour Games" violated GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" release

Postby qubodup » 11 Jan 2012, 16:18

DarkGates_alpha_0.1 ( http://darkgates.dfourgames.com/download.html ) contains graphics from http://grumbel.blogspot.com/2009/01/som ... thell.html in DarkGates_alpha_0.1/data/default/avatars/

According to http://forums.vega-strike.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11103 :
My work is covered under CC-by-sa-3.0 or GPL.


DarkGates_alpha_0.1/data/default/LICENSE.txt:
Dark Gates Alpha release 0.1
Copyright © Bartosz Debski

All rights Reserved.

By downloading and/or using this software you are accepting below conditions:

* You can use Dark Gates Alpha release 0.1 free of charge.
* You are not allowed to use or distribute any of the art resources included with this game either commercially or not .
* There is no guarantee that this software works properly and author is not responsible for any damage or loss caused by running it.
* Any suggestions made in regards to this software are assumed to be offered for free unless otherwise agreed before the suggestion was made.
* If there's anything legal you're wondering about that isn't answered here, don't do it and ask about it.

Bartosz Debski reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect.


DarkGates_alpha_0.1/data/default/avatars/README.txt:
Images in this directory are created by Ingo Ruhnke
originally created for project : Adonthell

http://grumbel.blogspot.com/

The LICENSE.txt claims that Debski owns the rigths to grumbel's art. It also prohibits redistribution. The README.txt clarifies the author and gives attribution, but does not say that he own copyright and does not inform of the assets' license.

I think the developer didn't violate the terms intentionally and incorrectly assumed "If it's on the web and there are no restrictions written next to it, I can do what I want with it".

I might be completely wrong. They might have gotten exclusive rights to use the portraits.

- I Am Not A Lawyer

I will update the post when I get a reply (if I find a way to contact them).
User avatar
qubodup
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: 08 Nov 2009, 22:52
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: "DFour Games" violates GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" rele

Postby qubodup » 11 Jan 2012, 18:50

The developer told me the mistake will be corrected by end of the week. I will update the thread once it's done.
User avatar
qubodup
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: 08 Nov 2009, 22:52
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: "DFour Games" violates GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" rele

Postby amuzen » 11 Jan 2012, 18:57

Yeah, CC-BY-SA 3.0 (section 4a) requires you to include the license text or URI if you redistribute. GPLv3 (section 4) also requires you to include a copyright notice, and GPLv2 should require it too. Beyond that, I don't think there are any really serious issues.
User avatar
amuzen
LoS Moderator
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 05 Dec 2009, 02:49

Re: "DFour Games" violated GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" rele

Postby qubodup » 16 Jan 2012, 13:43

0.1 has been taken down, 0.1.1 is up with replaced/removed art.

The developer told me that he talked to the art author, and that the art author wanted code to be GPL as well. Strange.
User avatar
qubodup
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: 08 Nov 2009, 22:52
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: "DFour Games" violated GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" rele

Postby arand » 14 Apr 2012, 11:49

qubodup wrote:0.1 has been taken down, 0.1.1 is up with replaced/removed art.

The developer told me that he talked to the art author, and that the art author wanted code to be GPL as well. Strange.

He may request the code to be GPL, there's no obligation for that though under the GPL license.

Since the game does not "link" (in the compile/library sense) with the images. it would be totally fine to include GPL images with a proprietary game, as long as the images (as a separate entity within the game) is distributed in compliance with the GPL: Source available (including any modifications), often implying PSD/ SVG files (preferred medium for modifying...), no further restrictions, and licensed correctly.

For comparison, it's obviously not the case that every file ever opened in a GPLed text editor would be automatically GPL ;) and this would be considered a similar case, as far as I've understood things.

No haz lawwyer, no can haz legal advice, kthx?
User avatar
arand
 
Posts: 211
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 21:42

Re: "DFour Games" violated GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" rele

Postby Knitter » 14 Apr 2012, 13:38

arand wrote:He may request the code to be GPL, there's no obligation for that though under the GPL license.

I've seen various interpretations, for me, if the art is GPL then any software that uses it needs to be GPL compatible because the software will not have the same features without the art. Simply put, if I can remove the art from the software keeping the exact same features and functionality then I think the software doesn't "link" to the art, if not, then the software needs the art to work and therefor cannot be considered independent.

arand wrote:For comparison, it's obviously not the case that every file ever opened in a GPLed text editor would be automatically GPL ;) and this would be considered a similar case, as far as I've understood things.


A game that uses an image to represent a game entity is not the same as an image editor that opens the image file.

At WTactics we've been approach several times about using our art assets for proprietary games and we always took that stance that if the any game uses our GPL licensed art then the game needs to be GPL compatible. It's a position we've maintained based on what the GNU GPL intends to achieve and the fact that, for most proposals, the game would be dependent on our art thus linking together the game code and the assets used to create the game.

I this case thought, if the art is dual licensed as it seems, I don't think the author can impose on one single license (GNU GPL) because one can chose either GNU GPL or CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Knitter
 
Posts: 231
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 22:52
Location: Portugal

Re: "DFour Games" violated GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" rele

Postby arand » 24 Apr 2012, 01:33

The way I interpret the FSF faq: I think that GPLed art would not force the game using it to be GPL:
#GPLPluginsInNF
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program? (#GPLPluginsInNF)

If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.

See also the question I am writing free software that uses a non-free library.

I would argue that applications to not make function calls and share data structures with images :)

#GPLInProprietarySystem

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this? (#GPLInProprietarySystem)

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

The difference between this and “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs—but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it “part of” a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

That's a tricky one though, it's very much a matter of interpretation of the art is in fact a very core part of the program or not. I believe that if you asked the FSF or a lawyer, they would claim that the GPL does not extend from an image to the application using that image, even if the application is "dependending" on the image.

I am neither a lawyer not someone from the FSF, so yeah, it's only a guess.
User avatar
arand
 
Posts: 211
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 21:42

Re: "DFour Games" violated GPL/CC-BY-SA in "Dark Gates" rele

Postby DrAltaica » 20 Jun 2012, 15:00

arand wrote:
qubodup wrote:0.1 has been taken down, 0.1.1 is up with replaced/removed art.

The developer told me that he talked to the art author, and that the art author wanted code to be GPL as well. Strange.

He may request the code to be GPL, there's no obligation for that though under the GPL license.

Since the game does not "link" (in the compile/library sense) with the images.

Actually it's the same question that comes up with fonts and documents. Delete the files.(well technically it might by ok if you replace it with a empty file) if the game notices the change then it has linked to the art work.
Can you make a free IWAD that allows you to play the Doom PWADs?

arand wrote:it would be totally fine to include GPL images with a proprietary game, as long as the images (as a separate entity within the game) is distributed in compliance with the GPL: Source available (including any modifications), often implying PSD/ SVG files (preferred medium for modifying...), no further restrictions, and licensed correctly.
GPLv3 wrote:A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.



Remember quake or one of the FPS back then had a problem with people cheating by replacing the player model with one with giant spikes so they could see where other people where hiding.
arand wrote:For comparison, it's obviously not the case that every file ever opened in a GPLed text editor would be automatically GPL ;) and this would be considered a similar case, as far as I've understood things.

"Although the Doom software license required that no profit be made from custom WADs, an id Software member claimed to have taken some measures against distributors of CD-ROM compilations of WADs, some WAD sets and shovelware bundles were nonetheless obtainable for a price at certain outlets."
User avatar
DrAltaica
 
Posts: 9
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 14:49

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest