File format licensing of the TirNanoG RPG engine

[bzt]

And what would you gain with that?

A freely licensed file format spec.

So basically the same as TirNanoG File Format spec in the first place? The GPL'd source cannot and does not contain the proprietary format version if this wasn't obvious to you...

and it strictly forbids selling the source, or to use it in proprietary applications, so non-commercial only

...this is false.

Nope, it is not, it's all true. GPL strictly forbids selling the source, that must be publicly available for no charge (see section 6b(2)) and here.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

And GPL doesn't allow you to use GPL'd code in proprietary application either, see here

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.

Finally, about the non-commercial part:

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program nonfree.
...
You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else.

Simply put, you could maintain a paywalled download for your binaries that nobody would use, because you must also provide the source for no charge and you can't stop others spreading their compiled binaries for free, which is kinda big hiccup for any commercial application... Thus while in theory legally possible, in practice GPL can't really be used commercially.

No, I'd have to obey to a very different set terms, less permissive in some ways, more permissive in others.

No. All the key aspects are the same, said by the official CC lawyers. The small differences I don't care about, what I care about is that your tool must be open source, with source freely available for no charge and exclusive selling forbidden, and must not support the proprietary version of the format. This is all that matters, and these are all the same with GPL too.

So go ahead, you can use the GPL'd TirNanoG Editor's source as much as you like. The GPL license allows that.

Cheers,
bzt

[Huitsi]

So basically the same as TirNanoG File Format spec in the first place? The GPL'd source cannot and does not contain the proprietary format version if this wasn't obvious to you...

Both the options of your "dual license", CC-BY-NC-SA and getting a permission, are proprietary. But if indeed the encryption code that you mostly seem to care about is nowhere in the repos, then the fix I suggested earlier becomes even easier.

Nope, it is not, it's all true. GPL strictly forbids selling the source, that must be publicly available for no charge (see section 6b(2)) and here.

I just quoted a section that explicitly allowed selling the source, and the FAQ answer you linked just states that you must make the source code available to anyone you give (or sell) a binary.

And GPL doesn't allow you to use GPL'd code in proprietary application either, see here

True.

Simply put, you could maintain a paywalled download for your binaries that nobody would use, because you must also provide the source for no charge and you can't stop others spreading their compiled binaries for free, which is kinda big hiccup for any commercial application... Thus while in theory legally possible, in practice GPL can't really be used commercially.

You seem to be confusing "commercial" with "big business". Yet you admit that GPLd software can at least theoretically be used commercially, and that ability, which the NC in CC-BY-NC-SA explicitly denies, is making the difference between a free/open-source and a non-free/proprietary license in this case.

All the key aspects are the same, said by the official CC lawyers.

Again, that is about CC-BY-SA, a different license from what you're using. Had you chosen CC-BY-SA we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The small differences I don't care about, what I care about is that your tool must be open source, with source freely available for no charge and exclusive selling forbidden, and must not support the proprietary version of the format. This is all that matters, and these are all the same with GPL too.

Whether you care about them or not, the differences are not small. If I may not distribute the editor for a charge, its not open source. The GPL explicitly allows me to do this, while CC-BY-NC-SA prohibits it.

[bzt]

I just quoted a section that explicitly allowed selling the source

Nope, your quote does not say that. "You may charge any price or no price" just means that the actual price is out of the scope of GPL. Let's REALLY quote the GPL license about the conveying the source, shall we? GPL Section 6b(1)

1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source

Translation for the simple minded: NO PROFIT ALLOWED, aka. non-commercial only (because without profit, there's no commerce, you see). And what that "physical medium customary for software interchange" supposed to be in 2023 anyway? Floppies? CDs? This ship has sailed, my friend, everybody uses the internet for software interchange these days, which leaves us with GPL Section 6b(2)

(2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

Again, "at no charge" means non-commercial, no selling the source over the internet. But if you're still in doubt, then GPL Section 6c covers all the other possibilities if there's only just an offer to provide the source:

c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially

See? "noncommercially" literally spelled out for you.

the FAQ answer you linked just states that you must make the source code available to anyone you give (or sell) a binary.

Exactly, "you must make the source code available", and in accordance with Section 6, no selling of the source, like I've said.

You seem to be confusing "commercial" with "big business". Yet you admit that GPLd software can at least theoretically be used commercially, and that ability, which the NC in CC-BY-NC-SA explicitly denies, is making the difference between a free/open-source and a non-free/proprietary license in this case.

Wrong, there's no difference for me. GPL forbids you from selling the source, but requires you to provide it, it also forbids you selling your tool exclusively, as you can't stop others spreading your tool without you being compensated, and that's enough for me (yes, NC is more strict but as I've said that part doesn't matter to me. You not having exclusive right to sell your tool built upon my specification what matters, besides of the BY and SA terms that you haven't argued).


Since it's getting lost (again) in the noise, I must repeat, because this is the one and only thing that really matters in this conversation:




Dear Julius,

Let's make this extremely simple.

Where does the TirNanoG File Format licensing terms explicitly forbid FOSS contents?

If you can quote that part that explicitly forbids anything about the contents', then I'll rewrite that part.
But if you fail to quote, then you must admit you were wrong, TirNanoG can be used for FOSS games, and you must move TirNanoG back from Off-topic.

How does that sound? Simple solution, isn't it?

Cheers,
bzt

[Huitsi]

GPL Section 6b(1)

The whole section 6 deals with a case where you are giving someone a binary (the "object code form"). I will The point is that you have to give the source code to anyone you're giving the binary to, and not charge extra for it. I will refrain for commenting on every option, since option d is all you need. Selling a bundle of binary and source is perfectly acceptable.

And what that "physical medium customary for software interchange" supposed to be in 2023 anyway? Floppies? CDs?

This is mostly meant for hardware shipping with GPLd software, like Linux. I think CDs are still used by many distributors choosing this way, but a USB memory stick would be better these days.

Wrong, there's no difference for me.

Again, there is the difference between free/open-source and a non-free/proprietary, which also happen to be the difference between on-topic and off-topic on this forum.

GPL [--] forbids you selling your tool exclusively, as you can't stop others spreading your tool without you being compensated

This part is true.

yes, NC is more strict but as I've said that part doesn't matter to me.

Well, its still the thing (in my opinion, but I'm not Julius) making your engine off-topic for this forum.

But since you seem to think the licenses are equivalent, why not just license the unencrypted format spec under GPLv3?

[Julius]

Its as simple as that: as long as you claim you can put a CC-by-NC-SA license on the file format you are trying to put additional restrictions on an otherwise GPLv3 code-base. Questions of legality of file-format licensing aside, this is a violation of the GPLv3 license and puts sufficient legal uncertainty on your code-base to make it non-Free (as in not Free and Open-Source Software) in my opinion.

This is the final decision. Unless you remove all mentions of CC-by-NC-SA licensing (and any other non-FOSS licensing) from your code repository it will remain off-topic for the FreeGameDev.net forums.

I am sorry but you clearly have a different understanding what open-source is about and please go somewhere else that is more compatible with your licensing views if you can not accept that.

I am going to split the licensing discussion from this topic now and close it and please don't open a new one as it is obvious we will not find an agreement on this and I am tired of repeating my arguments.