[joaquimandrade]

I don't know if that clause or what it means in the end is compatible with GPL or GPL philosophy because that grant creates a license paradox. I believe the safer solution would be using a different (maybe creating) license like GPL but without commercial freedom plus the linking exception.

[BAILOPAN]

PM: Great explanation! BTW: Back then, I didn't know what I was doing ;)

I don't remember if OLO's AMX Mod code had this clause or if it was BAIL's idea to add it.

I double-checked - it's from OLO. Which is good, because we couldn't have changed his license. I remember one of the first posts here was SniperBeamer asking what license we should pick. The argumentative guy, Manip? whose only contribution was to hack our SQL databse - insisted on the LGPL. We couldn't have done that either.

[MaximusBrood]

Originally Posted by joaquimandrade I don't know if that clause or what it means in the end is compatible with GPL or GPL philosophy because that grant creates a license paradox. I believe the safer solution would be using a different (maybe creating) license like GPL but without commercial freedom plus the linking exception.

Regardless of the fact that a change of licenses would be at least as difficult as tracking down OLO -- which according to common mythical believe is extremely hard --, the current discussion is being held out of a purely legal viewpoint. While that viewpoint is absolutely necessary, I think you should take up some pragmatism and think about the real-world implications of a 'hole' in or problem with AMX Mod X's licensing scheme. Or more explicit: the realization that there is no such problem.

As the AlliedModders' forums are the main publishing point for AMXX's derived work, the (dictatorial) developers can enforce the GPL for the majority of the community; they don't need legal power to do so. Any GPL violations that occur outside that community, are quite simply irrelevant: how regretful and illegal it may be that some wish to not abide by the open-source ideology, legal steps are simply too time-consuming and too costly to consider taking.

That effectively renders the GPL into some sort of 'guideline', but as the community is centered around a place where source-control can be enforced, I honestly don't see the problem.

[joaquimandrade]

Originally Posted by MaximusBrood Regardless of the fact that a change of licenses would be at least as difficult as tracking down OLO -- which according to common mythical believe is extremely hard --, the current discussion is being held out of a purely legal viewpoint. While that viewpoint is absolutely necessary, I think you should take up some pragmatism and think about the real-world implications of a 'hole' in or problem with AMX Mod X's licensing scheme. Or more explicit: the realization that there is no such problem. As the AlliedModders' forums are the main publishing point for AMXX's derived work, the (dictatorial) developers can enforce the GPL for the majority of the community; they don't need legal power to do so. Any GPL violations that occur outside that community, are quite simply irrelevant: how regretful and illegal it may be that some wish to not abide by the open-source ideology, legal steps are simply too time-consuming and too costly to consider taking. That effectively renders the GPL into some sort of 'guideline', but as the community is centered around a place where source-control can be enforced, I honestly don't see the problem.

Amxx abstracts functionality from binary code that is protected against derivation with commercial intent. Therefore it should enforce the protections for what uses those abstractions. If rules are to be taken as guidelines then people can even make closed source plugins. It doesn't make sense to say that GPL should be seen as a guideline because if it can't be enforced it has no power. What makes sense is: enforcing the rules inherited (no commercial derived software) and enforcing the rules that are the base of this community that are open source and copy left. Now if GPL is not good enough, a new license should be used instead, instead of say that GPL should be seen as a guideline. Rules are rules and are meant to be enforced not to mutate dependingly on what looks better.

[MaximusBrood]

You are missing the point of what I said.

Originally Posted by joaquimandrade If rules are to be taken as guidelines then people can even make closed source plugins. It doesn't make sense to say that GPL should be seen as a guideline because if it can't be enforced it has no power.

I never said that.

The GPL is a perfectly enforceable license, and is not 'just a guideline'. If someone violates it, you can go to court -- and hopefully add some useful jurisprudence/case-law (is that the correct US term?) in the process. The only point I was trying to make is that in practice going to court is very costly and time-consuming, and in most cases unnecessary because the developers have total control over the AM community.

In any case, the GPL is fine. It clearly communicates the ideology of source-sharing including the option to make valid legal threats, and has de facto been accepted by Valve. Really, nothing is needed beyond that.

To give you a simple and clear bottom line: AMXX is not going to change licenses.

[fysiks]

I saw somewhere someone stated that anything derived from the SDK from Valve for their software must be open source? (maybe I didn't read this whole thread )

[Xanimos]

Originally Posted by fysiks I saw somewhere someone stated that anything derived from the SDK from Valve for their software must be open source? (maybe I didn't read this whole thread )

I've been reading the debate since it's happened. If you've read just this last page you are caught up from like 2 pages back.

Hello PM

[BAILOPAN]

fysiks: Valve's license grants you the right to redistribute the SDK in object-form on a non-commercial, no-cost basis. It does not grant you the right to redistribute the SDK in source form.

This is really targeted at full game mods, not plugins. Game mods are allowed to be open-source as long as they distribute a diff against the SDK.

However, game companies in general do not like anyone making money off their content in any way. For example, to broadcast Counter-Strike games on TV, you have to negotiate a broadcast license with Valve. This is what DirecTV had to do back when CGL was around - and IIRC later on Valve started refusing 1.6 licenses to promote Source.

Another example, there was a company back in 2005 or so making a plugin that displayed ads in-game. This was before CS 1.6 had ads in it (infamously pushed via an update to "fix screen resolution" or something). Anyway, Valve told this company to stop, and they did. Who knows whether they have legal grounds, but certainly they have money to hire lawyers.