Not signed in (Sign In)

Announcements: [Sticky] Considering moving to GPLv3

Bottom of Page

1 to 19 of 19

  1.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorMentalPower
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2008 edited
     
    We as a team, are considering moving our mods from the current GPLv2 license to GPLv3 (and from LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3 for those mods that use the LesserGPL license). This thread is a request for comments (RFC) from anyone possibly affected by this change.

    For the end-user this should be a non-issue, the only people affected by this change would be those that actually use the code in Auctioneer and Gatherer in other mods. However, since we are a community, we would like to hear from you before making this change.

    This thread will stay open (and moderated) until we make our determination. Post facts, not flames.

    Edit: Following are some relevant links for your perusal.

    GPLv2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
    GPLv3: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
    Diff: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060118155841115

    LGPLv2.1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
    LGPLv3: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lgpl.html
    • CommentAuthorCairenn
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2008
     
    *gets out her blowtorch*
    • CommentAuthorAdys
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2008
     
    For a more general overview of the changes... http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7621424054.html

    As far as I know and can see, the differences don't really concern WoW Addons, since they depend on a non open source application. So I don't see how the change would be a problem to anyone.

    *shrugs*
    • CommentAuthordexstarr
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2008
     
    As a very non techie person, and for all the non techies out there, will this affect auctioneer in WOW?
    On an other note thanks for making this Mod as It's great fun, I have 5 70's and AUctioneer never gets old....
    •  
      CommentAuthordinesh
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2008
     
    as MP said, for end-users this is a non-issue. It is only really relevant to folks who are re-using our code in their applications.
  6.  
    I know I'm not using any code, but just from a philosophical standpoint, I'm going to say to stick with the GPLv2.
  7.  
    Posted By: MorphiusFaydalI know I'm not using any code, but just from a philosophical standpoint, I'm going to say to stick with the GPLv2.

    And that would be why?
    • CommentAuthorcogwheel
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2008
     
    It is only really relevant to folks who are re-using our code in their applications.


    And even then, it only applies to folks who re-use the newly GPL3'ed versions. Anyone already using older code will still be under the terms of GPL2.
    • CommentAuthorCJNyfalt
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2008 edited
     
    Doesn't GPL3 require that Blizzard releases the source code of WoW?

    "The "Complete Corresponding Source Code" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to understand, adapt, modify, compile, link, install, and run the work, excluding general-purpose tools used in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, this includes any scripts used to control those activities, and any shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work, and interface definition files associated with the program source files."

    "You may copy and distribute a covered work in Object Code form under the terms of Sections 4 and 5, provided that you also distribute the machine-readable Complete Corresponding Source Code (herein the "Corresponding Source") under the terms of this License, ...."
  10.  
    No, it does not.

    Just like top or rsync or samba do not require the kernel source, so does Auctioneer not require WoW's source.
    • CommentAuthorRTLM
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2008
     
    Posted By: CJNyfaltDoesn't GPL3 require that Blizzard releases the source code of WoW?

    It works in the other direction. An addon can't impose its license on code it borrows from. However it is required to conform to the licenses of the project it is borrowing from. Simply put if WoW were to ever go GPL3 (read snowball, hell) Auctioneer would be required to also upgrade its license to GPL3 because it directly uses code from WoW. WoW doesn't use any of Auctioneer's code (or link to it) and is therefore not subject to Auctioneer's license.

    I for one completely support and encourage Auctioneer's adoption of GPL3.

    Regardless, keep up the good work guys. I love the mod!
    • CommentAuthorRockSlice
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2008
     
    Posted By: RTLM
    Posted By: CJNyfaltDoesn't GPL3 require that Blizzard releases the source code of WoW?

    It works in the other direction. An addon can't impose its license on code it borrows from. However it is required to conform to the licenses of the project it is borrowing from. Simply put if WoW were to ever go GPL3 (read snowball, hell) Auctioneer would be required to also upgrade its license to GPL3 because it directly uses code from WoW. WoW doesn't use any of Auctioneer's code (or link to it) and is therefore not subject to Auctioneer's license.

    I for one completely support and encourage Auctioneer's adoption of GPL3.

    Regardless, keep up the good work guys. I love the mod!


    I'm not sure that's true either. (Not an expert, though) If it was, wouldn't that mean that any application written to run on Linux would have to be GPL as well? (which is obviously not the case)
  13.  
    Its true, but almost no application (note I said application, meaning userspace, not drivers) uses code from the Linux kernel. So its exempt from being GPL.
  14.  
    Posted By: KayleeMunroeAuctioneer like all addons is written under LUA - which... If I read it right, all programs written with LUA must comply with the LUA licensing model - which is the MIT License

    http://www.lua.org/license.html

    Maybe I miss understood it, but when I did the reasearch before i released the new version of DuckieBank - thats what we all came up with

    *hugs*

    Thanks for writting auctioneer btw- its a great addon :)

    No that is not true, since we are not using any code from Lua, only using Lua. The distinction can be a bit confusing, but compare it to writing your program using GCC or VS.NET. GCC is GPL, but your program is not bound by the GPL, and VS.NET is proprietary under Microsoft's EULA, but your program is not bound by that license either. Since you're just using C/C++ and compiling it with either of those two compilers and not using code from them (unless you use the CLR libs which is a different story) the terms of the license of the compilers do not apply. The same happens with Lua.

    As another example, say you write a document using Word 2007. You can release that document under any license you want, regardless of the fact that you wrote it using word. Similarly, if you wrote it using OpenOffice.org, which is licensed under the LGPL, your document is not bound by this license either.

    Note that there is a difference between using a program to build another (in the sense of compilers), and using code from one program in another program (in the sense of mergers or other contributions). Also note that even if the above arguments fail to convince you, the MIT license is a GPL compatible license, meaning that I can combine code from an MIT-licensed product with code from a BSD, zLib, GPL, LGPL, Apache2 (with GPLv3), public domain and a million other licenses in the same program licensed under the GPL. Also, Lua is a word in Portuguese that means moon, not an acronym :smile:.
    • CommentAuthorLaibcoms
    • CommentTimeFeb 21st 2008 edited
     
    The keyword here is "use(d)".

    If Program B used a code from Program A, depending on the license of Program A, Program B must comply with it.

    Example 1:
    Program A uses GPL
    Under GPLv2 (and GPLv3), Programs that will use codes from a GPL'ed Program must release the new program under the same license (GPLv2) or an upgraded license (GPLv3 in this case), or a compatible license to GPLv2. Otherwise, you are not allowed to use it.

    So unless you "used" a bit of code from another program, then you are not obliged to follow its license, additionally, it is not 'upwards' it is only 'downwards'. So Auctioneer can be re-licensed to GPLv3 but that doesn't mean WoW should be GPLv3 (Blizzard will go crazy about it, that's guaranteed :P ). From that point on, any programmers that want to use Auctioneer-GPLv3 must follow GPLv3, if they do not want to, then they have no right to use the GPLv3'd Auctioneer codes that are not part of GPLv2'd Auctioneer.

    Example 2:
    GPLv2'd has codes of "ABC" and "123" while GPLv3'd has codes "ABC", "123ABC", "321"
    If I do not want to upgrade my license to GPLv3 or to a compatible license to GPLv3, then from the example above, I can only use code available in the GPLv2 version which is "ABC" and "123". I can not use the 'updated/changed' code "123ABC" as well as the new code "321".

    Im not an expert with this so I hope I got the explanation right ;) And hope that helps.

    Anyway, on topic... Im not a lua coder (yet) so Im not using codes from Auctioneer, but as a strong FLOSS supporter (and in favor of GPLv3), I will vote for GPLv3, if an end-user's vote counts :p
    • CommentAuthorscartaris
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2008
     
    I am for it. GPL3 is a good license, and as far as Auctioneer is concerned, the benefit of using the current standard open source license is significant.
  17.  
    scartaris,

    I've read and re-read the GPLv3 and have yet to find any benefit for Auctioneer in shifting to GPLv3. The two major changes in the GPLv3 concern tivoization and patent licensing agreements, neither of which influence us. So I'm curious as to what specific benefits (other than being current) a license change would bring?
    • CommentAuthorjslagle
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2008
     
    To my knowledge, to relicense the code would require a waiver from everyone who has ever contributed to the code - as the GPLv2 license is incompatible with GPLv3, so it would take every copyright holder to sign off to allow the change to take affect.


    GPLv3 will be a huge blow to open source. But, it will be a good thing to "real" open source. The GPL is a viral license - it infects anything that touches it, or is derived from it. The attempt at preventing "tiviozation" will be the one that kills it. Tivo will fork a kernel with the last GPLv2 tools and maintain it. Either that or they will switch to FreeBSD or one of the other BSD licensed OS's.

    To me, it seems that the GPLv3 is intended to cater to all those users who feel that writing free software should give them something other than some possible donations. It goes against the word "free" in many ways.

    I don't see any compelling reason to relicense this code. It does not benefit from any of the new changes, and it just encourages people to fork the last GPLv2 version of the code.

    Jason
  19.  
    Posted By: jslagleTo my knowledge, to relicense the code would require a waiver from everyone who has ever contributed to the code - as the GPLv2 license is incompatible with GPLv3, so it would take every copyright holder to sign off to allow the change to take affect.

    Changing our license would not require a waiver, since we already have the GPLv2+ license aka, "or at your option any later version".

    Posted By: jslagleGPLv3 will be a huge blow to open source. But, it will be a good thing to "real" open source. The GPL is a viral license - it infects anything that touches it, or is derived from it. The attempt at preventing "tiviozation" will be the one that kills it.

    I'm assuming that by "real" open source you mean BSD/MIT licensed software and such. If so, I'm not going to go into that trivial discussion that only serves to splinter the community. I will agree that the GPL is viral, that after all was its intent, its called a copy-left license for a reason. To be honest I don't consider that a bad thing, but due to reasons explained above, I won't go into that.

    Posted By: jslagleTivo will fork a kernel with the last GPLv2 tools and maintain it. Either that or they will switch to FreeBSD or one of the other BSD licensed OS's.

    As for TiVo forking GPLv2 code and/or moving to BSD-based tools, I don't really consider that an issue, mainly because the chances that Auctioneer will ever make it into a TiVo are slim to none. Besides as I stated in a previous post, the anti-tivoization clauses in the GPLv3 do not apply to Auctioneer.

    Posted By: jslagleTo me, it seems that the GPLv3 is intended to cater to all those users who feel that writing free software should give them something other than some possible donations. It goes against the word "free" in many ways.

    Since the GPLv3 was meant to strengthen the copy-left features of the GPLv2, I again don't see a problem with this.

    Posted By: jslagleI don't see any compelling reason to relicense this code. It does not benefit from any of the new changes, and it just encourages people to fork the last GPLv2 version of the code.

    Now *this* is this kind of response I'm looking for, and I tend to agree with it. We should have a decision soon, very soon.

1 to 19 of 19

  1.  
World of Warcraft™ and Blizzard Entertainment™ are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries.