Combining licenses?

[kamnet]

EDIT: Split from CFL Trainset discussion: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php? ... 5#p1114255

In this case, I don't think there is an incompatibility.

The graphics are covered under GPL, which says if you use/alter/distribute it, you have to offer the source code if asked, and under the same license. This would be JUST the graphics from Purno, not any of the code.

The NFO/NML code is covered under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which says if use use/alter/distribute it, you have to distribute your contribution under the same license. This would be JUST the code from Yoshi, not any of the graphics.

If the Creative Commons license had been a more restrictive NC (non-commercial) or NC (no derivatives) then it would be incompatible with GPL. This would also be a more sticky issue if you were dealing with similar sources, for example either both were code or both were graphics. To that extent, Creative Commons strongly warns not to use CC when it comes to code, even if you use the most permissive license (CC-BY) or make a Public Domain declaration (CC0).

[andythenorth]

The graphics are covered under GPL, which says if you use/alter/distribute it, you have to offer the source code if asked, and under the same license. This would be JUST the graphics from Purno, not any of the code.

No, the GPL would apply to the distributed program, e.g. the newgrf.

There is no option to pick and choose which bits are GPL. That's fundamentally and precisely anti-GPL.

Additionally, cc-by-sa is also fundamentally incompatible with GPL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa

Apologies for derailing the thread, but license confusion arises often.

Asking this in a polite and friendly way, please don't give advice on licensing unless you know what you're talking about. The GPL FAQS cover most cases, and are easy to find and easy to read.

[kamnet]

I disagree with your assessment. Otherwise, I wouldn't have posed what I did.

[andythenorth]

I disagree with your assessment. Otherwise, I wouldn't have posed what I did.

It's not my assessment. I am not a lawyer or a judge. I don't make guesses on this. You're not disagreeing with my assessment because I didn't make an assessment. You are simply wrong on this.

From the GNU licenses page. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa

Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC BY-SA)

This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.

As I asked, please don't provide statements on licensing if you don't know what you're talking about.

It's counter-productive to have factually incorrect licensing information being posted on the forums. It causes unpleasant drama, it damages the progress of sets and the motivation of those who work on them, and it risks cease-and-desist notifications to our ISPs and mirrors.

[FooBar]

I think we must first assess what are the reasons for choosing CC-BY-SA. My bet is "I would like others to use my work, but I want them to credit me for what I did and I want to prevent my work from ending up in closed source deals".

Even though legally incompatible, the GPL provides just that. Plus that it enforces work to remain open forever. I think it wouldn't be too hard to convince Yoshi to accept the GPL. Much preferred over a construction that is fishy to begin with.

[kamnet]

From the GNU licenses page. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa

Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC BY-SA)

This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.

And I would argue that a NewGRF falls under an artistic and entertainment work, and not software or documentation.


That said, Creative Commons has updated their FAQs themselves and seem to be in agreement with the good GNU folks.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequen ... oftware.3F

Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?

We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software. Furthermore, most of our licenses are currently not compatible with the GPL, the most frequently used free software license. (We are looking into compatibility of BY-SA with GPL in the future; for more detail, see the ompatibility page.)

CC licenses may be used for software documentation, as well as separate artistic elements such as game art or music.

Note that the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.

It's counter-productive to have factually incorrect licensing information being posted on the forums. It causes unpleasant drama, it damages the progress of sets and the motivation of those who work on them, and it risks cease-and-desist notifications to our ISPs and mirrors.

I will definitely agree regarding the drama. I personally find all of it unnecessary. Of course, if somebody is going to use your works in ways that you disagree, they're not likely to pay attention to your license anyhow and even if they can't distribute them on here or BaNaNaS, they'll distribute it elsewhere if they so choose. The only way any license is going to be enforced is through a court order, and how many people are really going to bother with that? Outside of one incident that I can think of in the last year, it's been ages since there have been any spats over copyright and distribution of art and/or code. I think that has a lot less with whatever licensing is being used and a lot more with indivduals learning to trust and respect each other.

[Alberth]

And I would argue that a NewGRF falls under an artistic and entertainment work, and not software or documentation.

I believe what they mean is whether there exists something like "source" of the work.
Unless you type the newgrf file directly in binary code, I believe most newgrfs have that, in the form of NFO or NML source.

[FooBar]

Is NewGRF software? Well yes and no. Yes in a way that like software it has a source code and a compiled result. No in a way that a NewGRF on its own can't do anything.
I think a NewGRF is very similar to a DLL. Is a dynamically linked library software? Probably. It certainly isn't an artistic or entertainment work.
From that logic it must be concluded that NewGRF is probably software. But certainly a very special type of software.

In the end I wouldn't have different licenses for different parts of what is the same work. Pick one. Be it GPL or be it CC. If you can't work it out with Yoshi, ask Purno if he will dual-license his work.

[Eddi]

i have a giant NewGRF that lives with next to no graphical-artistic content. you'd find it very hard to argue it's "not software".

and you find this with pretty much all computer games. sure, there's giant graphics and video content, but at the heart of it there is still a piece of software at work.

[Yoshi]

Minor Question:
Which code do you use from my work?

If it's from the DACH Set then it's GPL ! (DevZone's readme says GPL, bananas says that as well, just the ingame GRF description is wrong )

[Phreeze]

For cfl it's the Dach set. I somewhere read that it's cc??!? I think it was in a txt in the sources.(can only check this evening).

But as stated in the other posts, in general we (or ottd) should ask politely to develop under gpl, just to avoid big discussions. I think, if sniplets or sprites are used, original authors are mostly credited if not forgotten

[krinn]

Better fix your readme to comply with license then.

You must provide source:
The source code can be obtained from the #openttdcoop DevZone at
http://dev.openttdcoop.org/

Does not.

If it was ok, then that would be valid too : "The source code can be obtained somewhere in earth".

[andythenorth]

If it was ok, then that would be valid too : "The source code can be obtained somewhere in earth".

Specifically what's needed is a valid written offer to provide source. It is not required to actually put the source in public. As usual, it's better to use GPL FAQs than trying to re-write for ourselves what GPL means.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... OfferValid

[krinn]

Yep, a write me a letter here : blabhlabh and you'll get them is fine.

[Phreeze]

for my set, i updated the readme with all references.

btw: DACH Set is GPLv2....don't know where i had a file that said ccbysa.....

[wallyweb]

It is possible that this discussion is moot.

NewGRF coding is based on a specification.
The specification is a description of how to compose and compile a code in Assembly Language into a .nfo file.
One can code a .nfo file simply by following the specification.
Two or more authors can code the exact same .nfo file without deriving from one another.
The only diffrence is in the graphics.

A graphic is an original artistic rendering.
Unless specified otherwise, a graphic is protected by copyright.
The author of a graphic (the artist) can relinquish ownership of the copyright.
The author of a graphic (the artist) can license usage of the graphic while retaining copyright.

The NewGRF specification describes a method for the .nfo file to point to a specific graphic.
GRFCodec (or similar) provides a faciity to compile the .nfo file and the graphic(s) into a .grf file.
Considering that the .grf file may contain a graphic that is protected by copyright and that graphic is assigned by licence, the .grf file would inherit that copyright and that license.

Conclusion:
The .nfo file (the code) does not determine copyright and license.
The graphic does determine copyright and license.
The .grf file carries the copyright and license set by the included graphic(s).

[planetmaker]

It is possible that the previous discussion entry is moot.

NewGRF drawing is based on a specification.
The specification is a description of how to compose and compile colours in an image file.
One can only supply image files following the specification.
Two or more authors can draw the same image file simply following the specification.
Two or more authors can draw the exact same image file without deriving from one another.
The only difference is the code.

A source code is an original intellectual creation.
Unless specified otherwise, a source code is protected by copyright.
The author of a programme (the author) can relinquish ownership of the copyright.
The author of a programme (the author) can license usage of the code while retaining copyright

The image file format describes a method for the image file to point specific pixels to specific colours.
The image drawing programme provides a facility to draw the image and compose the pixels into an image file.
Considering that the .grf file may contain code that is protected by copyright and that code is assigned by licence, the .grf file would inherit that copyright and that license.

Conclusion:
The .nfo file (the code) does determine copyright and license.
The graphic does not determine copyright and license.
The .grf file carries the copyright and license set by the included code.

[wallyweb]

... .

That was quick.
A question ...
If there is a prior source code and I happen to independently go to the GRFSpecs and compose a .nfo file and compile it into a ,grf file that is identical to the prior source code with the only exception being the referenced graphics, would I be in violation?

[planetmaker]

... .

That was quick.
A question ...
If there is a prior source code and I happen to independently go to the GRFSpecs and compose a .nfo file and compile it into a ,grf file that is identical to the prior source code with the only exception being the referenced graphics, would I be in violation?

Also a question...
If there is a prior image and I happen to independently go to the idea of the thing depicted in the image and draw it in an image file that is identical to the prior image. And I compile that with the same source code, would I be in violation?

Hint: Yes. And Yes. As you probably can't prove that you didn't simply copy. And even then.

With small exceptions. And the exceptions and boundaries to where it goes to 'yes, but doesn't matter' depend on your legislation and laws. Generally it will depends on whether you can convince people that the code or the image in question is complex enough to count as original work. Generally these exceptions are small and the boundaries to 'yes, but doesn't matter' really high.

[wallyweb]

Hint: Yes. And Yes. As you probably can't prove that you didn't simply copy. And even then.

With small exceptions. And the exceptions and boundaries to where it goes to 'yes, but doesn't matter' depend on your legislation and laws. Generally it will depends on whether you can convince people that the code or the image in question is complex enough to count as original work. Generally these exceptions are small and the boundaries to 'yes, but doesn't matter' really high.

Agreed.
The most contentious part of litigattion is proof of prior art.

But, with the rigity of the specifications, how does one avoid composing a bit of code that has not been done previously?
At least with graphics there is always the possibility to differentiate with colour selection and shading techniques, etc. even though the underlying software is the same.