[CONCEPT] Locomotion sprites to OpenTTD 32-bit graphics

[Leanden]

Im happy with ND, no problems there. I look forward to seeing a grf

[oberhümer]

The best solution is probably to have the code under the LGPL and the graphics under whatever has been agreed to. I would agree to that as developer of CETS and Britrains, but can't speak for the others of course (those being, as far as I can see, Eddi and planetmaker for CETS, and Ammler and planetmaker for the make system).

[Michi_cc]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

I don't think using the LGPL would fly here, at least as far as I understand section 4 in the LPGL version 3 text. Item d) states that you have to either use a "shared library mechanism", which NewGRFs don't have, or provide object code "in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work". I don't think a ND license matches "under terms that permit [...] a modified Combined Work".

-- Michael Lutz

[FooBar]

I'm asking myself the question if the CETS code generator is a 'tool' like NML itself is a 'tool' in terms of the GPL license. I'm not sure about the details of how it works, but from a distance it looks like it's something that takes input and generates certain output, like any other tool. I may be wrong though. Just openly expressing my toughts.

In any case, if it indeed is a tool, then it should be possible to use it to generate a NC-ND grf. Just as long as any changes to the tool itself, when pubished, are released under the GPL license with accompanied source code.

I do realize that I very well may be opening a can of worms with the developers of the CETS code. As they understandably may not want their work being used by just about anyone to create closed-source grfs without prior approval.

[oberhümer]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

I don't think using the LGPL would fly here[...]

Neither am I a lawyer (even if sometimes I think it would suit me), but this seems sound enough:
Take the graphics as "the Application" and the NML/Python/Makefile as "the library". Then remember that the agreement is apparently

I am allowed to change them but after that no-one [...].

and that, when you produce a GRF as a "Combined Work", no substantive part of the graphics themselves is actually modified (disregarding e.g. cropping blue edges). Also keep in mind that no part of the LGPL requires "the Application" to be freely modifiable.
It's now not hard to arrive at the conclusion that there is no problem: The sprites are specifically meant to be combined with a "library" (at least "for Locomotion/OpenTTD"), and there are no further restrictions (of the agreement with the model authors) that would be violated or requirements (of the LGPL) that wouldn't be fulfilled.
"In a form suitable for relinking" would be addressed by making the sprites ("object code" for these purposes) accessible while clearly stating the only permitted use is combining them with original or modified code of the same GRF they were included in. Even ND - which this agreement isn't - allows free distribution, and the further rights given allow no more than repeating what's already been done or preempting future improvements.

"Code generator as a tool" + CC-ND could work, but why not make licensing as free as possible?

[Leanden]

The main issue here is not to reach a solution that we find suitable, but a solution that is suitable for the MSTS authors, after all if they get ticked off, they can easily withdraw any use of their models, which would not only cut us off, but it would undo A LOT of hard work by the Lomo graphics artists.

We must tread lightly here and make sure tht the MSTS guys are involved in the decision every step of the way to prevent big knock on effects to both communities.

[Leanden]

The main issue here is not to reach a solution that we find suitable, but a solution that is suitable for the MSTS authors, after all if they get ticked off, they can easily withdraw any use of their models, which would not only cut us off, but it would undo A LOT of hard work by the Lomo graphics artists.

We must tread lightly here and make sure tht the MSTS guys are involved in the decision every step of the way to prevent big knock on effects to both communities.

[Michi_cc]

I'm asking myself the question if the CETS code generator is a 'tool' like NML itself is a 'tool' in terms of the GPL license.

That's really getting into the tricky stuff now , and I'm really not sure if the answer here would be yes or no.

The FSF seems to think that the output of a GPL'ed tool is normally not covered by the GPL, except if most output is actually a copy of the tool itself.

The CETS code generator is, in principal, something akin to a templating engine that takes chunks of pre-written code and fills in some user-defined values. A lot of that pre-written code is not directly influenced by the input data, e.g. the logic for the longer vehicles or the additional turning stages. At first glance it seems to me that this would fulfil the condition that most of the output is a copy of the tool itself. As CETS has no extra licensing provisions like e.g. the libc project, the output could partly, or even fully, be covered under the GPL. Or differently put, the license of the python part of the CETS code generator is most likely irrelevant, but the license of the embedded NML fragments is not.

Note to people not interested in this licensing stuff: Coding simple vehicles (i.e. vehicles without fancy livery or length refits) using NML is not hard. The time spent on discussing here would probably have been more than enough to code a decent, simple NewGRF for a few sprites from scratch.

-- Michael Lutz

[Illegal_Alien]

I am cancelling the project. If there is a breakthrough about how stuff can be done withouth having problems with everyone and licensing i will start it again, but for now i going to focus on Locomotion. See you soon hopefully.

[FooBar]

That's a shame, really. But I can understand that all this license disscussion made you lose interest at the moment.

Let's summarize the most important conclusions for if you want to come back to this project later:
- CC NC-ND is perfectly fine as license. An open license would be better, but in this case you don't have a choice.
- Decide for yourself if you want TTD scale or real life scale for your vehicles.
- In case of TTD scale, the code is fairly straightforward, one example is enough I think, the rest is copy/paste. Unless you want to do really fancy stuff.
- In case of real life scale you'll be needing coder.
- Due to CC NC-ND you cannot use code from other projects without permission.

I hope this will help you decide to come back to this project one day. Best of luck with your work on Locomotion!

[oberhümer]

you cannot use code from other projects without permission.

Unless everybody would agree to a relatively narrow written exception just for this case of non-free 3D models that could still allow modifying and reusing the code only (mainly concerning realistic length implementation). Effort-wise, it's probably the same as a one-time permision, but with the bonus of being reusable.
This is what I was aiming at earlier, but I guess it was too much to read.

[Illegal_Alien]

That's a shame, really. But I can understand that all this license disscussion made you lose interest at the moment.

Let's summarize the most important conclusions for if you want to come back to this project later:
- CC NC-ND is perfectly fine as license. An open license would be better, but in this case you don't have a choice.
- Decide for yourself if you want TTD scale or real life scale for your vehicles.
- In case of TTD scale, the code is fairly straightforward, one example is enough I think, the rest is copy/paste. Unless you want to do really fancy stuff.
- In case of real life scale you'll be needing coder.
- Due to CC NC-ND you cannot use code from other projects without permission.

I hope this will help you decide to come back to this project one day. Best of luck with your work on Locomotion!

Well there will be probaly some fancy stuff; As in multiple livery`s of certain trains, and different lenghts, and MU`s (Although that can be solved by making them all buyable as seperate trains instead of using fancy stuff.) As for the size; it will be TTD scale, and as far i have seen its also possible to use same code for the 32bit zoomed in versions. As my goal is to make real livery 32bit sprites.

And there is the problem with the example; i could check out one of the already made ones, but going to hit the GPL wall again, as i probaly going/need to copy parts of it to make mine . (In small words if this is done i could start the project.)

[Ammler]

could you please link to the threads where you discussed the license issue with the artists, I would really be interested in the reasons they would not like to share their work.

[FooBar]

Well there will be probaly some fancy stuff; As in multiple livery`s of certain trains, and different lenghts, and MU`s

Those alone are not too fancy. When combining them it gets a bit more complicated keeping track of everything, but it's not too bad.

If you need code examples, send me a PM some time. I've done all of that for the Dutch set. And since I've written nearly all of the code of that myself (with the exeption of the template offsets), I can set you up with some examples without the GPL attachment. I can't help you code the complete thing at the moment, due to time restrictions.

[Illegal_Alien]

Foobar if you can please do, no need to rush though.

[FooBar]

Ok, I'll look into gathering some stuff this week.
And I'll consider this post as PM; I didn't see that you had those disabled (the yellow bit in your sig isn't too readable with this subsilver theme thingy)

[oberhümer]

narrow written exception

I felt like it, so I wrote one; it's about as narrow as it gets. Take it, let it rot, whatever.

Code: Select all

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this NewGRF give you permission to link the code of this NewGRF with independent 3D-derived graphics, regardless of their terms of use. 
You may also copy and distribute the resulting NewGRF under terms of your choice, which must still satisfy the following requirements (1. and 2. must be valid for all recipients of your NewGRF):
1. Access to at least the part of your NewGRF's source code that is not independent 3D-derived graphics, in the manner specified by the GPL, version 2 or later.
2. The permission to use the portion of your NewGRF's source code affected by 1. under the terms of the GPL, version 2 or later.
3. Compliance with the terms and conditions for the use of all independent 3D-derived graphics included.

Independent 3D-derived graphics must derive from 3D models (e.g. MSTS shape files) and not be based on any contents of this NewGRF. 
If you modify the code of this NewGRF, you may extend this exception to your version of the NewGRF, but are not obliged to. If you do not wish to, delete this exception statement from your version.