Change.org Petition against Wesley Wolfe

Discussion in 'Bukkit Discussion' started by DaMadriGames, Sep 7, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Offline

    DaMadriGames

    Hi guys, just a quick note to say I'm asking for support with my petition against Wesley Wolfe's actions, if you want to sign it it's at http://www.change.org/p/mr-wesley-w...-bukkit-and-spigot-minecraft-server-platforms
    I would like to point out this is not intended as advertisement, I'm not trying to advertise, I'm trying to save the bukkit community and show Wesley Wolfe that nobody approves of what he's done.
    So you know, don't ban me ;)
     
    DangerGuy27, ZanderMan9 and EDWIN3150 like this.
  2. Offline

    MrInspector

    Tbh, petitions usually never work unless you get like a million signatures, or from my experience at least. Although what Wesley did was good, how would you feel if you worked on something for so long, you put in your code and you find out someone else apparently owns it.

    But good luck. :)
     
    xize likes this.
  3. Offline

    imN8

    I think it's a little too far down the road for this, not that it would have done any good at the beginning either. The damage is done and a petition cannot rewind time. On top of that, you can't petition someone's right to DMCA their property.
     
  4. Offline

    Jaaakee224

    DaMadriGames
    Most of the people on Bukkit support Wolf. Usually if they don't, it's because they are little kids mad because they can't download Bukkit and play with it. Wolf's DMCA has a very strong position against Mojang, and it can't be changed because of a petition. Plus, even if Wolf removed the DMCA, the other contributors to the project have the same permission to DMCA it as well. Have fun with that petition.
     
  5. Offline

    DaMadriGames

    I see your point, and you're correct. However, if you view Vubui's post, Mojang still agree that they want the project to be here, and that Wesley has no right to DMCA it. When he contributed to the project, he gave his contributions under an open source license. Also, the way I understand it, one of Wesley's main points is that Bukkit contains the Minecraft source code. The thing is, the NMS classes in craftbukkit use code from something like MCP. Although in a way, that does contain the minecraft code, it's not the same. It gets altered when it's decompiled, because the minecraft code is obfuscated, so you can't just decompile it straight forward. When decompiling it, they make it readable and usable again, but in a different way. So it's not really the minecraft code.

    Also, thanks everyone for your views. I think it's still a valid idea to try, and if it gets the DMCA taken down, it's all the better for it. It doesn't take more than five minutes of your time to sign a petition, even if you're a slow typist, so it's a good thing to do and can show that nobody supports the actions of Wesley Wolfe.

    EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2016
    ZanderMan9 likes this.
  6. DaMadriGames Which post? The widely discredited, only official non-twitter statement they've made and have made no attempt to follow up on? That post? Yeah, no, that has some problems to it.
     
  7. Offline

    Jaaakee224

    DaMadriGames
    Wolf has every single right to DMCA his project. He contributed three years of his life to this project, for free. It's Wolf's choice and his choice only to take down the DMCA.
     
  8. Offline

    DaMadriGames

    You're right, Mojang should follow up. And I think people should be angry at Mojang, and they should realise how much of the money they get is from bukkit, making it something they really can't afford to lose. Vubui should get Mojang's legal team to actually get something done against Wesley Wolfe if they've got any hope of keeping Bukkit.

    When he contributed, he contributed under a license making his contributions Open-Source. That, and the fact that CraftBukkit isn't the Minecraft Server modified, means his entire reason for DMCAing the project is invalid. Therefore, he has no right to DMCA the project. You're welcome to your views, and these are mine.
     
    ZanderMan9 and EDWIN3150 like this.
  9. Offline

    frelling

    Frankly, I'm perplexed. Unless Mr. Wolfe signed some specific intellectual property agreement, his continued works on Bukkit/CraftBukkit make him a co-author of the resulting work - not just his parts - in which he has equal rights; thus, all that Mr. Wolfe did was claim that he infringed on his own copyright.
     
  10. Offline

    mrcal17

    Full support. I want to make a server with it for some plugin testing but what do you know? I come on and find this crap. I've read through all the comments and I understand that Wolfe has no right to DMCA. Bull crap. I want to be able to use bukkit. Screw him.
     
    Rylan likes this.
  11. Offline

    stevenspears21

    I want to download Bukkit for my server but thanks to this Wesley Wolfe guy, I CAN'T!!!!!
     
  12. Offline

    geekyadam

    Don't mean to necro, but just catching up on this whole Bukkit DMCA takedown thing.
    It seems weird that Wolfe could demand that Mojang release CraftBukkit open-source because of Bukkit's GPL license, as technically the Bukkit GPL license was null from the beginning, as CraftBukkit includes code from Minecraft, which is not authorized to be included in any GPL licensing.
    As Vu Bui replied to Wolfe:
    So if Mojang has not authorized the inclusion of any Minecraft code in or made subejct to any GPL or LGPL license, wouldn't that mean that Wolfe's GPL license, and therefore this whole DMCA takedown, is null and void?
    If I'm missing something here, please inform me, glad to read links.
     
  13. Offline

    Lolmewn

    DaMadriGames Vubui's post is full of PR-bullcrap and tbh should be deleted before they embarrass themselves more.
     
  14. Offline

    LokiChaos

    I'll skip over the details, but no. His code, can and still is licensed under the GPL: even if it was never possible to follow its terms. Only he can change the license to his contributions (or he must explicitly grant that right to another party and they can change them). The proposed solution of Mojang officially licensing the derived code under a GPL-compatible license is the only way to make it possible to distribute Craftbukkit and follow the GPL's terms. No one else can license their code.

    Barring the GPL's permission (and only in adherence with its terms) you cannot redistribute it at all. So /if/ you somehow managed to argue the claim that it never could have been licensed under the GPL then you would default to standard copyright terms which would completely bar redistribution. You /want/ the GPL to stand as that is the ONLY thing that gives anyone the right to distribute the whole product. Each of the individual contributers are still free to distribute their portions however they see fit, but cannot distribute anything they didn't contribute if not for the GPL.
     
  15. Offline

    ZanderMan9

    Wolfe is making claims that have debatable legal backing.
    Plus, his actions affect the whole community, and hardly even do anything to Mojang.
    If he wants to make some sort of example, he should have done it in a different, less destructive way.
     
    asofold likes this.
  16. Offline

    mythbusterma

    ZanderMan9

    "Hardly do anything to Mojang" you mean like shutting down the largest server mod, which is their IP, for good? That's a pretty hard hit. Furthermore, there is nothing "debatable" about his claims, when the Bukkit developers submitted their source code, they did not do it under the terms that they were releasing their source code as public domain, only that it was open source, and hence maintain the right to the IP. However, when Wesley was upset with the way Mojang underhandedly bought and controlled Bukkit, without telling anyone. Therefore, he claimed Mojang/Bukkit was using his intellectual property without his consent, which he was completely entitled to do so.
     
    slipcor likes this.
  17. The contributors have contributed as GPL or LGPL, if it can be regarded as public domain due to an invalid license of the project, may be much bound to the applicable law, i don't think it's so sure what courts would rule (out) there.

    Of course it's debatable to screw over a community, no matter what you think about his legal stance/rights. The "public domain" card doesn't play too well either, especially if he applies it after two years of contributing, including creating the offending code himself, disregarding if it would get through in an actual court case. Disregarding law, the fact that he can do the DMCA has been enabled by accident, it has not been the purpose of the project, so one will not be able to silence the community with "he has his right". It's screwing over people, simply.
     
  18. Offline

    LokiChaos

    asofold re-read my post, specifically the second paragraph. Should a court rule that that GPL/LGPL does not apply to the project because it was never possible to follow the GPL's terms, then it defaults to standard copyright terms, which entirely forbid redistribution. Courts have no standing to revoke a private individuals copyrights on a work (and the list of parties that would support an appeal would be ludicrously long) so there is no way for it to be deemed "public domain." At most, it is possible a court could rule that a failure to raise an objection sooner could trigger estoppel. However a simple justification would be: He did not object because there was no way for the project itself to resolve the problem, UNTIL he was aware that the one party who could address the issue (by licensing the derived code from the Minecraft server under a GPL-compatible license) was claiming ownership of the project. He asked them (Mojang) to resolve the issue as they were asserting a claim and interest in the project (Bukkit/CraftBukkit) and had the required rights to rectify the issue of the non-licensed code, by giving it a license.

    The GPL was written very specifically to prevent free code from being trapped by non-free code. For a project like Bukkit/CraftBukkit it is an awkward choice as such a project is inherently tied to non-free code. Something so intimately linked to a closed source project is not one that the GPL is well suited to. "Open Source" (or "Free/Libre and Open Source" in this case) does not mean you can just do whatever you want with it (excepting the WTFPL and similar), even far more permissive licenses (eg: MIT, BSD, Apache) still have some terms that must be followed and failure to do so does mean you are violating the authors rights and they could legally bar you from redistribution. This is not a brand new issue, and it is not as if no one saw this problem hanging overhead.
     
    slipcor likes this.
  19. Offline

    DaMadriGames

    Yeah, that's my point, glad to see someone else can see it.

    As for that, the point contains two major points. A. Wolfe's contributions were under GPL, which he can't claim copyright for under various regulations regarding open source licenses. Research it. B. Bukkit isn't Minecraft, it's MC-PC, which is constructed differently from the Minecraft JAR.

    You do realise people have known Mojang owns bukkit for two years, right>? Wesley must have known Mojang owned the Bukkit project, as he was still working on it at the time they bought it. The license bukkit is under is GPL, making it an open source project which he doesn't own the IP to.

    EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2016
  20. Offline

    mythbusterma

    DaMadriGames

    I don't think you understand that just because a project is GPL, doesn't mean you release the rights to it. You still own your code, even if you agree to share it with the public.

    Edit: asofold I see where you're coming from, and I can agree on some points. However I think it's better for the community as a whole that Wesley does this, but we can disagree on ideals.
     
  21. Offline

    Lolmewn

    If Wolverness had no claim, Mojang would have long revoked the DMCA. He certainly has a claim, and he intends to enforce his copyright.

    I'm not sure what an MC-PC is but Bukkit is just a library with more libraries.
     
    mythbusterma and slipcor like this.
  22. LokiChaos I think it depends even more on such court ruling. E.g. the court could rule on that copyright aspect for a public open source project like this. The problem with OSS/FOSS is that in this case "nothing has been done", except a late-joined-developer bombing down the project using a default-kill-switch, after having added offending code for two years. Court might or might not see it your way, however it is clear, that this is against the purpose of this very project and OSS projects in general (FOSS would mean: "bad licensing from start, obviously"). Focusing on "a developers hard work" is wrong here, unless the project was meant to have the kill-switch built in.
    No, this does no good. It's not necessary to kill off projects and depending projects. It would have been good to continue with building up a development team and renew some concepts of how to run things and make it more welcoming to other approaches. While other approaches like Sponge exist, that doesn't make the community/situation any better for now. It's just a lot of damage dealt to the community. Of course Bukkit is replacable on the short/medium/long term, depending on what Microsoft will do to modding and on how much work you need and are willing to invest. I am still not convinced about what courts would do, assuming that M+M might be ok with death of CB though. Arguing that things evolve somehow and therefore it'll all good would be too cheap, this is not a case of a OSS/FOSS license "working out well".

    It's not making anything better, but it contains lessons:
    - E.g. next time ask a lawyer about the licensing state and DMCA-bility of a project, because back then no one could answer the questions about licensing, so many people assumed it would be ok, and were deceived by sloppy non-lawyer judgement.
    - Probably the best way is to contribute to the core project early on and file a DMCA takedown as early as possible, just to see if the project you intend to contribute to (be it plugins or the project itself) is resistant enough to bullshit, so it can survive even if others have to continue it. If it survives you can continue contributing to a healthy project.
     
  23. Source?
     
  24. Offline

    mythbusterma

    AdamQpzm
    DaMadriGames

    I didn't know it, they weren't open about it, I don't think any of the BukkitDev staff knew about it. It is underhanded and absolute abuse at its finest.
     
    AdamQpzm likes this.
  25. There seems to be a lot of foggy areas around it, but i think he did not demand it to be open source, and i believe he can't demand it, but he used the "not present open source license" as a reasoning to the claim that the license of CraftBukkit be void. However it has been mentioned as a thinkable "solution" to the problem, because if CraftBukkit was merged into a compatibly licensed open source code, the matter should be resolved on that reasoning. If the DMCA still has ground i can't tell, but i can tell that it's not clear that you can call the code resulting from a decompiled (binary?) jar "the server source code", so there is a good bit of fog to be passed through.
    The reasoning seems to be, that due to the use of server-code not being authorized, the license of CraftBukkit is void, thus his code is copyrighted to him, thus he can DMCA it's use with CraftBukkit. As hinted at above, the "source code not authorized by Mojang" refers to th actual server source code, and it was stated by Vubui, that they don't regard the result of decompiling the jar as that code. I have no idea what courts would do with that, there are still points to consider:
    - The "not authorized reply" seemed to be in the context of using original Minecraft server source code, which only thieves can do.
    - The code resulting from decompilation is not regarded as the original server source code by Mojang, but what would courts do with that? There have been discussions about (not-) cleanroom-engineering and about CB merging with parts of the decompiled code instead of either "none" or "all".
    - CraftBukkit has been tolerated all the way long, including somewhat official statements on it and mods in general. The DMCA might aim at this too, in terms of demanding clarification if CraftBukkit can exist or not (problematic detail: the DMCA effectively denies further existence of CB).

    For my taste there's too much fog and the delay concerning information is also getting a little long.
     
  26. Offline

    LokiChaos

    The code derived from Mojang's server jar is unquestionably a derivative work (regardless of Mojang's official position or willingness to claim it as such), thus they hold the sole right to distribute and/or set the terms of distribution. They have, graciously, elected to not enforce those rights thus far. However it is, and always will be a blade held to the project's throat unless they explicitly license it. asofold is correct, no one can compel them to license it at all, much less under any particular one. It's inclusion in CraftBukkit doesn't impart any license to it.
     
  27. Concerning the blade, they could kill off future-version modding more or less at any given point of time anyway, so the current and past versions should be in focus, obviously those have been taken down by a DMCA. The other question is, if the copyright for the contributions really applies for the case of a void project license, considering his own contributions to the offending project and specifically to the files that have no/problematic license. Would be nice to see it crushed, as cutting the throat of the community doesn't appear to be the proper move.
     
  28. Offline

    LokiChaos

    Each contributer holds the rights to the code they wrote, this is automatic and absolute (no one at any point has claimed that there was a explicit agreement such as a CLA). This is true even if their code always depended on someone else's. Under US law and the Berne Convention the contributers hold the exclusive rights to the code they wrote.

    For an example that doesn't involve the GPL or other open-source licensing:
    I decompile/RE the server jar myself and add in some new code, and/or re-write portions (say I optimize the hopper code to make them less laggy). If I distribute that derivative work, I am violating Mojang's copyrights. However, I still have rights to the code I wrote, even if it was created in/as part of an act of infringement. So Mojang cannot make use of the added/modified code I wrote without my consent either. You just have something that cannot be distributed unless both I and Mojang agree to it. Similarly I could write an alternate ending to a book and the original author cannot use my words. However, they can stop me from publishing a book that contains the first part of their story plus my ending.

    In the case of Bukkit/CraftBukkit the code was given terms others could distribute it under. Since the terms are impossible to adhere to, it effectively means it cannot be distributed by anyone. If a court held that you cannot apply a license to code that is impossible to follow it doesn't invalidate or negate the author's copyright: It simply means that whatever permissions the license granted are revoked.
     
  29. It may appear a noobs question, but can the CraftBukkit project still make use of that code, while contributors own their rights, e.g. because they willingly contributed it for public release with the purpose of modding etc.? Admittedly your version seems sound, but are the effective conditions of contributing really subject to "all rights reserved"...
    What permissions would apply or not apply instead? I know law doesn't always cover "purpose", though sometimes things count like "intended to kill" and similar.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page