Bukkit is not dead.

Discussion in 'Bukkit Discussion' started by pookeythekid, Sep 21, 2014.

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


    Spigot is weaving in and out through loopholes to try and keep a dying software alive. Wolvereness is chasing after his copyright and md_5 is running away with it. In my opinion, Bukkit and Spigot are both at the same level, none are better than the other. It would be better to just go with another server software that somebody isn't trying to shutdown.
    Zupsub, Avygeil and pookeythekid like this.
  2. That would mean to give in to those who want to destroy. In classic board games one doesn't do that (Edit: unless they are only destroying their own game with it).
  3. Offline


    asofold I believe he simply means, "Don't hold you breath for CraftBukkit to be un-DMCA'd," and that Spigot is a good place to go while CraftBukkit's still under DMCA.
  4. Offline


    Wolvereness is wanting to enforce his copyright. Btw, who is they that you are referencing in the classic board games metaphor?

    I mean exactly what I said and I don't think Spigot is a good place to go. I'm not saying it's bad software, but Wolvereness (in case you haven't heard) is still on the loose trying to enforce his copyright on all derivatives of Bukkit.
  5. Offline


    teej107 Oh. Well apparently I both got the wrong impression from your post and I have not heard about Wolverness going after the other derivatives. My apologies for putting words in your mouth. ;)
  6. Offline


    pookeythekid Those derivatives include his code. It is under the DMCA claim. So of coarse he wants those other derivatives to be taken down.
  7. People who destroy things, for "reasons" such as "enforcing ones copyright".

    The community (in the form of Spigot + supporters) are enforcing life on the Bukkit code-base. I don't think that Wolverness has a base here. I don't know if nowadays developers are trained to kill injured animals like Bukkit, would be something to think about.
    That's shaky ground - his code is not just "under DMCA" but the CraftBukkit repositories and downloads. You can not create a general point like "Wolvereness code is now taken away from the internet", he contributed it under the GPL and LGPL licenses, while the DMCA evolves around mixing with unlicensed code from the decompilation of the Minecraft server - the whole argument about copyright is highly artificial and does by no means serve the purpose of the Bukkit project. If those licenses get reinstated by someone creating a corrected version (e.g. Spigot), then there might not be the slightest problem left with it.

    Trying to remove the code from "everywhere" just shows that this is an attempt to destroy, rather than to "enforce copyright", because you don't have that kind of copyright, if you contribute under LGPL or GPL.
    pookeythekid likes this.
  8. asofold According to people smarter and more in the know than I am, the Bukkit API is a dead-end anyway due to Mojang changes, hence the whole attitude from people that it's better to wait for an alternative that does not rely on Bukkit.

    And come on, even assuming that what Spigot is doing is legal - which I personally don't believe it is, but IANAL - you have to admit at the very best it's an extremely fishy loophole, no better than that.
    teej107 likes this.
  9. Why? There is other smart people too, and those say it's possible to continue, simply. If that means altering the API, many plugins become incompatible, but you will have a much faster way of adaption than recoding for another mod from scratch. If you start off from zero, it's debatable, but there are not many well established alternatives (canary, but then...), are there ?

    The DMCA is fishy in the first place :). How is Spigot fishy? It's debatable, that it's problematic because distributing the compiled jars isn't legal in some countries right now, but basically they pulled off a nice repair-thing, they did take legal advice.
  10. I can't really weigh much of an opinion here, I'm just stating that I've seen others (such as mbaxter) state it's a dead end for various reasons. Given his high level of involvement with developing it, I trust his remarks about it. *shrugs*

    Oh come on, how is that not fishy? Bare in mind that they're not definitely in the clear as it is, the fact that you have to make the jar yourself makes it completely obvious that it's an attempt to workaround the DMCA, rather than address the concerns. If it wasn't fishy and was all above board, fully operational jars would be distributed.
    JaguarJo and pookeythekid like this.
  11. There is other developers out there. This is just another attempt to construct a coffin from the outside. *snort*

    What if not working around the DMCA is what has to happen? They have addressed the concerns in a precise way, resulting in a validly licensed project. Claiming that they should distribute jars is just trying to spread fog.
  12. asofold What do you mean trying to spread fog?

    Look, let's look at the principle here, not the specific. Let's say you made a lovely basketball (CraftBukkit), and allowed other people to give out your basketballs for free, so long as they agreed to certain limitations (GPL). Being the sort of person that I am, though, I don't want to agree to your limitations, but I still want to give out your basketballs to people. Fortunately for me, I've noticed that if I remove the air (NMS code) from your basketball, I can legally give out the basketball without you having a say in it (Spigot's repo). Naturally the basketball is no good without the air in it, it doesn't do anything now! So what I'm going to do, I'm also going to give away an air pump (Spigot's patches) as well as instructions on how to add the air back into the basketball.

    Now tell me, how does this sound to you? Does it sound like it's all above board, or does it sound like I'm just cheating in a way that I could argue I'm not breaking the law? Or in other words, does this or does it not sound like a loophole?
    pookeythekid likes this.
  13. 3d-Printing might one day allow you to "compile" Basketballs from blueprints at home, but right now this does in no way compare to how Spigot is being built. Those parts of CraftBukkit that were mixing with nms code, were like patches or blotches of code that have to be applied to the decompiled server code.

    I think this is very interesting, because the GPL is about an idea of free software and what Spigot is doing is to give those "patches of software" freedom by creating a validly licensed project (or at least they are attempting to). So this whole thing now potentially turns into a battle for free software :) (really don't hate the GPL/LGPL per se!).

    Do you have some substantial argument against the current way of building/distribution of the Spigot project? I am no laywer either, but it does look correct-ish, and please have a look at what they actually do there (patching process etc.).
  14. asofold The only link I can provide in support of my argument is the Wolvereness linked in his latest tweet - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TwoPartyTivoization

    To me, this does sound exactly like what Spigot is doing, and they're against that. The reason being of what the GPL stands for - Minecraft's code can't be licensed under GPL (or any compatible license) so CraftBukkit is not truly free.
  15. I don't think that that does apply here. That part focuses on signed software and two companies, it does not seem to match at all. What Spigot is doing is to reinstate the license of the project by separating the Minecraft server code from the CRaftBukkit code, resulting in the LGPL license of their CraftBukkit variant being valid. Thus using the Bukkit API poses no problem, they don't distribute it together with the unlicensed code. Except for recoding what other people wrote to finally change the license, this seems to be about the best you can do.
    Their CraftBukit variant is now truly free LGPL (!).
  16. To me, it seems like it only mentioned two companies since it's a FAQ - maybe they get asked specifically about two companies, or they want to avoid people asking a follow-up about a loophole of "what if the same party doesn't make the patches?". I see no reason why the reduction from two companies to one wouldn't apply in this case - after all, it seems the patches themselves are the problem, not two companies working together.

    It can't be both functional and free, though ;) As soon as NMS is added, it's no longer free software, since they don't have permission to license it as such. Besides, Wolvereness has revoked his license.
  17. I see no reason why it would apply here, let's cite, question:
    This is a totally different context, as the requirements for providing information about installation/building/etc are 100% met, in addition to this being something completely different alltogether. Answer:
    You are probably aiming at this part of the answer:
    This is not the same situation, because people don't acquire an infringing build/product that is indirectly making someone else responsible for infringement. Instead you obtain all parts legally and do something with it in private, though then distributing the result of "something" further would then probably be infringing (not in all countries). This looks like people try to reverse "A => B" to "B => A" which doesn't work by itself logically.
    Which "it" ? You are mixing up what is obtained from the net, which project has what license and what people are doing "at home". That's not a sneaky way to unnerve Wolvereness, it's a way to put code on feet. And i don't think Wolvereness can "revoke his license", because it is not his.
  18. Offline


    GPL's definition of Tivoization:
    I have absolutely no idea how anyone could think Tivoization has anything at all to do with Spigot.

    My opinion is that certain people are trying to enforce rights they don't actually have, so they're desperately grabbing at straws to support their agenda, even if those straws have nothing to do with this particular situation.

    EDIT by Timtower: merged posts
  19. Shaggy67 Again, the answer doesn't mention tivoization itself - only the quick link does. I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. :) And I actually see a slight similarity between the two examples - after all, we all know that the software doesn't run unless you accept the inclusion of non-free software :)
  20. Offline


    If the limitations allow you to remove the air and give out the basketball, then you are agreeing to the limitations.

    What does that have to do with preventing modification of the GPL software?
  21. How on earth does that logic work?
    I'm not sure what you mean here.
  22. Offline


    What logic are you referring to?
  23. Offline


    Assuming that removing NMS from the distribution of Bukkit satisfies the GPL, then how is it fishy that they're doing so? There are multiple ways for the Bukkit GPL license situation to be resolved. It doesn't have to happen in the only way that Wesley supposedly wants (official open sourcing of NMS, which will never happen). He doesn't get to dictate how someone comes into compliance, only that they do come into compliance. If he doesn't like the fact that the GPL allows for source only distribution, then he shouldn't have agreed to the GPL in the first place.

    How does the GPL software not running unless you accept the inclusion of non-free software have anything to do with preventing the modification of the GPL software (which is what both Tivoization and TwoPartyTivoization are referring to)? Every server owner who participates in the new Spigot distribution process has their own local copy of the GPL code, and is free to modify it in anyway they wish.
  24. It's not at all fishy that they remove the NMS - it's fishy that they remove the NMS, distribute the NMS-free code & a tool to put it back in, and effectively tell you "run this tool to put the non-free software back in or you can't functionally use our software"... Besides, I believe that Wolvereness terminated his license for Spigot when he sent them the DMCA because they were violating his copyright.

    Wolvereness addressed this point with "For GPLed work, you can create your own patches and not distribute - it becomes an issue once the creator distributes them."
  25. Offline

    Wolvereness Bukkit Team Member

    You're wrong. Secondary infringement refers to copyright law. Copyright law describes derivative works and reproduce as two exclusive rights of the copyright holder. If you specifically provide for someone else to create a derivative work (which absolutely falls under copyright law) and that derivative work violates the license (Minecraft's EULA violates the license), you are violating the license because it would have been a secondary infringement; whether or not the resulting bundle is distributed is an independent argument. Every signatory to the Berne Convention recognizes authorizing derivative works to be an exclusive right of the copyright holder - of which Romania, Australia, UK, and US are all signatories (among many more countries). I have not authorized any derivative work of mine to be included with non-free software such as Minecraft, sans the GPL allowing private modifications: ones that are not propagated (defined by the GPL to specifically include secondary infringement).
    Spigot's license to use my contributions to Bukkit was "automatically terminate[d]" the moment they conveyed a work that violates the GPL (read: CraftBukkit/Spigot). The DMCA take-down(s) I sent served two purposes: to inform of violation and to immediately enforce certain rights I am allowed under copyright law. Once informed of a violation (within 60 days), the only way to receive a license to use my work is if I explicitly grant you one (not just downloading another copy), or you cure the violation (within 30 days). I've also explained cure in a thread you've participated in, but you ignored me:
    Minecraft is not truly free. If you had a "truly free" copy of CraftBukkit, I'd love for you to provide me a copy. However, only Mojang can authorize the freedoms that the LGPL* implies.
    I'd also like you to read carefully the phrasing used in the announcement of this software you think is "free":
    Nowhere does it say who is releasing it.
    Nowhere does it say that a resolution has been found.
    Nowhere does it say they have permission to do this.
    Nowhere does it say that this is legal. Sailing the high seas is not the same kind of freedom as the LGPL*.

    I'd put a huge bet that it was written, or at least reviewed, by a lawyer that knows better. If they represented these actions as legal or resolved or that they had permission, it could be (criminal) fraud. Beware sailing the high seas.

    * Use of LGPL is only a response to it being mentioned; Bukkit is not released under LGPL, and I do not claim to have actually released any software under a lesser license than GNU GPLv3.
    malgm, mbaxter and pookeythekid like this.
  26. Offline


    Firstly, What ever code you contributed to Bukkit, Especially as a Bukkit team member, Or anything created for the matter, That Was made to work With mine-craft becomes a product of Mojang, You may have to Buy mine-craft to play, however, Other than that, NO further purchase is required, Bukkit has been and most likely will be Free, As it has in the past. And I will state once more, That when you coded something to work with the game "Minecraft" It has become from that point, under ownership of Mojang. Such as mods, Now, If you Coded something and the other members of the Bukkit team began to sell Bukkit( And CraftBukkit as a Payware Software(Which they do not) Then your claims would be more than justified. However, Since Craft bukkit, and the Bukkit Api are FREE Your claim that they have had no authority to make it a(n) "Non-Free " Product Makes absolutely no sense, Whereas you are right that Mojang is the authority of freedoms, However once again, Mojang owns bukkit, and Craftbukkit now, and they cannot violate their own Eula. If you took the time to carefully read this, Then I tip my hat to you. But nothing more.
  27. Wolvereness did not sign a CLA, meaning he retains the copyright ownership. That it was made to work with Minecraft also in no way means that Mojang owns it. I'll quote VideoGameAttorney on this one:

    Also, another problem you're having here is one that isn't uncommon when dealing with licenses such as the GPL: "free" in this sense doesn't mean free as in the monetary sense, it means free as in "freedom". i.e. the freedom to use, freedom to modify, and freedom to distribute. In this sense, the compiled Spigot build most certainly isn't "free".
  28. Offline


    Hm, Personally though, I think, Anyone, Willing to basically diminish a community significantly, Is not someone I'd want to be around, And probably will not come back to Bukkit until the issue is resolved, That is, If it is ever resolved.
  29. This isn't a copyright case yet, you do mention a couple of points here, that will need actual proof. Your copyright might actually be or not be violated, depending on country, time of day, moon-phase, court decisions, whatever.
    I haven't ignored the word "cure" (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Cure), the question is what actually has happened on that account. You might need proof of a copyright violation by Spigot first. I am not sure if the DMCA is enough for that and that notification by reasonable means has happened (both initially and after their attempts to repair/reinstate/cure, whichever may apply). You certainly know better than me, whom you have contacted at what point of time and how.
    Of course Minecraft itself is not free, that's no news, demanding it would be strange (i do remember Notch stating about "when sales die down ~ probably public domain). The modified version of CB can be viewed altered by anyone. Provided they have a valid licensing, it's about as free as it gets, if it was LGPL.
    I hope so, because anybody trying to take it down will have to provide actual proof.
    This point is special.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page