Enforcing open source licenses?

Discussion in 'BukkitDev Information and Feedback' started by lol768, Oct 13, 2012.

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


    Plugins licensed as open-source (e.g. GNU GPLv3), should in my opinion be obliged to provide the source code to the plugins. Rather than forcing users to decompile, we should be able to access (via a link on the main page) the plugin's source. Is this something you can enforce as part of the approval process?

    Example plugin: http://dev.bukkit.org/server-mods/emeraldeconlink/
  2. Offline


    This would be so tedious to enforce, it's not even worth it. Getting into licensing talk is not fun as it is, if we were to try and force sourcecode links, about 50% of projects would end up getting sent back just for this reason. I understand why you want this (I would like it to) but it's not worth making people mad about.
    Jozeth and lol768 like this.
  3. Offline


    You could simply change the license if no code was present? Save the authors from not being approved?
  4. Offline


    ... it takes about 2 seconds to decompile a .jar why is that such an issue? Not every member on bukkit uses github or a way to share code and like h31ix said its tedious, Just use java-gui, I find it faster then using github anyway.
  5. Offline


    The decompiled code may be obfuscated and is stripped of all comments and 'life'. It is a viable alternative, but I would still rather use the author's code over decompiled versions.
  6. Offline


    Well not all authors use comments, and/or might not want the end user to see them they might be for personal help where as when they put it on lets say github then they are usually to help the viewers. You may rather see the uncompiled versions but the author may not.
  7. Offline


    Of course, it's always up to the author. But why bother changing your license to an open-source on e if you're not willing to release the code? Simply as a hint to decompile?
  8. Offline


    People get mad if you do stuff for them on their projects. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but if the person set the license one way, they probably did that for a reason. Us just going and changing stuff like that is not a good idea. I know this sounds like an easy thing to do, but you haven't seen what kinds of people we have to deal with on a daily basis.

    Because they can. Why bother to try and correct them.
  9. Offline


    I don't even add comments... If I can understand then that's all what matters to me.
    Good point. If it's open source them the source needs to be open ("of or relating to or being computer software for which the source code is freely available.") Not needing to be decompiled, because it's not the 'source' code.

    But I do get why people don't make it open-source, so people can't steal their code easily (even though you can use decompilers).

    EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2016
  10. Offline


    I suspect it's best to contact the developer directly in most cases.

    I can only imagine the horrors... You also have to look through my code which doesn't always make any sense at all. I have huge respect for you guys that spend the time to approve our projects, so thanks.
  11. Offline


    Also freely can mean "Without restriction or interference.". So downloading a decompiler can cause interference, crashing, not working, etc...
  12. Offline


    It is, but not with stuff like this where we would have to personally send a message to every single person in violation of this. At the scale we have to operate, that's a lot of time we have to take.

    Thank you :)
    MyPictures likes this.
  13. Offline


    Yeah, it's probably best for the end-users who want the source code to do the messaging.
  14. Offline


    I approved your Handcuffs+ file... ;) I was thinking how interesting it was that you combine Allman and K&R style. I... Kind of liked it. :3
    lol768 likes this.
  15. Offline


    Haha, you can probably tell that I'm maintaining it (it's a fork) :D

    I really need to go through it all and convert it to Allman

    I'll try not to do it with your project :rolleyes:
  16. Offline


    Some try-catches are Allman, some are K&R... It was very interesting. :p

    Haha, you can convert anything, I'm not too picky. ^_^
  17. Offline


    Except this says that if you are the copyright holder you can violate your own license (it's just frowned upon.)

    And going off of that, this says that you would have to report the violation to the copyright holder.

    In this instance the plugin developer would most likely be the copyright holder and does not have to do anything about the violation. If however, the developer is using someone else's code that is licensed under the GPL and did not provide the source code you could send a report to that copyright holder (although it probably wouldn't be worth the time or effort and there's no guarantee anything would be done.)

    Keep in mind this is just for people who license their plugins with the GPL - other licenses have different terms. This is also just my understanding of the license and I could be wrong about how it works.
  18. Offline


    I wish it did have comments... I would write little messages to the BukkitDev folks all the time. :p
    kroltan likes this.
  19. Offline

    mbaxter ʇıʞʞnq ɐ sɐɥ ı

    You can leave messages in the form of method names and variables.

    I think under most "must provide source" type licenses the method of distribution can be "contact the person you got it from and ask for the files"
  20. Offline


    public @interface ReviewerMessage {
        String value();
    Then you can throw
    @ReviewerMessage("Some hilarious comment")
    all over the place :p

    Something like that anyway.
    hawkfalcon likes this.
  21. I have no repository, the code will look ugly and is not documented so i don't want to expose this before i rewrite it properly, if you want the source ask me before crying here but there is a lot of better and documented code in the bukkit world and i never imagine that somebody need it. Yes my plugins are open source but if you want to use it, the first things is to talk with me regardless of the license i used, no ?
  22. Offline


  23. Offline


    If you don't think the code is good enough, don't open-source it. End of.
  24. it's incredible to see that. what is going wrong with your minds ? i make a plugin, share it to everybody and choose a open source way not because i think my code is wonderful but just to repect my vision of property, my plugin are not crypted and the license make you can use it like you want so what the problem ? you're looking for the source , it's because you're interested about so WHY DON'T YOU ASK ME if you want it in another format or ready to use project, End of.
  25. Offline


    Guys, if this is going to turn into a flame war, it's going to get locked, have a bit of respect.

    The answer to the question is no, we will not be enforcing people to provide source code, it's their choice and it'd be far too much work to even consider. If you don't believe me, lurk BukkitDev and try to PM all the people who don't provide links to sourcecode, you'll give up pretty easily. All in all, while I personally think it's essential for a plugin to provide these things, it's the author's decision, and you should respect their work.

    Please watch your tone, and don't get sassy with eachother on this subject.
  26. Offline


    It's entirely your choice, and I'm simply expressing my opinion on the subject. I'm not trying to make this personal, your plugin was the first example of this issue that I could find. The only issue is that when people don't provide their code, I wonder if they've mistakenly chosen the open-source license and don't want it used by anyone else. Again, I apologise if I seem offensive or insulting in what I said, and I did word my response badly.

    I apologise if my tone seemed aggressive or offensive. This is simply something that annoys me. In the past, I've contacted project authors and instead of supplying the code they've simply switched to the "All rights reserved" license.
  27. Offline


    when someone provides source other people can help find/fix bugs or even pick up the project once the dev stops
    lol768 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page