GPL Violations?

There's been some discussion about GPL Violations and I was wondering what your stance is on it? And if this post disappears it'll only confirm that suspicion. If you believe your DERIVATIVE work doesn't violate the GPL why not?

There's been some discussion about GPL Violations and I was wondering what your stance is on it? And if this post disappears it'll only confirm that suspicion. If you believe your DERIVATIVE work doesn't violate the GPL why not?

I don't understand. Why do think there is a GPL violation?

GPL allows licensees to copy, modify, and distribute GPL-licensed code, provided that the user then licenses the derivative work under the same terms.

There's been some discussion about GPL Violations and I was wondering what your stance is on it? And if this post disappears it'll only confirm that suspicion. If you believe your DERIVATIVE work doesn't violate the GPL why not?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

It is always good to read the one in your language and understand it.
If it does not forbid it go ahead.

By example. I sell some GPL games at the cost of a DVD + Jewel Case. It is allowed by the license. However many people don't read it.

And to spell it out most clearly. Xonotic is GPL. The console nexuiz version released by illfonic is not GPL. The only violations could be found there ;D

They are technically going to use their own engine.
At least I hope; we could probably be looking at a big lawsuit. 0_o

Just so you know, in terms of GPL vs. licensed version, no matter how small or insignificant the code donation to the original project, the author of that code retains rights and permission is required prior to any derivative work including commercial development above the rights given in the GPL.

Technically, any person who made a patch, fix or other submission to said project has right to lay claim upon infringement of the license under which they made it available which in this case would be a closed-source incorporation of their contribution without prior authorization and approval.

There's been some discussion about GPL Violations and I was wondering what your stance is on it? And if this post disappears it'll only confirm that suspicion. If you believe your DERIVATIVE work doesn't violate the GPL why not?

Do you reallize how funny you sound? If this post disappears???
Maybe you should have read the main page a bit more because it says there: We would like to formally announce the arrival of Xonotic – A free (GPL), fast-paced first-person shooter that works on Microsoft Windows, Mac OSX and Linux. Xonotic is a direct successor of the Nexuiz Project.
So Xonotic is 100% GPL and is hosted by like 90% of the old Nexuiz developers which all agree to this fork. Xonotic is by no way violating the GPL!

As lda17h pointed out the only POSSIBLE GPL violation would be at the hands of IllFonic and/or Vermeulen. But right now its kinda hard to get real answers from them and info about what was really used in their work so its hard to tell for sure..

Which makes me wonder: will actions be taken to prevent something similar from happening in the future?

already have.. Among them splitting responsibilities so that no longer a single individuum can take control. see the faq.

I have already mentioned some of this on the xonotic IRC channel... I'll also post a "short" summary here again. I'm no lawyer or law expert, but I do have some law courses as part of my studies, so I have a brief overview (mostly about the german law system, though).

Xonotic surely does not violate any licenses, this is crystal clear.

I *think* Lee and Havoc both don't violate any licenses or copyright. They might have "licensed" the Nexuiz name, which, as far as I understood the discussion, was never actually trademarked. So they were licensing something to IllFonic which didn't even belong to them. Well, that's sad for IllFonic if they are dumb enough to pay them money for using a free name, but that's of no concern for the legal matter of Xonotic and the devs.

IllFonic MIGHT be violating licenses. For them to violate anything, they first need to release a product to the market, though. Unless anything is released, you can't put forward any claims. Obvious.
Now the situation gets a bit complicated. If, from looking at the product (the finished game) people recognize their work in the game, they may pursue legal action (should be especially easy for the data part, if you see models, levels, etc from the original game which are GPLed, you've got your hook). For other things it might be more complicated. You can't directly see GPLed work in the engine by playing the game. Things might have been rewritten or left out or are simply too subtle to recognize.
If the license holders of the GPLed code in the engine want to actually pursue legal action (legal action is, of course, not necessarily required. If the involved parties think everything is fine the way it is, then the whole discussion is senseless and development should be pushed forward, instead ), then IllFonic maybe could be forced to release the sourcecode, to make it possible to inspect it, in the first place. Even if the "opensourcing" would be limited to a small circle of people only, which then can examine the code for GPLed work. Something similar happened to Linksys and their WRTG router firmware. They used linux and original iptables code, which is GPL and were forced to release the software. Based on that code, all the OpenWRT, ddWRT, etc, router firmwares were created.

As I said, I'm no law expert. If it's the wish of the license holders to pursue legal action and maybe force IllFonic to opensource the code, so benefits can be brought back to Xonotic and others again, it would be wise to contact professional help. The Free Software Foundation might be a good start. They have lawyers and afaik they help open source projects for free, if it's all about GPL and the like. You might contact them, discuss the matter and see what can be achieved by legal action (opensourcing of IllFonics code, maybe financial compensations, whatever), you'll see how long it takes, what resources the process will eat and what sideeffects may occur.
If you are undecided about what to do, talking to some professionals surely won't hurt, as that doesn't imply legal action already.

Hopefully I was able to shed some light on the legal side, unless all of that was known already

Anyway, I hope Xonotic 1.0 will be a blasting release. Looking forward to it

Just out of curiosity: How can some address their legal rights if the case affects a case, where the owner of a map (for example) lives outside of the specific country? Shall the individual then contact his/her local FSF organization? What if the mentioned individual has no local FSF in his/her country?

I think this is an important point here, as all of us are placed in different countries with different local laws.

IllFonic MIGHT be violating licenses. For them to violate anything, they first need to release a product to the market, though. Unless anything is released, you can't put forward any claims. Obvious.

That of course it totally right and is the reason why >I< only talk about potential violation so far. But honestly i feel like now its too late as they already created bad blood and i doubt people feel good if they are asked to duallicence for PS3 Nex now.. I guess some would even agree just to not be an obstacle for their plans but it would be better for them if they just ripped out EVERY bit of Nex stuff and produce their own PS3 variant.
Main thing that created so many bad feelings was IMO that stuff was done first and then they intented to ask "for permission". Why create a situation where you might be forced to redo stuff because someone would not agree to duallicence? Thats totally unprofessional.. or captitalistic i guess

Yeah esteel, I get your point. People simply might be annoyed how the whole thing was handled, but don't necessarily want legal action... That's why I said "if that is, what the license owners want". Nobody is forced to start legal action, of course. Such stuff is also always connected with unpleasant work and arguments, etc.

norbert: The FSF is just one simple body to HELP you through the whole process. The GPL is not only valid in countries where the FSF got offices/branches/whatever. The FSF created the GPL, it may help enforcing it, but the FSF is not necessarily required to make the GPL valid as such in a legal system. The GPL license is a license on its own, it states its requirements, offers and names involved parties and therefore it's valid in any country with half-way sane legal rules.
If there is no FSF in your country, you are still free to enforce the license on your own. Be it completely on your own, or by getting some commercial lawyer with you. That, of course, costs money though .

However, contacting the FSF might still be a good idea, even if they aren't active in your country. The FSF's main goal is enforcing the GPL and not squeezing out financial compensations. So the FSF usually first tries to contact violators, discuss the matter with them and tries to move them to compliance. If these talks won't help, THEN the FSF might pursue real legal action. And again, the main goal is still to ensure GPL compliance, not money-squeezing.
So, even if there is no FSF in your country to help you through the legal process, they might still help with the first step: negotiations with violators to make them comply. If the thing should evolve into a legal case, the FSF still might give you some hints and tips, at least.

Btw, if anyone's interested, to get you started: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance


//EDIT: Oh and the whole legal action stuff also depends on which markets IllFonic will be releasing to. If they, for example, release their FeeNex in the US, but not in Germany, it might be difficult to prosecute them in Germany for GPL violations, as they didn't act in Germany. Might be difficult in that case, but probably not impossible. For this to judge, I'm too less of an expert, though.

If there is no FSF in your country, you are still free to enforce the license on your own. Be it completely on your own, or by getting some commercial lawyer with you. That, of course, costs money though Wink.

Yeah, I know what's a license, and what possibilities one might have, and I personally made also studies about this in school too, I just thought, that one, who might reconsider legal actions whom to turn to.
I also fully agree on not forcing anyone to anything, it's about GPL, open source and mainly about having fun, but some might feel offended by having it's creation reused in a game for which he/she might have contributed something in GPL, and now this material will be reused under a commercial license without his/her permission. I just wanted to ask about possibilities, not for myself, but addressing the question for others.

If you guys hadnt heard the news from Havoc, FeeNex is gonna be based on an entirely new codebase, so there can be no violation, on the downside, this also means that there will be none of the improvements to be dripped down into TruNex or Xonotic

The thing is, can this be believed? They're a company, money and lifes are involved, they sure as hell won't go along, releasing a closed game and say "Hey btw, we used tons of GPL'ed code! Great stuff. We won't contribute anything back, of course. In the end, we do it for the console gamers, yay!"

...

You'll never know what the codebase really is/was, unless it's made public.