GPL license for Artistic works -long post- sorry!

[toneddu2000]

It's almost a year that "I'm crawling around" this forum, but first because I was "rookie" and second because I didn't want to appear a flamer I've never touched this argument before. Nexuiz has IMO a serious license problem: the artistic content one. In every page of this forum you can see phase like this

Nexuiz is the only fps game released under GPL license in all its contents

or

If you want to release a model/texture for nexuiz, don't forget to include a gpl license

OK, I said, let's go to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html and take a read of the license. The entire license describes ONLY CODE copyrighting and licensing, infact if you go to the FAQ herehttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware, at the question "Can I use the GPL for something other than software?" the answer is

You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.
However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of work that is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL rather than the GPL.

So this could be read as "do whatever you do but release source code of your work". Admitting that "source CODE"is not so tied to artistic works, what's a source code for a graphic designer? If a create, for istance, a model in blender, source code could be the .blend file, but a blend file is a piece of software code (an output, to be honest) and if you go to (sorry for this long post but I wanted to be clear and impartial)
http://www.blender.org/education-help/faq/gpl-for-artists/for the question:"Can I license .blend files myself?"
the answer is

The output of Blender, in the form or .blend files, is considered program output, and the sole copyright of the user. The .blend file format only stores data definitions.

I think, and I'm not a loyer, that Nexuiz needs a more robust artistic license. I've take for you some links of very good artistic licenses that are the equivalent of GPL but for art
http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en Free Art License 1.3
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licensesCreative Commons license attribute by(the latter bottom). My favourite one
http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0Perl Foundation artistic license, This license is a free software license, compatible with the GPL thanks to the relicensing option in section 4(c)(ii). I've some doubt about this license

What's wrong with GPL license, though?If I, for example, were a good and talented artist (it's not my case )that releases a new fantastic player model with its 400.000 hyper detailed tris in the original .blend file to the Nexuiz community, and (always thoerically) there were a very unhonest guy that sees that model, take a look a the GPL license and said" this model is mine, I want to sell it and no one can use it for free without paying me first".In a tribunal court this would be a serious problem because GPL doesn't protect artistic contents.

I've also created a poll to know your opinions. I apologize again for this very long post but I wanted to clarify this issue.

[divVerent]

The problem is that the code interfaces with the content so that both are seen as ONE SINGLE ITEM - "the game Nexuiz". Nexuiz, actually, is ONE SINGLE WORK (with many authors). Thus, they must be under the same license, to comply with the terms of the GPL which the code is licensed as.

So there actually IS no license choice for content.

What's wrong with GPL license, though?If I, for example, were a good and talented artist (it's not my case )that releases a new fantastic player model with its 400.000 hyper detailed tris in the original .blend file to the Nexuiz community, and (always thoerically) there were a very unhonest guy that sees that model, take a look a the GPL license and said" this model is mine, I want to sell it and no one can use it for free without paying me first".In a tribunal court this would be a serious problem because GPL doesn't protect artistic contents.

Whatever a "tribunal" court is, it is bound by law. That means:

0. Even if you were to release the file under a MIT license (in other words, "do whatever you want, just don't blame me if it explodes because you were misusing it"), you stay the copyright holder and he cannot prevent YOU from using it any way you wish. You are NOT supposed to transfer copyright to Alientrap or the FSF, you JUST have to license it under the GPL! This also does not restrict you from also giving it away under ANOTHER license (dual licensing).

1. If your license is void, you HAVE NO LICENSE and regular copyright applies. So if the court would decide that the license is void, the use of that model would be illegal due to regular copyright.

2. If your license is valid, however, then it must be seen how the GPL has to be interpreted for this case. Some things however are blatantly clear in this case and prevent your evil guy from doing this:

This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".)

So whenever the license says "Program", it DOES apply to your work.

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

So, if the license does not allow it, he may not redistribute or whatever.

You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

So, his derivative work MUST be covered by this license too! And whatever work he makes using the model you published is UNDER THE GPL TOO. This, especially, means, that anyone can LEGALLY copy and distribute the new work the evil guy made. He can have fun selling it then... ONCE

(source must be distributed...)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.

"Preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" is pretty clear even for a model - it's basically the .blend file, or whatever you used. Your evil guy would then have to distribute the .blend file too.


If you prefer using the Artistic License, go ahead, we'll just use it as GPL then... however, if you had READ the license and not just its title, you'd know it is much more bound to the notion of "program code" than the GPL is. In the GPL, only the terms refer to code, but the only requirement to the data covered by the GPL is that some sort of "source" exists. And this is clearly the case for a model.

[sev]

Another quote from http://www.blender.org/education-help/f ... r-artists/

Games created in Blender (.blend files) are program output and therefore not covered by the GPL. You can consider them your property, and license or sell them freely.

I think this excerp from Wikipedia defines source code quite usefully for Nexuiz purposes (though this in itself is not "lawyer-proof" source):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code

A computer program's source code is the collection of files needed to convert from human-readable form to some kind of computer-executable form.

What's wrong with GPL license, though?If I, for example, were a good and talented artist (it's not my case )that releases a new fantastic player model with its 400.000 hyper detailed tris in the original .blend file to the Nexuiz community, and (always thoerically) there were a very unhonest guy that sees that model, take a look a the GPL license and said" this model is mine, I want to sell it and no one can use it for free without paying me first".In a tribunal court this would be a serious problem because GPL doesn't protect artistic contents.

I don't think this is in any way possible because:
1. The original author usually puts his/her name somewhere with the work, thus no one else could really claim false ownership.
2. If the license would be ruled void by court, wouldn't the standard copyright apply?
3. The GPL allows the work to be used for commersial purposes, so the artist already allowed to make money with it.
4. Even if someone would be able to make money from it, the original file still would be available for free with nexuiz.

EDIT: While I was writing this, DivVerent already answered it in a more elaborate way

[toneddu2000]

The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:

It's too general.It could be everything or nothing, I'm pretty sure that the "evil guy" could remanage a texture and sell it without making a big effort!
Honestly I didn't know that Nexuiz used artistic works and code as a "all in one", but now I know and I'm not here to cause polemics!

(source must be distributed...)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.

"Preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" is pretty clear even for a model

I'm not so sure that is "pretty clear", but I could even agree with you

If you prefer using the Artistic License, go ahead, we'll just use it as GPL then

This sounds like"all words you've pronounced are stupid things so I turn back and continue along my way".
IMO this is not what a community game should be. First of all, for me, Nexuiz should be a crossroad of thoughs and opinions and not "this is the license, if you like it, good, otherwise there is the door!"
I'll continue to use GPL , but I'll also continue to think that is not the perfect choice.

however, if you had READ the license and not just its title, you'd know it is much more bound to the notion of "program code" than the GPL is.

Nooo, I've not even read the title, yesterday I was at the supermarket and near the watermelon boxes there was a GPL license, I took a glance and I said:"why don't write a" 100 lines long thread?!And even because I've not read the license, I've spent 6 hour of silly life to compare 3 different licenses. Only to obtain this answer.

[divVerent]

The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:

It's too general.It could be everything or nothing, I'm pretty sure that the "evil guy" could remanage a texture and sell it without making a big effort!

He can SELL it, but everyone he sells it to can freely copy it, making the selling mostly pointless. This abuse BTW does happen, you can buy GIMP and OpenOffice DVDs on eBay for prices that are quite high

Honestly I didn't know that Nexuiz used artistic works and code as a "all in one", but now I know and I'm not here to cause polemics!

It's a single download, a single double click to start it, thus a single work.

If you prefer using the Artistic License, go ahead, we'll just use it as GPL then

This sounds like"all words you've pronounced are stupid things so I turn back and continue along my way".
IMO this is not what a community game should be. First of all, for me, Nexuiz should be a crossroad of thoughs and opinions and not "this is the license, if you like it, good, otherwise there is the door!"
I'll continue to use GPL , but I'll also continue to think that is not the perfect choice.

We CANNOT change the license even if we wanted to. We're bound to the GPL, due to 1. many of the original authors no longer reachable, 2. some code originating from Quake. If it were not for that, I'd be fine with it all being changed to a hypothetic "CC-BY-SA-SRC" (but the ShareAlike is really important, and SRC meaning that original source files must be provided). Actually, GPL and CC-BY-SA-SRC are absolutely equivalent.

[Flying Steel]

There's no problem with Nexuiz including Public Domain content right?

[Irritant]

The problem is that the code interfaces with the content so that both are seen as ONE SINGLE ITEM - "the game Nexuiz". Nexuiz, actually, is ONE SINGLE WORK (with many authors). Thus, they must be under the same license, to comply with the terms of the GPL which the code is licensed as.

So there actually IS no license choice for content.

That's not entirely true, it is very interpretive of what "program" constitutes, and the GPL is vague about it. There are many legal eagles who have insisted that the GPL can only actually be applied to program code, and there are those that believe it can be used to include artistic data, as well as that a game cannot combine the GPL with other licenses in the same package. The bottom line is, there are many examples of games released with the engine under the GPL, and the game data under another license.

The use of GPL in games is always a hot topic, especially in regards to this issue. Can it be seen as one single work? Sure. But it can also be argued otherwise, that the "program" is the game engine, and the rest of it is simple "data". Because of this, it's highly unlikely that the GPL would hold up in an actual court very well in regards to the issue, but let's face it, in this situation the only "court" we are talking about is the court of public opinion.

[toneddu2000]

We CANNOT change the license even if we wanted to. We're bound to the GPL

I think that no one here wants to change GPL license for code, it's perfect! The point here is only if we could extend a more appropriate license for "artistic content", but the code would remain untouched.

1.many of the original authors no longer reachable

well, at least, old models would remain with GPL license and new models will become CC, I don't think it's a big deal

2. some code originating from Quake

Infact source software code would remain GPL

If it were not for that, I'd be fine with it all being changed to a hypothetic "CC-BY-SA-SRC" (but the ShareAlike is really important, and SRC meaning that original source files must be provided)

I completely agree with that. CC license should be compared to GPL for guide-lines and infact source code would be a must-have base concept.

Actually, GPL and CC-BY-SA-SRC are absolutely equivalent.

Infact!Is for this that I created this thread!My question was, if GPL and CC are equivalent for rights and permissions, but CC is more appropriate for art, why don't use CC for art and GPL for code?

[divVerent]

There's no problem with Nexuiz including Public Domain content right?

As long as source code is provided, no problem.

[divVerent]

Because there IS no CC-BY-SA-SRC, and GPL would not allow mixing with CC-BY-SA-SRC even if it existed (a new version of the GPL would then have to be made that allows it, or CC-BY-SA-SRC would need a clause to allow relicensing to GPL like the Artistic License does).

CC-BY-SA requires no source data to be provided, and thus creates useless uneditable works.

And still, it all comes down to legal safety. In case you ARE allowed to mix licenses like e.g. warsow does, then it stays just as legal to use the GPL for everything. In case you are NOT allowed, however, it's better to use GPL for everything. Whether it is allowed to mix licenses in such a way has not been decided in any court yet, so both views may be possible. However, think about this: if it WERE allowed to mix GPL code with non-GPL data, why wouldn't it be allowed to link GPL code against non-GPL libraries (and vice versa)? The library is just as dynamically loaded as the content. Yet still it is the common legal opinion that GPL code can NOT be linked against non-GPL libraries. The engine loads the data just like it loads its libraries (DLLs). Why should these be considered different, legally?

Also, nobody of Alientrap has the millions of dollars (or billions? Some MP3s apparently already count as millions of dollars) to pay damage compensation for copyright violation in case Bethesda (new owner of id software) sues us for GPL violation on the Quake 1 code, in case it is NOT legal to mix a GPL engine with non-GPL data.

So for Nexuiz, the policy is: as long as nobody in the team is actually HAVING that kind of money, and willing to spend it on a legal case against Bethesda (and pay in case we lose), we must stay GPL-everything.