Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Claim Over GPL Non-Compliance Shuts Off Minecraft Plug-Ins
New submitter Maxo-Texas writes One of the primary programmers, Wesley Wolfe (Wolvereness), who contributed over 23,000 lines of code to the Bukkit project (which enhances Minecraft server performance and allows others to write mods and plugins) submitted a DMCA request September 5th, preventing use of his code in the popular Bukkit or Spigot (and numerous other Minecraft plugins, mods, and other open source enhancements that depend on them). This has the effect of freezing all further development for multi-player server Minecraft based on these add-ons until the issue is resolved.
The programmer says that Mojang must release the Minecraft server code to the public domain since decompiled, deobfuscated versions of the Java code are included in the Bukkit project before he will withdraw the DMCA. Mojang has never released the real source code and has stated they will not open source the server code to meet the GPL and LGPL licensing requirements. This approach might be a risk for other GPL and LGPL projects out there which are derivative of or enhance non GPL programs or products. Mojang COO Vu Bui writes in a post at the Bukkit forums The official Minecraft Server software that we have made available is not included in CraftBukkit. Therefore there is no obligation for us to provide the original code or any source code to the Minecraft Server, nor any obligation to authorize its use. Our refusal to make available or authorize the use of the original / source code of the Minecraft Server software cannot therefore be considered to give rise to an infringement of any copyright of Wesley, nor any other person. Wesley’s allegations are therefore wholly unfounded.
The programmer says that Mojang must release the Minecraft server code to the public domain since decompiled, deobfuscated versions of the Java code are included in the Bukkit project before he will withdraw the DMCA. Mojang has never released the real source code and has stated they will not open source the server code to meet the GPL and LGPL licensing requirements. This approach might be a risk for other GPL and LGPL projects out there which are derivative of or enhance non GPL programs or products. Mojang COO Vu Bui writes in a post at the Bukkit forums The official Minecraft Server software that we have made available is not included in CraftBukkit. Therefore there is no obligation for us to provide the original code or any source code to the Minecraft Server, nor any obligation to authorize its use. Our refusal to make available or authorize the use of the original / source code of the Minecraft Server software cannot therefore be considered to give rise to an infringement of any copyright of Wesley, nor any other person. Wesley’s allegations are therefore wholly unfounded.
Okay, I read the articles, and I cannot keep the parties straight. Who did what and who is claiming what? Can this be expressed as a simple bulleted list. Too much lawyer. Many nomenclature.
Since I don't play Mindcraft or pay attention to any of the politics of the game, I'm a little foggy on what exactly the issue is. If I understand things correctly Wesley Wolfe issued a DMCA takedown notice because he contributed code to one or more projects that relied on the closed source game Mindcraft. And now he or others are trying to use this to force Mindcraft to be opened?
If that is the case, boo hoo hoo perhaps you should check the licensing before contributing code next time.
A derivative can't affect the licensing of that from which it is derived or adds to. It does work in the opposite direction - an original can force derivatives to follow the same license as the original, but that is a one-way thing. He has no leg to stand on here.
As I understand the story:
So Wolvereness contributed to violation of Mojang's copyright and now wants his contribution to this violation removed from the internet?
Or am I reading this incorrectly? The DMCA notice is for CraftBukkit, but he links to the license of Bukkit which are different projects (I think).
My understanding of the issue makes things look better for Wolfe.
He contributed code to the project - licensed as LGPL - before the Bukkit team was aquired by Mojang. At that time the server code - decompiled and deobfuscated - included in the releases was not falling under the LGPL license because it was not owned by the releasing team.
Forward to when the Bukkit team is aquired by Mojang - who owns the copyrights to the server code - and a new release is made. At this point the server code included in the release, which is copyrighted by Mojang, falls under the LGPL.
I am not saying that this is what's the legal reality of the case, but I think this is what Wolfe thinks and why he issued th DMCA takedown notice.
It is me, none else but me. And who would you be?
I don't know what almost any of that is, but if this only negatively affects Minecraft, this situation is a good thing.
The Linux kernel has!
Linux GPL only modules: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/475654/focus=475796
My gist of the situation is the following -
(1) Bukkit took Minecraft's proprietary code, decompiled it, and tossed it into a GPL repository;
(2) Later, when Bukkit was dying, Mojang bought it out and helped lift it back up - note that they only bought the right to the repository and infrastructure, NOT to the code base;
(3) After a while, one disgruntled developer (who probably wasn't happy that he wasn't going to get paid by Mojang soon) files a DMCA to remove his code. (I mention pay because the original Bukkit developers were hired by Mojang, and the author in question was the "second wave" after the initial hire. Again, just an opinion, not fact.)
I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation of this is really simple:
(1) The DMCA claim is 100% valid as the code is owned by its author, and he has the right to remove it;
(2) However, although it's legal, the "consensus" is that the author took a rather dramatic approach; and
(3) The legality of the entire project is a big gray mess. To be specific, this project can be completely void due to the fact that GPL licensed code links against proprietary code, which is a big no-no. Proprietary code with the intent of using GPL code can force the proprietary code to become open source, but the reverse is not true. Honestly, if Mojang really wanted to, they can counter DMCA for the entire project (assuming they relinquish control over the entire project, and/or their indirect permission to use Mojang proprietary code). They probably won't because this is a legal mess on both sides.
What does this have to do with the Linux kernel? Simply put, mixing GPL and proprietary code will NOT work. Much less so with GPL code linking to proprietary code.
Solutions? Hopefully the two can work it out (but from the looks of it, the DMCA issuing party may not be that willing). Alternatively, if Mojang wanted to one-up the author, they can do a cleanroom implementation of this guy's code, re-integrate it, and call it a day.
Eh, a certain profit-driven group within the moding community has really been whipping up anti-mojang rhetoric lately. This whole series of events might end up giving other companies pause when they consider how openly to treat their moding base.
It hits the point squarely on the head... Mojang is not at fault here.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Okay, I totally get how you can decompile java code, but I do not see how, after obfuscating, one is *EVER* going to get back to something that resembles the original source code from the binary. It was my understanding that once you have obfuscated a java program, all of the identifiers from the original source code which might otherwise be visible in an ordinary java decompile are irreversibly mangled... it becomes intractable to even identify general pattern use, let alone any actual source code copying.
I call shenanigans... I don't see how any alleged deobfuscation tool could be used to see what they are talking about.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Should have used BSD license.
Guys, get it straight.
You can LINK proprietary software with GPL software and use said software, provided proprietary software does not have a licensing clause to disallow it. What you are no longer permitted to is distribute the combination thereof
Is that clear? For example use mplayer. You can compile and link in non-free codecs. But then mplayer binary is no longer distributable. If you distribute said mplayer binary, that is a copyright violation.
Is that clear now?
So, it's bullshit that GPL doesn't allow you to link with GPL-conflicting software. But if you do link, you CANNOT distribute said software. That's the only problem. GPL does not prevent the user from using GPL software as they see fit. It simply prevents them from limiting the user's users from further limitations.
Mojang doesn't really gain by having the popular mod system removed. The decompiled server code is in legal limbo. Really if Mojang wanted to assert a claim against it they could probably prevail at this moment. It may be an attempt to get Majang to say "No, I don't really have any rights or interest in that decompiledsever code", but instead he just said "I'm not reposible for distributing that code", leaving on the table the issue that was attempting to be forced. (The copyright bomb in the decompiled sever code)
The DMCA notice concept that is mentioned on the summary is very well explained by Ken Liu on this article: http://www.sfwa.org/2013/03/th... it can be helpful for the people trying to enforce their copyrights
Be that as it may, this doesnt's change much to the discussion or conclusions in GP, because distribution is what was happening and distribution is what this DMCA takedown is stopping.
Okay, I read the articles, and I cannot keep the parties straight. Who did what and who is claiming what? Can this be expressed as a simple bulleted list. Too much lawyer. Many nomenclature
While this case is a little bit odd (with all the mixed-up parties, mixed up copyrights, mixed-up codes, mixed-up claims) we shouldn't let ourselves be confused by it
Instead, if we take a step back the picture looks clear --- it's the DMCA that is fueling all these takedown requests
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
What if Minecraft releases the decompiled code with GPL license?
Now we have GPL Trolls...
Not saying the GPL doesn't have its place, but in a case where you accept direct submissions from others, i think the BSD licensing model would have been safer..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Then there is one simple solution DMCA Counternotice
Take the service provider off the hook. If the developer then wants to continue to pursue that line of argument, then he/she will have to sue Mojang. In order to claim any statutory damages in doing so, the developer will have to have registered the copyrights formally with the copyright office when the work was originally done.
Wolfe was one of the contributors to the Bukkit project. He contributed his code under the GPL license. It turns out that the Bukkit project does not meet the GPL license because it contains decompiled Minecraft server code, therefore Wolfe has claimed that his code being distributed with Bukkit is a violation of his copyright and had the project taken down. I can't see how his claim would be false.
>If the "Bukkit" project contains decompiler/disassembled portions of the Minecraft server software (which is not ODD licensed)...wouldn't that mean the guy who include said disassembled code in his project is the one doing the infringing?
Yes. The DMCA takedown was against the Bukkit project, and the Bukkit project was taken down. The summary is misleading.
The interesting part is that Mojang (the Minecraft developers) has hired many of the Bukkit developers, and said that Bukkit is "their" project. If Mojang wants to continue Bukkit, then they need to rewrite all of the GPL code in it, or release the Minecraft server under the GPL too.
CraftBukkit is a software distribution that combines Bukkit code with decompiled Minecraft server code. Bukkit is licensed under the GPL and Wolfe has code in it.
For some context to make Wolfe's actions make more sense: one of the main Bukkit developers stepped down (probably related to the fact he knew the Bukkit licensing was a timebomb) and said that the Bukkit project was being ended. Mojang then claimed that they owned the project (after hiring some of the developers years ago) and were going to continue it without him. People had tried to push Mojang to clarify/fix Bukkit's licensing for a long time, but Mojang never did. Wolfe sort of called them out for their hypocrisy of never fixing its licensing while they were increasingly relying on it.
Spigot mentions "Additionally access to the Spigot source code repository has been forcibly removed from GitHub following a similar DMCA takedown."
There's no way to credibly claim a GPL violation resulting from distribution of the source code.
Bukkit is a project containing solely GPL code. CraftBukkit is a project that interfaces that code against decompiled Minecraft server code. Binary releases of CraftBukkit contain Bukkit code and decompiled Minecraft server code.
>MineCraft is decompiled, then de-obfuscated. Then cleaned up for use in Bukkit. Bukkit is GPL. The decompiled de-obfuscated code is GPL'd.
That last sentence is not true. Only Mojang can relicense the decompiled server code as GPL.
Distribution of CraftBukkit has always been violating both the GPL licenses of its contributors' code and the proprietary license of the Minecraft server code. Many have requested that Mojang relicense the Minecraft server code so that CraftBukkit could be made valid, but they never chose to. Recently, one of the main Bukkit developers stepped down and announced that the Bukkit project was ending. Then Mojang revealed that they "own" the Bukkit/CraftBukkit project (in name only; most of its code is still under the GPL) and were going to continue it. Wolfe decided to call them out on the fact that they never fixed the CraftBukkit licensing situation even after they bought it, and sent a takedown notice against CraftBukkit for the violation of the GPL license his code in Bukkit is under.
I don't think Wolfe or any of the other Bukkit volunteers have asserted that they should be paid for their Bukkit work, but some are annoyed that Mojang has claimed ownership of the project while never bothering to fix the legal situation of their code.
Are you saying that people who publish GPL code shouldn't be allowed to have the GPL enforced?
>The Wesley Wolfe developer wrote some code, distributed it via GPL but maintained copyright, thus implying that it is not GPL3.
GPL is a copyright license. That's how it works legally. If you release software under the GPL, you still own the copyright (unless you assign it to someone else, such as if you sign a contributor licensing agreement).
Mojang has been continuing to release Bukkit while not meeting the GPL. Wolfe is able to send a takedown notice against them for not following his copyright license.
>What this is should be a wake up call to making sure that you have an adequate exit play for players like Wesley Wolfe when they get their confused little non-legal minds in a snit.
Yeah, fuck people who release code under the GPL. /s
People are acting as if Wesley Wolfe (Wolvereness) is trying to claim ownership of Minecraft server code. I don't know him, but that is not his intent from what I've seen. It is simply to have his code removed from a project with a clear conflict of interest over licensing. From what I have seen, it has been a case of: 'remove my code from the project OR opensource the Minecraft server code'.
The fact that this brings to light that Bukkit is no longer eligible to use its codebase because it's in violation of its own license is just a bonus.
Unfortunately Spigot is suffering from a side-effect of this claim. It was built off the Bukkit source code, so if Wolvereness were to leave his code in that project, without a DMCA claim, it would dilute his legal position against Mojang.
Here are the facts as I see them:
1. Bukkit is an open source project, licensed under the GPL.
2. Many developers, including Wolfe, contribute code to the project under the GPL terms. The developers retain copyright over their contributions.
3. The Minecraft server was reverse engineered (apparently in violation of Minecraft's EULA) and the resulting decompiled/de-obfuscated code initially included in the CraftBukkit project.
4. Projects like Bukkit, Forge and Spigot add considerable value to Minecraft, but are not (initially) controlled by Mojang.
5. Mojang surreptitiously acquires the Bukkit project by hiring a number of the project's key developers. While the hiring of the developers is made public, the acquisition of the project is not.
6. The developers Mojang hire work on Bukkit-Minecraft "intergration". Bukkit features get added to Minecraft's server, and proprietary Minecraft server code gets incorporated into Bukkit/CraftBukkit.
7. Community developers continue to contribute to Bukkit, under the GPL, thinking they are working for an independent project.
8. Bukkit/CraftBukkit is distributed during this time, under the (L)GPL, including the proprietary code. This is a violation of the (L)GPL.
9. Mojang changes EULA to prevent 'pay to win' servers, and asserts Bukkit is subject to that EULA too.
10. The majority of developers vote to discontinue the project. Mojang steps in publicly to say that they can't do that and they have owned the project for two years.
11. Mojang asserts control over the entire project, including contributions from community.
12. Wolvereness DMCAs the project, for the removal of his code.
13. Mojang claim they added no code to the project, yet the project had been distributed for two years including Minecraft server code while the project was supposedly in Mojang's ownership. Mojang have been aware of licensing issues since 2011, but have done nothing to remove their proprietary code from a GPLed project in the time since they acquired it. Licensing of the project has not changed.
It seems that there are only four possibilities: Mojang kills Bukkit and walks away; Mojang rewrites Bukkit to remove/rewrite code from outside contributors and closes source; Mojang caves and opensources Minecraft server code; Mojang takes Wolfe to court to determine outcome (which could take years of appeals).
Wolfe was one of the contributors to the Bukkit project. He contributed his code under the GPL license. It turns out that the Bukkit project does not meet the GPL license because it contains decompiled Minecraft server code, therefore Wolfe has claimed that his code being distributed with Bukkit is a violation of his copyright and had the project taken down. I can't see how his claim would be false.
If Mojang has distributed a bunch of source code (the latest Bukkit project version) with a GPL license on it, I don't see what it matters if some of that source code might have originally been the result of a decompile of the Minecraft server code. Yes, that decompile might have been against the license of the code (copyrighted by Mojang) in the past, but if Mojang is now distributing the project themselves, they certainly have a right to release source code that is a derivative of their copyrighted work. And the GPL certainly does not require that one release earlier versions of the source code, so the original Minecraft server code need not be released under the GPL. In this case it does not seem as though Wolfe has much to complain about - with Mojang distributing all of the Bukkit project under the GPL, anyone should be able to take that code and fork it and do with it whatever one might do with GPL software. I will admit that this does seem unlikely - unless the decompiled portion of the Minecraft server code inside the Bukkit project was a minor fraction of the entire Minecraft server code, I doubt Mojang would distribute even a derivative version under the GPL.
Alternatively, if Mojang has not distributed this Bukkit project under a GPL license, then it would seem that anyone else trying to distribute it would be in violation of the GPL, since it sounds like at least part of the Bukkit project (the decompiled/recompiled Minecraft server code) is not GPL. Thus Wolfe has every right to object to the distribution of his GPL code inside the Bukkit project.
The issue is he may never have had the right to release the derivative he did. So the original decompile/redistribution of Micecraft's code is not legal. That people said it was GPL doesn't make it so. It was an illegal distribution of copyrighted code. Mojang didn't care and didn't stop it, but it was illegal all the same. Well what that means is that if you then made a derivative of that, it wasn't legal either. He didn't have a license to distribute a derivative work and thus he can't go and declare it to be GPL.
So now the issue comes down to the part of the code he wrote. Well that is his... maybe. The problem is that his derivative was never legal in the first place. So a court could, and probably would, award control to Mojang. This has happened in music before. Someone makes a remix without permission and the work then gets granted to the original copyright owner.
If this kid pushes it, it is likely to end up badly for him. He would likely lose rights to the code, have to pay court costs and then, if they were feeling evil, could go after him for the illegal derivative work.
Basically if you make a derivative of someone's work and you don't have explicit permission to, either from them directly or via a license like the GPL, you need to be ok with them making use of that derivative if they want to, because you aren't going to win that fight. Maybe you don't think that is how it should be, but that's how it is. Copyright owners maintain control over their work, even if they choose to overlook a given violation. It isn't "protect it or lose it" like with trademark.
Well.... to be a genuine issue it would have to be statically linked, otherwise you would do the obvious and just distribute them separately. So is that what's happening here? I doubt it, since the original server is presumably unmodifiable.
Here's what happened, taking away people's motivations and leaving only the legal/software stuff.
There are 3 distinct projects:
1. The Minecraft server, in this case decompiled. It has a proprietary license, and Mojang have been tacitly allowing it to be distributed.
2. Bukkit, a GPL library that could theoretically handle plugins for many Minecraft like games, although it's really only useful for Minecraft.
3. Craftbukkit, which statically links both Bukkit and Minecraft.
Now, here's the relevant section of the GPL FAQ, where it states that you cannot distribute a GPL and a proprietary program statically linked together.
A contributer to Bukkit (not Craftbukkit) for certain reasons blew the GPL whistle, and had Craftbukkit taken down for GPL violations.
Stating that the API will not be bukkit, but something else. Bukkit is simply the only thing out there at the moment until they, eventually, release an official API.
That still makes him wrong. Contributing code to an open project and then retroactively trying to ransom it back is a dick move however you spin it.
Anyone doing that is a twat, either don't do the work in the first place, or accept it's out there and let people do what they want. Don't put it out there and then bitch about people using it.
If you have a problem with the project, stop working on it and move the fuck on. Don't try and ruin everyone else's fun over your hissy fit and start making petty demands and threats.
> And if that's the case, why would Mojang EVER feel obligated to release their serve source code because a guy who literally stole it anyway is demanding they do so?
Because the bukkit project which released the decompiler/disassembled portions was owned by Mojang. And Mojang knew full well it was happening while they owned the project. So it was essentially Mojang who released it.
There's an awful lot of guesswork and name-calling going on here, and a sense that the argument is divided into "Mojang sux!" and "Mojang rulez!" camps. The truth is of course, way more complex. Here's an attempt to lay out some (hopefully) objective facts, mixed with my subjective opinion. Disclaimer: I've been involved with Bukkit for over 3 years as a plugin developer and contributor to the forums, and (very minor) contributor to the Bukkit project itself.
* The Bukkit project was started late 2010/beginning 2011 as a replacement for hMod, an earlier server mod, by 4 people: Dinnerbone, EvilSeph, Tahg and Grum.
* The Bukkit project consists of two main deliverables: the Bukkit API, licensed under the GPL, and the CraftBukkit server, licensed under the LGPL.
* The Bukkit API contains no Mojang code. It's the Java JAR against which Bukkit plugins are compiled.
* The CraftBukkit server contains a copy of the Bukkit API (via Maven shading), some original Java classes in the org.bukkit.craftbukkit Java package (most of which either implement Bukkit API interfaces or serve as glue code between Bukkit and Mojang's own code), and decompiled/semi-deobfuscated copies of Mojang classes from Mojang's official minecraft_server.jar.
* Effectively craftbukkit.jar contains code with three separate licenses: GPL, LGPL, and Mojang's proprietary license. My opinion: "what the hell were the Bukkit team thinking when they chose this license model?"
* Mojang were presumably aware of CraftBukkit from the start, it being the pre-eminent server modding platform, but chose not to take any legal action over the inclusion of (decompiled copies of) their code in a GPL'd project. In fact, Mojang even went so far as to supply deobfuscation mappings to the original Bukkit team, so it's very clear that they supported the Bukkit project. My opinion: "of course they would, it's helped their sales enormously"
* Early 2012, Mojang announced that the original Bukkit team (Dinnerbone, EvilSeph, Tahg and Grum) were being hired to work on Mojang's own planned modding API. Note that this API had been announced some time before, and has yet to materialise.
* Apparently at the same time, Mojang also acquired rights to the entire Bukkit project. This, however, was not publicised.
* The Bukkit project continued under new direct leadership (mainly feildmaster, Wolvereness and Amaranth) after the original team were hired by Mojang. feildmaster recently stated that Mojang stopped providing deobfuscation mappings shortly after the original team were hired. However, Mojang allowed the project to continue, and did not take any legal action over the CraftBukkit server.
* EvilSeph left Mojang shortly after, and is the only member of the original four to remain involved with the Bukkit project.
* Cut to last month: EvilSeph posted an announcement that the Bukkit project was being ended, due to the increasing difficulty of updating it for new Minecraft releases (remember: no more deobfuscation mappings from Mojang), and concerns of its legal status being exacerbated by Mojang's recent EULA changes.
* At this point, Mojang sprang into action, asserting ownership over the entire Bukkit project. Dinnerbone tweeted that he'd personally update Bukkit for the new Minecraft 1.8 release. Mojang's Jeb confirmed that Mojang owns Bukkit (I quote his tweet: "we checked the receipts"), having acquired it when the original four joined Mojang in 2012.
* The revelation over Mojang's ownership of Bukkit caused very significant consternation for many contributors to the project (there are around 170 individuals, including myself, who have contributed code licensed under the GPL).
* Wesley Wolfe aka Wolvereness, one of the new Bukkit dev team leaders, filed a DMCA takedown notice on Sep 5th, on the grounds that Mojang cannot legally distribute CraftBukkit when it contains both GPL'd code from him, and proprietary code from Mojang.
* In the last couple of days, pretty much all of the existing Bukkit staff (forum administration, p
He's not trying to ransom it back. At no point has there been a suggestion that Wolvereness wants any kind of material gain for his code. He's unhappy that the GPL code he contributed to Bukkit is now being distributed by Mojang in breach of the GPL.
The whole world isn't as relaxed about legal issues as Mojang. So these legal issues has to be taken seriously. CraftBukkit is not the first open source project tightly tied to a non open source one in this way. The usual solution is to release the project under a modified version of the open source license which explicitly allows what needs to be allowed. If CraftBukkit was released under a license which allowed it to be distributed linked to the Minecraft server code then the problem could be avoided. Developers who would not accept their code to be relicensed in this way would probably not accept the premise of the project to begin with.
Though will take a bit of time...
Mojang, implements an API service into the Minecraft Server.
Mojang, has developers modify the Bukkit code to no longer access the decompiled-reverse engineered server code, but rather the server's public API calls.
Now, Bukkit has been decoupled from the server. And is no longer in violation of GPL, and all of the contributions are not GPL valid. Problem solved.
Granted this takes, time, coders, and $$$.
He's telling them to open source the proprietary Minecraft server source code at the barrel of a DMCA notice that is extremely popular, broadly used and financed by Mojang. How is that not a ransom?
Telling someone they can either suffer a crippling of a product they support or to hand over some entirely non-GPL source code is direct a ransom as it gets - demanding the Minecraft server source code - something that isn't his but that he's demanding - absolutely is a demand for material gain.
Stop being dense. He's not demanding the "Minecraft server source code" and no one who's actually paying attention has ever claimed that. He's saying that his GPL'd contributions can't legally be distributed in CraftBukkit along with Mojang's proprietary classes, and in that respect he's correct.
Of course this has been the case all along - CraftBukkit has never been legally licensed - but until now both Mojang and the Bukkit development team have basically swept that problem under the carpet. What gotten Wolfe (and no doubt other) contributors annoyed is that Mojang concealed their ownership of Bukkit until the current Bukkit team basically threw in the towel due to the difficulty of keeping CraftBukkit up-to-date wrt. Minecraft. At the point, Mojang basically said, "no problem, we've actually owned Bukkit all along!".
This is the fault of the original Bukkit team (who are now Mojang employees, or have been) for their poor licensing decisions, and also the fault of Mojang for failing to deal with the licensing problems either initially or when they clandestinely acquired the Bukkit project. Wolfe and other contributors may be accused of poor judgement for continuing to contribute to such a legally shaky project, but the original licensing problems are not theirs, and their contributions were made under the false belief that Bukkit remained a community-owned project.
There's nothing dense about understanding that if you demand proprietary source code be made available that you're demanding access to the source code. It's really not rocket science and I can see why you FOSS zealots have such a bad name.
I don't really take issue with him being offended by some going on or another, but giving someone a choice of shutting down one project or open sourcing another because of some pet peeve is just a real dick thing to do. There's nothing wrong with the status quo unless Mojang decides to enforce the fact that their code was originally used illegally, something they've chosen not to do instead preferring to support their fan community.
You may think there's some technicality here or there that makes him right but it doesn't really matter. Other companies, other developers look at this and it's the sort of petty pathetic childishness that turns people away from open source software and giving that community access or support for anything. If there's a danger you're going to get burnt working with the FOSS community then why the fuck would you want to go near it?
I can't quite tell if you're a bit dim, or just being deliberately obtuse here. Wolfe has never demanded that Mojang release their proprietary source code (and he doesn't have the legal right to do that anyway). He's saying, correctly, that CraftBukkit cannot legally be distributed under its current license. It can certainly be argued that this is a petty move - he is basically making the entire project unavailable to everyone - and I'm in two minds about that myself, but it's a bit more than just a "pet peeve". It's two years of his work (and Wolfe was one of the biggest contributors to the project) under basically false pretences.
It's now up to Mojang to decide how to proceed. They have several choices, only one of which is re-licensing their server code under the GPL (and I very much doubt that will happen). They could alternatively shelve the Bukkit project (they are after all working on their own modding API), or they could meet Wolfe in court.
The problem is not entirely Mojang's fault, but they have basically been storing up trouble for themselves since the release of CraftBukkit in January 2011 by not dealing with the license issue then. It seems pretty clear they wanted the Bukkit project to continue (let's face it, it's certainly helped their bottom line), up to and including acquiring the project, but it was foolish of them not to immediately clarify the licence.
By the way, using the blanket insult "you FOSS zealots" says a lot more about you than it does me. You know nothing about me, or my overall stance on software licensing.
You keep using the word dim as an insult towards me yet seem to repeatedly be unable to grasp the concept that offering the open sourcing of the Minecraft server source code as a solution to the problem he has decided to create is identical to asking for the Minecraft source code, I'm not sure why you struggle with with such a simple concept, but apparently you do. Maybe you're, well, a bit dim?
"It's two years of his work (and Wolfe was one of the biggest contributors to the project) under basically false pretences."
Well no, it's not false pretences at all, he knew both the licensing situation and that he was working for free and should've known that no one owed him jack shit. The fact he apparently understood none of this is entirely his own stupid fault.
"By the way, using the blanket insult "you FOSS zealots" says a lot more about you than it does me. You know nothing about me, or my overall stance on software licensing."
What I know is that you're defending an indefensible action that only FOSS zealots would defend and that is precisely the reason companies and developers are put off working with the FOSS community. Whatever you may think you are, that's good enough for me to call a spade a spade and if you don't like it, then well, tough shit- that's what you get when you defend the indefensible.
A far more mature and sensible solution to the problem would be to publicly air your distaste, walk away and get the fuck over it. It's not difficult, except for this guy who seems to have a childish grudge and determination to enact revenge for his own stupidity in working on something where the licensing wasn't clear it seems. Would you seriously start in a job where the contract was written in a manner where you may find you don't get paid for your work at the end of the day? No of course you wouldn't, but if you did and didn't get paid then what the hell would you expect? No one owes this guy anything, he volunteered his times and that was entirely upto him, it doesn't give him the right to fuck everyone else.
You keep using the word dim as an insult towards me yet seem to repeatedly be unable to grasp the concept that offering the open sourcing of the Minecraft server source code as a solution to the problem he has decided to create is identical to asking for the Minecraft source code, I'm not sure why you struggle with with such a simple concept, but apparently you do. Maybe you're, well, a bit dim?
I've used the term dim once, so I'm not sure why you think I "keep" using it; however, I've come to the conclusion that it's pretty well merited here. I'll say it once more, in the probably vain hope that you'll actually read it: Wolfe has neither asked for nor offered the open sourcing of Mojang's server source code. Once again: you made that part up yourself.
From the summary:
"The programmer says that Mojang must release the Minecraft server code to the public domain since decompiled, deobfuscated versions of the Java code are included in the Bukkit project before he will withdraw the DMCA."
Again, it seems it's not be who is "a bit dim", unless of course you're saying I made up the summary, but I doubt you're accusing me of going to the extreme of hacking Slashdot so I can only concur that you just didn't read it yourself and are being wilfully ignorant so as to not admit that yes you were in fact completely wrong.
Ah, I see now. You blindly believed the Slashdot summary (which is in fact a load of bollocks) without doing any research yourself. Never a good idea.
Wolfe makes a claim that the decompiled/deobfuscated Minecraft source code is not the code's "most preferred form" and thus does not count as source code under the GPL. But that claim doesn't hold water. Licensing that particular source code under the GPL is authorized by the software's owner, and no more preferred form of the source code is ever used with Bukkit. As importantly, Wolfe did not find that version of the source code objectionable at the time he offered his code for inclusion in Bukkit.
The GPL does not entitle you to all of my source code... just the source the code I choose to include in the version of the product that's under the GPL. Which has been provided.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.