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.
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.
NM. I found a post on Reddit that clarified it.
Wolfe contributed code to Bukkit that was GPLed but was violating Mojang's license because it wasn't licensed under the GPL or similar. Mojang just chose to otherwise ignore the violation, but then has since acquired Bukkit. As soon as Mojang made a release, they infringed on Wolfe's GPL code contribution when they didn't release the source to the bundled Mindcraft server.
Sounds to me that Wolfe's contribution wasn't covered under a valid license to begin with. That would mean that Mojang doesn't get to automatically use his code anyways, but also doesn't mean that Mojang needs to open Mindcraft up. Mojang just paid money for an incomplete product.
As I understand the story:
Since the Minecraft devs have full access to the source code, they are probably uniquely equipped to plug in new code to replace the sections of Bukkit that are GPL'd. Whether they'll need to use a 'cleanroom' approach is interesting to speculate on.
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?
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'
Wait...you are saying that decompiling minecraft's proprietary code isn't a violation of copyright? The java byte code is THEIR product. Just like using reflector to reverse compiled .net code to C# - is still represents the original owner's intellectual property.
If this guy linked to their proprietary, non-gpl'd code and then declares that code GPL, I call bullshit. The fact that Mojang chose to ignore the violation doesn't mean he is in the right. They chose to ignore the violation because it benefited them to do so. It doesn't mean they can be compelled to release their source code.
Frankly, this mod should be declared public domain and user beware since it was never licensed legitimately in the first place. The guy is being a jerk.
Mojang should refactor their code, make a compatible API that can be released that can be compiled by developers which they release under GPL, MIT or some other compatible license. If they do it right, it won't break existing mods or they can provide a tool to help with the conversion process and screw the guy completely out of the equation.
It may be an unpopular viewpoint, but this is why business is leery of the GPL and 3rd party contributions. Mojang should have been a little smarter before they acquired the toolkits and developers so they knew the ramifications of their purchase. At this point, it sounds like Mojang is being extorted since the code was never properly license in the first place.
It's a little more complicated than that.
You didnt just write some GPL piece of software for windows, you wrote some GPL software that is so tightly integrated with Windows you actually had to reverse engineer parts of Windows and replace original system files with new ones, composed in part of what we think of as your program, and in part of your reverse-engineered best guess on the original Windows system code. Probably problematic to distributed, if Microsoft had cared, but it was boosting their sales so they didnt raise any fuss. In fact, they turned around and bought out your company instead. Took over operations, but critically did not receive the copyright to this GPL software (which was always, if I am not mistaken, owned by the contributors, not the company.)
This is where it gets tricky. Now THEY are the ones distributing your GPL code linked to their own code, not your reverse-engineered stand-in. I am not 100% sure I am getting that part correct, but it seems to be the case. And if it is the case... then at that point Microsoft would actually be in violation of your license. They would have, as I see it, three options. They could simply quit using your code entirely, which they obviously do not want to do, and which would only prevent continuing violations but still leave them at least theoretically liable for past damages; they could GPL Windows itself, and use your code freely; or they could purchase either copyright or a side-license to continue using the code outside the GPL.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
WTF do you want him to do? Contribute his code and then roll over when his license is violated, just so that you can enjoy his work for free? Would you expect any author of proprietary code to do the same? His code is in a project which doesn't depend on the Minecraft server code. It is also, illegally, used in a mod which does depend on the server code. This violation has been going on for a while, but unlike trademark violations, copyright violations don't invalidate the claim if they're not fought.
One might suggest that the fact that Mojang has not objected to this use is sufficient to create an effective implicit licensing arrangement, but that still wouldn't allow anyone else, regardless of what they had done, to try and slap a GPL on it, since they are not the copyright holder.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
His code *always* violated this license in this way. That was his decision when he wrote and submitted the code. No one else is violating his license, he was violating theirs. So, yes, I expect him to roll over when people continue using his code exactly the one and only possible way it could ever have been used, which was unambiguously his intent in contributing it in the first place.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Yes, putting his projects under GPL was not legal in the first place because it linked to non-GPL code, but he knows this. What he's trying to do is get the server code to be GPL'd to validate his license and until then he wants to stop the use of his code.
What I want to know is what happens to code that uses an invalid license and then is distributed. Does it default to an implied copyright the same way works released without licenses do? Or is that nullified when a license is chosen? What the hell happens exactly and what does it mean for third-party software that rely on that code?
Apparently there is a project which doesn't use the proprietary code but includes the GPL code, and there is a project which combines the decompiled proprietary server code with that other project. The issue is with the second, mixed project. He can't be faulted for contributing to the pure GPL program and he can't be faulted for others taking the GPL code and integrating it with proprietary code. In fact, he is trying to use his copyright to stop the distribution of the illegal combination of the two. Additionally, the owners of the proprietary code are now also the owners of the mixed project, and they can't violate their own copyright, but they can violate his. Others, who would like to keep using the mixed code in violation of his copyright, are calling him an "asshole" on Slashdot and get modded +5 insightful for it.
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.