Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DMCA Claim Over GPL Non-Compliance Shuts Off Minecraft Plug-Ins

Posted by timothy on from the granting-license dept.

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.

14 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. What the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From what recall from hearing about this the other day, it went something like guy decompiles/deobfuscates MC code (it's Java bytecode), makes Bukkit. Bukkit guys get hired by Mojang, eventually someone gets butthurt, decides to DMCA Bukkit. More butthurt happens, and now they're trying to claim GPL on MC because Bukkit used decompiled MC code, thus it is "linked with" MC and GPL viraled.

      tl;dr: reverse-engineer code, release it with GPL mods, try to claim GPL viral on original code that was reverse-engineered. I'm pretty sure the GPL doesn't work that way.

    2. Re: What the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are three pieces of software involved: Bukkit, CraftBukkit, and Minecraft server. Bukkit and CraftBukkit are released under the GPL. Minecraft is not. Bukkit and CraftBukkit are both totally and utterly useless without Minecraft server, and have to be linked against reverse-engineered Minecraft source code in order to function, thus creating a GPL violation that has existed for years. Nobody cared though, because they were too busy playing the game.

      At some point in the past Mojang hired four of the developers of Bukkit/CraftBukkit and bought the rights to use the name Bukkit. But they neglected to obtain copyright assignments from all contributors and as such do not hold the copyright necessary to relicense Bukkit/CraftBukkit in a way that would legally allow them to distribute it.

      Then yesterday, one of the other contributors to Bukkit/CraftBukkit asserted a DCMA claim to stop the distribution of said project.

    3. Re: What the heck? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      The developers of Minecraft are NOT using GPL code.

      The Minecraft modders are using some of the Minecraft code (as a result of decompilation and related techniques).

      One of the Minecraft modders wants to force the developers of Minecraft to open source their code by refusing to allow his code to link to their (deobfuscated/decompiled) code.

      Since a lot of Minecrafters depend on this modders code, he's hoping he gets enough support to force the developers of Minecraft to, basically, give him their code.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re: What the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently Mojang, since they bought Bukkit, are using GPL code which is in Bukkit. Mojang also owns Minecraft. Parts of Minecraft are allegedly also included in Bukkit, but the source to these parts of Bukkit (and Minecraft) is not provided, which makes the distribution of Bukkit a license violation.

    5. Re: What the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Contrary to popular opinion, the GPL doesn't give anyone the right to force open-sourcing (or "assess ownership") of code anyway. Without making linked code open source as well, distributing it linked to the GPL code is merely a copyright violation, because the GPL doesn't cover that. A copyright violation does not automatically have to be healed by fulfilling the license requirements. The author of the code which is distributed without a valid license however has the right to stop that copyright violation, which is what has happened here.

    6. Re: What the heck? by mccoma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am pretty sure if someone took the binary for GCC and generated source code from it and declared it to be some other license then the FSF might have some objections. Reversing some binary and distributing that work looks to violate the Minecraft license in the first place.

    7. Re:What the heck? by Deathlizard · · Score: 5, Informative

      1) Modders hate Minecraft Server code because it does nothing but play minecraft.
      2) Modders Steal Minecraft Server code, Modify it, and GPL it. Thus Developing Bukkit
      3) Other Coders as well as original Modders (now Bukkit Devs) add Code to Bukkit to make it better.
      4) Mojang instead of DMCA'ing the Hell out of Bukkit, hires all major Bukkit Devs, Allows Bukkit to continue.
      5) Mojang enforces clause in EULA, making Play to Win servers Illegal. Since P2W is the primary method most MC Servers survive on, Drama Ensues.
      6) Lead Bukkit Dev over EULA Enforcement pulls a Cartman, Says "Screw you Guys! I'm A Goin Hume" and ends bukkit.
      7) Mojang says "Not so fast! We bought Bukkit when we hired devs and the original devs will continue it". Since Bukkit asset sales were never disclosed when the devs got hired, More Drama Ensues.
      8) Wolvereness asks Mojang if Stolen MC code is GPL since they own Bukkit now. Mojang says No. DMCA's Bukkit and all derivatives due to stolen MC code not GPL'd and Therefore GPL on Bukkit is not valid and he wants his code back.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
    8. Re: What the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wolfe never claimed that the Minecraft is distributed in violation of the GPL. He rightly claims that Bukkit is distributed in violation of the GPL, because it contains parts of Minecraft server that aren't licensed under the GPL, and that license violation is grounds for the DMCA takedown (no license to distribute means distribution is a copyright violation, thus the justified takedown notice). The submitter, apparently in an attempt to sway opinions, omitted a link to the actual takedown notice or any other source explaining the claim. Instead we get to read only the other side's responses and conjectures ("must release the Minecraft server code") which are not supported by the actual claim.

      Calling an author of software that you want to use for free an "asshole" just because he insists that the license of his code is not violated is indeed being an ungrateful little shit.

    9. Re: What the heck? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I understand it Bukkit is a mod licensed under the GPL. The Minecraft server is proprietary. They don't share any code, so individually they're not derivates of anything. CraftBukkit combines the server code with the mod code. This is illegal both ways - the server license doesn't let you link to Bukkit, the Bukkit license doesn't let you link to the proprietary server. Mojang could have shut down CraftBukkit any time they wanted to. But so can any of the Bukkit developers, because it's not in compliance with the GPL either. In this case it looks like neither side has seen in their interest to shut this down - until now.

      They're not using the DMCA against the server. They're not claiming they have any legal rights to the server. What they are doing is shutting down any mod or add-on that depends on illegal linking and saying the only way to make this legally compliant is if Minecraft decides to GPL their source code. If they don't all these derivates will remain illegal and the copyright will now be enforced. They're hoping that the Minecraft community has become so dependent on these illegal derivates that Mojave will cave and release the code. Yes, he is using the code for extortion by first writing the code knowing it would be used in violation of copyright and then using copyright law as leverage once it's popular. But this is all the legal kind, you can never be charged for threatening to enforce the law.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re: What the heck? by kimvette · · Score: 5, Informative

      ". If somebody is using GPL code and refuses to issue source, it's cut and dried, guilty."

      Wrong.

      If you implement a web server, an e-commerce service, or anything involving = GPLv2-based projects but you do not distribute the binaries then you are under NO obligation to release the source code. That requirement only arises if you DISTRIBUTE binaries derived from the = GPLv2-licensed source code.

      GPLv3 changes things a bit but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  2. Bass Ackward by maz2331 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:ELI5 please by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Mod AC parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.