DMCA Claim Over GPL Non-Compliance Shuts Off Minecraft Plug-Ins 354
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.
What the heck? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What the heck? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they tried to claim GPL viral.
I think Wess said "You can't use my GPL code unless you GPL the MC code" and there is a risk that one or more other programmers might be wait to DMCA until after they recode Wess's work.
Otherwise, my impression is what you said is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah this one's confusing me too. I'm pretty sure GPL doesn't work that way either as I don't think there's a blackmail clause included. Unless Mojang actually incorporates Bukkit code into the base MC product at some point, the GPL pretty much has nothing to say on this issue.
The fact that an unproven (and almost certainly unfounded) DMCA claim can prevent one of the most popular mods to one of the most popular games out there just goes to show how wholly lopsided the DMCA is.
Now if Wess wants to try and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no...
Mojang didn't originally violate any license or infringe on copyright. Bukkit were always the ones in violation (of Mojang's license and copyright infringement). ...But now, Mojang "bought" Bukkit (the name and infrastructure, but not the code assets). This is where things get weird.
Mojang/Bukkit is no longer in violation of Mojang's copyright, but neither is the Bukkit package in compliance with the GPL. Although that actually isn't clear either:
A) Mojang/Bukkit are distributing the
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
As I understand the story:
Re:What the heck? (Score:4, Informative)
There are three parties: Wesley Wolfe (who wrote GPL code included in the project and issued the DMCA notice), the author(s) of the server code (which allegedly is included in the mod in some way) and the author(s) of the mod (who are accused of violating the GPL by mixing proprietary code with GPL code).
It would have been nice if the submitter had included the original claim, which is reported here. [bukkit.org] Quote:
My name is Wesley Wolfe. A site hosted on an IP address owned by Multiplay
(ip redacted) is infringing on my software copyright by the distribution
of a software known as CraftBukkit.
Original content can be found at
https://github.com/Wolvereness/Bukkit-Bleeding/commits?author=Wolvereness
https://github.com/Wolvereness/Bukkit-Bleeding/commit/0a0fee8be25bf8a732abff2d66a89a64614b6327
and the appropriate license for previously mentioned content can be found at
https://github.com/Wolvereness/Bukkit-Bleeding/blob/f210234e59275330f83b994e199c76f6abd41ee7/LICENCE.txt
The provided license requires the use of included or linking code to
provide the original source under the GNU GPL license version 3, or any
later version. An official notice has been sent to Mojang AB, whereas the
Chief Operating Officer, Vu Bui, responded with the clear text:
Mojang has not authorized the inclusion of any of its proprietary
Minecraft software (including its Minecraft Server software) within the
Bukkit project to be included in or made subject to any GPL or LGPL
license, or indeed any other open source license
As the Minecraft Server software is included in CraftBukkit, and the
original code has not been provided or its use authorized, this is a
violation of my copyright. I have a good faith belief the distribution of
CraftBukkit includes content of which the distribution is not authorized by
the copyright owner, it's agent, or the law.
IMHO, if the information about what's included in what is accurate, the DMCA notice and license complaint is legitimate. The inclusion of his GPL code in the mode requires that the remaining mod code be open-sourced, but the author(s) of the proprietary server code which is allegedly included in the mod have not authorized their code to be open-sourced. Lack of source for the complete mod is a GPL violation. If the mod authors aren't authorized to use the server code, then that may be a violation of the server author(s)' license as well, but that's irrelevant with regard to this DMCA takedown notice. A weak point could be that he may have contributed his GPL code knowing that there is proprietary code in the project. On the other hand, he may have contributed his code believing that the project already contained other GPL code and would abide by the license.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the heck? (Score:4, Informative)
This DMCA takedown request is invalid. And it all comes down to the statement "As the Minecraft Server software is included in CraftBukkit, and the original code has not been provided or its use authorized, this is a violation of my copyright". That statement is incorrect. It is a violation of MOJANG's copyright (As they are the copyright holders of the original server software, which has been decompiled and partially deobfuscated in this case). Wolfe's contributions are licensed under the GPL, and he can't withdraw that license, so he is in no situation to order a takedown on his own code. And he can't order a takedown based on Mojang's code, as he doesn't own that copyright either.
Re: (Score:2)
Mojang is claiming that no original Minecraft code appears in the Bukkit repo thus they are not obligated to
Re: (Score:3)
This relies on the GPL 'you can't distribute at all if you can't comply with the licence' - if you distribute with a binary blob (effectively) that you have no rights to in your allegedly GPL codebase - then you're in violation of the GPL.
You can then come into compliance with the GPL in principle by supplying source for that blob. It is possible that the only way that compliance could be done is to release the whole of minecraft under the GPL - but the impossibilty of that does not factor into the legality
Re:What the heck? (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.
Re:What the heck? (Score:4, Informative)
They Decompiled and Deobfuscated the original MC code and modified it to create Bukkit.
Mojang Terms [mojang.com] says "2) Do not redistribute our games or any alterations of our game files."
Considering that Bukkit is redistributed alterations of the original server game files, "Stole" is in the right context.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Bukkit contains Minecraft server code.
Correction: Bukkit contains decompiled, deobfuscated Minecraft server code. This code is already being made available. Why on earth would Mojang have to also make their original source code available? At worst, Mojang will have to LGPL the decompiled code they are already distributing as if it were LGPLed.
If I GPL a crippled version of my source code with all the comments stripped out, I am not obligated to give you the commented version for free.
Re: What the heck? (Score:4, Informative)
2. Wolfe contributes code to bukkit
3. Mojang buys bukkit
4. Mojang releases update to bukkit that includes decompiled code and wolfe's GPL'd contributions.
Wolfe believes point #4 is what makes the problems. Mojang has now released a piece of software that includes their own decompiled code and wolfe's gpl code. Wolfe believes the fact that the MineCraft server code was sent through the washing machine (compiled-decompiled-compiled) before being released is irrelevant to the gpl license, so the original server code must be released.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I don't get it either. If somebody is using GPL code and refuses to issue source, it's cut and dried, guilty. But I can't make out whether this is what is going on.
Re: What the heck? (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.
Re: What the heck? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: What the heck? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost there. Wolfse made part of the GPL code. However the Bukkit project is not gpl compliant because the entire code contains decompiled java server code. What wolfse thinks is since the project is not GPL compliant, (part is gpl, part is just working) he can put in a dcma. However his code is GPL, so he cannot withdraw that license.
Mojang is the copyright holder of the server code, he surely would be able to put in a take down request.
This is like linus putting a takedown request at redhat because the
Re: What the heck? (Score:4, Insightful)
So Bukkit and CraftBukkit are both dependent on Server. That does not make Server a derived work. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Server does not include any code from Bukkit or CraftBukkit, right? It runs without them, and the company that owns Server distributes it without them, right?
I don't see how the situation creates a GPL violation. It sounds, in fact, like the copyright that is violated is the copyright Mojang holds for Server, and Mojang has been kind enough to not press charges.
It sounds like the corporate statement made by Vu Bui is spot on, and Wesley Wolfe is trying to spin his own violation as if it were their violation, which is completely backwards. Further he is being a GPL troll, creating the very sort of situation that make companies wary of getting involved with open source communities at all.
To Wesley Wolfe: Thanks a lot, asshole.
Mod AC parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Mod AC parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Mod AC parent up (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse engineering might be illegal in the US (is it?), but it can logically speaking impossiblly be a copyright violation.
Decomplied != reverse engineered
Anyone can decompile. It takes work to reverse engineer. If decompiling removes all copyright obligations then copyright on source code is worthless. I just compile then decompile and distribute.
Re: What the heck? (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.
Get your terms straight. GPL does no such thing. (Score:3, Informative)
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 allo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: What the heck? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
You either just described what the argument is about in an accurate, succinct and understandable way (a first for this thread) or you are completely wrong in a succinct and understandable way. You should really do technical writing or PR on the side, depending on which is true.
Re: (Score:2)
You should really do technical writing or PR on the side, depending on which is true.
I wish I could get around to ever documenting anything, usually I'm too busy making systems work in an accurate, succinct and understandable way. Technical writing can only unfuck so much of a convoluted mess and I definitively lack the patience and bullshit skills for public relations.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So they're blackmailing Mojang...
Bad move when Mojang is finally making progress on their own Mod API.
The other way to make this legal is to change the license on Bukkit/CraftBukkit to something more liberal. They won't be able to do this retroactively, so someone may decide to pursue this idiocy on a back-level GPL-based fork, but at least the main project could legally license under CC by-sa, BSD, Apache or possibly even LGPL.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bad move when Mojang is finally making progress on their own Mod API.
Mojang's Mod API *is* Bukkit. Why do you think they hired four Bukkit developers? Why do you think this guy is pissed off in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal means "in violation of the law".
All crime is illegal, not all illegality is crime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You moronic asshole (see, I can do it too). You are not understanding the fact that there is ZERO GPL violations in the Minecraft server. The whole issue of GPL violations is with Bukkit and CraftBukkit, which this guy did work on. And the irony here is that they had to reverse engineer the Minecraft Server software in order to make Bukkit/CraftBukkit work. In short, not only does Wolfe have no ground to stand on in terms of the Minecraft Server software being open sourced but also he's basically torpedoing
Re: What the heck? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 /p>
OK, I'm confused. Bukkit contains parts of Minecraft server or reverse engineered parts of Minecraft server?
Re: (Score:3)
Bukkit contains parts of Minecraft server or reverse engineered parts of Minecraft server?
It's decompiled. Java is actually pretty easy to decompile well, for example here [benow.ca] is a good decompiler which I sometimes use. Even has IDE plugins...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, I should have put a link to the DMCA-- certainly not the full text tho. That would have been over kill.
I wasn't trying to sway opinions, just report the story.
My primary interest in the story was the risk that if 100 people contribute to a GPL project which is tainted in some way, then anyone of them can shut the project down for a while by denying use of their contributions. They can even do this for a shorter period of time if the project *isn't* tainted in any way.
Bukkit was very popular and a lot
Re: (Score:3)
Wolf's DMCA takedown is against Bukkit, not the Minecraft server.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, some idiot is trying to blackmail Mojang into open-sourcing Minecraft server by linking to Mojang's non-Open code into a GPL licensed product and then claiming that Mojang needs to release the source code to be compliant with the GPL? I know that the GPL states that all code needed to compile and link a GPLproduct must be available, but this is backwards. If there is Minecraft server code linked in CraftBukkit, that just means Craftbukkit and anything that links to it can't use GPL. You can
Re: What the heck? (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.
Re: What the heck? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Minecraft modders are using some of the Minecraft code (as a result of decompilation and related techniques).
If the source code in question has been obtained by decompilation, is it really the "original" Minecraft source code (the one that is covered by the original license) ? I mean, you're basically looking at a non human-readable binary, freely distributed, and deducing a source code that would produce the same binary. At this point the resulting source code is your work IMHO.
Then again, things may seem a little different here since it's Java and I think using "decompilation" on the byte code produces code that is likely to be extremely close to the original. But it doesn't really seem that different.
At any rate, this specific case seems a lot more straightforward since if I understand correctly the bukkit guys sold their project without getting permission from all their contributors - the fact that the bukkit people used decompiled Java bytecode appears to have little relevance to the case itself.
Re: What the heck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it were the original code. That would mean that the modder is the one violating mojang's copyright, not the reverse.
Re: What the heck? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Parts of Minecraft" are decompiled and unobfuscated by a third party from the Java binary that Mojang distribute. These parts infringe on Mojang's copyright, and have never been licensed for use anywhere. Technically, Mojang were doing the community a favour by not issuing legal challenges and takedowns for this illegal decompilation of their work.
Oh, and unless I've missed something, Wolfe can't issue a DMCA for his own code, as he has already licensed it under the GPL, and is not allowed to withdraw [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The "Parts of Minecraft" are decompiled and unobfuscated by a third party
Not any more.. Mojang purchased Bukkit. Its no longer "3rd party" its "1st party"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
IANAL, but it seems to me that Mojang could address this issue (as many other commercial software vendors do) by releasing source code for Bukkit under the GPL. Since the MInecraft server isn't GPL'd and is not a derivative work of Bukkit (quite the opposite, if I understand this correctly), there is no requirement for the MInecraft server to be GPL'd.
Once that was done, Mojang could sue the asses off of whoever decompiled their Proprietary code (turnabout is fair play, no?). Problem solved. Are there an
Re: (Score:2)
Mojang didn't' buy bukkit.
They hired four developers and bought the rights to the name "bukkit" and bought the repository.
The code is still GPL and could had been forked to "Hakkit" up to the DMCA.
I think the developers may have given rights to the code they wrote to Mojang (that's unclear).
So Mojang didn't release Bukkit.
Mojang is paying four developers to work on a GPL project, Bukkit.
Many companies pay developers to work on open source projects.
Re: What the heck? (Score:5, Insightful)
one of the top contributors, who knew all along that he was working on a project that was legally grey area, got butthurt and DMCA'd his own contributions.
Re: What the heck? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I don't get it either. If somebody is using GPL code and refuses to issue source, it's cut and dried, guilty. But I can't make out whether this is what is going on.
Nit-pick here, but using GPL code doesn't require you to issue source, even if you've made modifications. It's not until you distribute said modified code that you need to release source (and even then, you only technically have to provide source to those you've distributed binaries to, and not just anyone who happens to request it).
Thus if I take some GPL code, modify it, and use it in an internal process that isn't shared with anyone, there is no requirements for me to make sources available. But as soo
Re:What the heck? (Score:5, Interesting)
In a nutshell, Wolfe is risking it all on the notion that his contributions have given him a controlling mindshare over Minecraft. This is going to end ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
Minecraft players on large multiplayer servers comprise a fairly small part of minecraft's player base these days. This won't affect minecraft on PS3,4,Xbox, and solo play on PC's. It will have limited effect on small servers (1-6 players).
It mostly effects people who play on servers with 7+ players.
ELI5 please (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:ELI5 please (Score:5, Informative)
NM. I found a post on Reddit that clarified it. [reddit.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is prior art in copyright cases for courts to conclude that if you didn't have a valid license to create the work you created (say, Bukkit, which was created without proper licensing for things without which it couldn't exist), that the answer is "haha no" and you don't get copyright protection at all, and cannot make or enforce license terms. That'd be my ruling; you can't use the fact that you stole someone's stuff to create obligations in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ELI5 please (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing to keep in mind is that even if this kills bukkit, it probably resulted in at least $26 million dollars in sales-- likely more-- while it was available.
And that "extra" popularity resulted in a lot more sales of plush toys, magnetic stickers, foam swords, minecraft Tshirts, etc.
But I did submit this mainly because I wanted to see people's thoughts on the GPL implications.
Re:ELI5 please (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If this unfounded claim were correct then the takedown notice would be valid and the Minecraft owners would be complete and utter morons. Why on earth would they go to the trouble of replacing the decompiled code with their original source code? It makes no sense. It adds no value and it means they are now only distributing CraftBukkit in binary form which would be an obvious copyright violation of the LGPL code in CraftBukkit.
What is actually going on is the Minecraft owners are distributing source
Re: (Score:2)
Mojang didn't buy Bukkit.
Mojang bought the name "Bukkit", hired four of the existing developers and bought the infrastructure to support the distribution. It has no ownership on the code.
So you have
GPL code in a respository owned by Minecraft under a name owned by minecraft.
Four of the programmers working on it are paid by minecraft but minecraft won't own or use the code they create for the project.
The rest of the programmers are people working on it for free.
The code is still GPL and could have been fork
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. He wrote code that went into a mod (essentially a mod that makes mods easy to interface with Minecraft). He didn't contribute a single line of code to Minecraft, which is not an open source project.
Bass Ackward (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.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't have a leg to stand on to force Mindcraft to become open, but Mojang doesn't have a right to use his code that he released under a GPL license either since they apparently acquired Bukkit.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst thing I can see coming out of this is the stigma it would attach to companies purchasing companies with GPL'd code. One of the worst, most hyped up fears that anti-GPL forces toss out there is the idea that 'touching' GPL'd code can yank a companies whole codebase under a GPL license. Which is unfounded, but those sorts of people already rely on distorted interpretations to make their case. This whole instance is just a handout to anti-GPL. Sadly.
Re: (Score:3)
This case is just a high profile example of a pretty common occurance, and is not as game changing as it initially soun
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a company, you need to make sure all contributing developers have signed a CLA [Contributor License Agreement] where they give their rights to the company you buy.
This may be the most nonsensical thing posted thus far. If company A is distributing my GPL or LGPL code then I don't have to sign a damned thing in order for company B to buy company A. Yes, company B should make sure there are no license violations going on in company A, but that is all. Once my code released under the GPL then I cannot revoke that license in order to try to screw company B.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
mojang has always looked the other way with server mod software working this way even before they bought rights to the bukkit name and hired some of the top devs (not including wolverness hence his butthurt)
Re: (Score:2)
they have not integrated bukkit/craftbukkit into their products. his DMCA takedown is based on the GPL violation that has existed all along because craftbukkit could never have been legally GPL because it is built off essentially pirated decompiled mojang minecraft server code.
mojang has always looked the other way with server mod software working this way even before they bought rights to the bukkit name and hired some of the top devs (not including wolverness hence his butthurt)
I was into the game back when Bukkit was written. Mojang participated and helped them with it. It was a collaborative effort by the Devs and the modding community. I never understood why they didn't just write their own modding API. They certainly have the money and resources.
I don't know what all that means legally, I'm not a lawyer, but Mojang made their beds. Vanilla Minecraft isn't that popular, it's all the mods that are making them the money. They left that in the hands of the community and made no at
Re: (Score:2)
Multiplayer server vanilla minecraft on the PC is a small part of their market now.
They have releases on android, ps3,ps4, and xbox. Most young kids I know play on xbox.
Lots of people also prefer to play solo vanilla on their local machine.
They've been working seriously on the API for the last year. And that work is pissing off the Modders because it's changing the data structures of a lot of stuff.
I think if it becomes critical, they are at a point where they could get something minimal out in 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't have a leg to stand on to force Mindcraft to become open, but Mojang doesn't have a right to use his code that he released under a GPL license unless they provide the source code for the GPL'd portions of the codebase.
There. FTFY.
Wolvereness violated copyrights wants it "undone"? (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... decompiled and deobfuscated? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Obfuscation is reversible. It just takes a good eye and a lot of work. Some of it can be recognized more easily by usage of standard library calls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
May not be what it seems. (Score:3)
What DMCA has to do un this case... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2.Just because Wesely own copyright on that code does not mean he is entitled to the requested relief.
3. Maybe it can be said that the license was a nullity from the start because if never could have affected to sorts of rights it claims to give, even more so in light of the liberty or death claused withing the