License question

[dmn_clown]

Will OA move to the GPLv3 when it is released?

[fromhell]

Depends. Isn't the new changes in v3 about TiVos and such?

[baud123]

you can have a look at latest intervention (21st november at Tokyo), more particularly the net-distribution :

http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript#net-distribution

the summary of this conference gives a fast overview of changes :
   3. Internationalisation
   4. Licence compatibility
   5. Preventing tivoisation
   6. Tivoisation and Treacherous Computing
   7. General comments on Treacherous Computing
   8. Software patents
   9. The Novell and Microsoft example
  10. Internet distribution instead of mail order
  11. Licence termination
  12. Narrow patent retaliation
  13. Undermining the DMCA and EUCD

It seems to me that tivoisation is important even for OpenArena : what would you think of a game-console including OpenArena but only working with a major vendor's servers ? (and this vendor refusing to provide the required parameters of config' files (keys...) and new maps added (only working with their servers...). As the server-software would be only on their physical servers they would argue that it's not a "distribution", hence GPL2 does not apply... only the client part would be available freely (as obviously distributed).

Well, my example is hypothetical, of course.

As far as OpenArena is concerned, changing to GPLv3 is "simply" a matter of "is a fork to GPL3+ possible ?" :
- either all work is under GPL2+ and this is possible, a good practice is to warn all copyright owners, then change licensing
- either contact _all_ copyright owners (who have licensed with strict GPL2) and get them to acknowledge the new licensing (hard task as some contributors can no longer be contacted or may not agree, well then : wait 50 or 70 or 90 years after their death - depending if Canadian law or Berne or Disney amendment - till it becomes public domain, which may not give the source code :/)

IANAL and my interpretation may be false too :/ do refer to http://gplv3.fsf.org/ which is the official reference for GPLv3 discussions of the draft in progress.

[jdodson]

As far as OpenArena is concerned, changing to GPLv3 is "simply" a matter of "is a fork to GPL3+ possible ?" :
- either all work is under GPL2+ and this is possible, a good practice is to warn all copyright owners, then change licensing
- either contact _all_ copyright owners (who have licensed with strict GPL2) and get them to acknowledge the new licensing (hard task as some contributors can no longer be contacted or may not agree, well then : wait 50 or 70 or 90 years after their death - depending if Canadian law or Berne or Disney amendment - till it becomes public domain, which may not give the source code :/)

IANAL and my interpretation may be false too :/ do refer to http://gplv3.fsf.org/ which is the official reference for GPLv3 discussions of the draft in progress.

Its not a fork if the GPL 2 license that OpenArena uses has the "or any later version" clause as many projects do.  some notable ones do not, like linux(the kernel).  moving to gpl 3 would be as simple as replacing the license, its not a fork if the gpl 2 allows a seamless transition.  and you dont have to contact all the authors if the gpl 2 license used stated "or any later version." 

at least thats how i understand it anyway.

[dmn_clown]

My understanding of v3 is that it clarifies the patent issue, extending the patent license from beyond the developer to the end user, and also prevents the use of DRM, extending the freedom of GPLv2 beyond the developer to the end user.  Which seems like a good idea, IMHO.

The engine _is_ licensed with the "or later version" clause, as are the bots, not so sure about the maps/textures/sounds.  Though I would hesitate to call a license upgrade a "fork" as the only thing that would change (In my understanding albeit IANAL) is that the end user would be protected from a lawsuit or having to purchase a patent license from some unknown entity as v3 should specifically grant that.

some notable ones do not, like linux(the kernel).

Only portions of the kernel, some kernel devs do use the "or later version" clause.

[sago007]

As the server-software would be only on their physical servers they would argue that it's not a "distribution", hence GPL2 does not apply... only the client part would be available freely (as obviously distributed).

As I have understood it the problem is that they don't sell the console to you they just rent it to you. Since it isn't your console you don't have any right to the programs on it if they are under the GPL2. That means you cannot change them to connect to an alternative server. For TiVo that is a big problem, because the clients can only connect to TiVos service. The way TiVo is licensed are actually impossible many places in the world that requires people to have the same rights as if they had owned the device.

One of the current (or maybe not current, I haven't following the discussion for long) arguments against the GPLv3 is that people think that people should still be allowed to change there servers without giving the source away if they don't distribute.

I don't think OA should move to GPL3 unless it has good reasons to it (DRM and TiVo are not such good reasons). I don't know if GPL2 becomes incompatible with GPL3 but I don't think so. If people demand to use GPLv3 then dual licens might be the best option.

[argento]

gpl2 and gpl3 are incompatible both ways (works under gpl2 can't be relicensed under gpl3 and works under gpl3 can't be relicensed under gpl2).

Distributing open arena under GPL with no version specified (in this case you can use at your opinion any version of the GPL) or "GPL v2 or any later version" is a good solution in my opinion.

EDIT: http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq (compatibility matrix between gnu licenses)

[dmn_clown]

That remains to be seen, v3 hasn't been released yet all we have to go on is the latest draft.  What will be interesting is if v3 will meet the DFSG.  The anti-Novel/MS patent agreement clause is dangerously close to breaking #5.

Remember, end users of GPL software have been sued.  Thanks SCO.