EQdkp-Plus - DKP System - Raidplaner - Guildportal - Gildenportal - WoW, Lotro, Runes of Magic home of the EQDKP Plus Projekt

Just thought I'd point this out. I dunno who chose the license, but they didn't really investigate very well.

The creative commons makes no mention of code, and is thus not applicable to this project.
The creative commons is specifically not for source code / software projects
The creative commons is not compatible with the GPL, yet you are linking to a GPL work, this is a GPL violation.
You seem to have added a bunch of terms to the creative commons (here) this makes it not be the creative commons.

I'm not a lawyer, but I THINK the position this puts you in is that as you arn't allowed to license the project under the creative commons (Both because it is incompatible with the GPL, and not applicable to source code) the entire project retains it's GPL license, and anyone is allowed to do anything within the terms of the GPL.

You can find all this information on the creative commons FAQ

As for what license you should be using, you don't have much choices when it comes to being GPL compatible. I'd suggest you stick with the GPL. Yes this would allow commercial use of EQDKP, but those commercial users would be bound by the license to contribute any code improvements back to EQDKP-Plus, which would probably be a good thing (Commercial backing, yay.)

Anyway not here to pick a license for you, just to inform you that your current license does not apply to your project.

I will cover the GPL part first.


So far correct, we still use a core part of the old EQDKP, which is covered under GPL and therefore has to be declared as such. So the CC only covers our parts and we absolutely can licence these as CC as these parts are not released under GPL.

The next release of EQDKP+ 0.7 doesn't contain the GPL core anymore.

For the code part i'd like to asure you CC can be used for software, but is not recommend. We are absolutely aware of the missing source and object terms in CC.

In fact you are stressing terms a little too much and I don't see any violations here. Yet i wanna thank you for your opinion. Be asured that we are already into this topic and the next release of EQDKP might be released under another license.

You can't link to GPL code (EQDKP) with code licensed under a GPL incompatible license (Creative commons). Also, because your current code needs to be under a GPL compatible license (because it links to GPL code) your future release must be under a GPL compatible license too.

You also didn't address the fact that you've changed the CC, and thus it's not the CC any more.

no idea why you're trying to complain on the license... if you like our work, then say "thank you" instead of arguing senseless stuff

We have not changed the license, we have put some of our code under another lisence. Thats ok. As libraries must not be under the same lisence. If it must be, you can never use joomla - GPL code, but the extensions must not be GPL, they could be protected. or you could not use jQuery in your Project, as it could be under the MIT License...

as i said, the eqdkp core files are gpl - some of the plus parts not. and thats proper law

Mostly because I don't like the rights the GPL gives being removed, I also like educating people on making sensible and informed licensing decisions when it comes to software licensing.



That's incorrect. If you link to a GPL library, your code must be using a GPL compatible license. That's the whole point of GPL, it's viral open source.




Joomla is GPL. Proprietary extensions are a GPL violation, Joomla do not allow non-GPL extensions (source)



The MIT license is nothing like the GPL and does allow for proprietary projects.



This is a GPL violation

You might want to check out this page It's a great article that explains why using the CC for software is a bad idea.

Yeah. We've spent thousands of hours in this project. And i do not like the right in GPL that everybody can earn money with the work of others. There'd been cases, there'd been changes by companies on the code. And they refused to give it back to the community.

Its the best for us and the users if we do not allow hosting companies to earn money with our work.
they can do it, but they should ask for permission, donate to the project and help us. if they don't want to do that and just think on their profit, it wont work. we are not joomla, mozilla or others. We spent (yes, thats right) money in servers, hardware, etc. i think its only fair if we decide not to provide this services to companies...

instead of this, you have the same rights. its open source, there's no compressed code parts (as its techniccally possible to do this..), and the CC licence allows nearly the same as the GPL before. you might be right that in 0.6 it might be a grey zone, but as we reqrote every single file for 0.7, its not longer GPL. We could invent our own license as simplemachines did. But i think its fair to use the CC.

Instead of complaining and taking away my motivation in writing a single line of code today, you could make proposals to fit your and our needs.

as i said, its a hobby project. We are spending money, i got one!!! donation the last two years. i'Äm doing it because its fun... most of the time...

nobody said you have to use eqdkp+, you can use the vanilla eqdkp. its open source, too. Its gpl. As every line of code shared with it.

i donated several code to the open source community. see on github, etc. i respect copyright, cause i want people respect my rights, too. i worked at joomla, i donated code to contao and typo3. i wrote several joomla plugins for eqdkp+ which are free of charge. You can download eqdkp+ free of charge, and change/mod the code if you want. I do not see any sense in opening a topic instead of writing an email. sure, you might be right. and my right is, to close the editor for today. motivation gone. thanks. ts easy complaining on others. if you gave the community as much as we did, you'd revise your meanings, believe me.

ps: i don't meant to be rude. But after a hard day of work, its hard to write long texts, which are not in my mother tongue...

This is all opinion, while opinion is fine, it doesn't really bare any relevance to the fact that the licensing setup you have atm is a GPL violation



Again, CC makes no mention of source code.



Hobby projects are cool. I have hobby projects, they are GPL licensed. It's never caused me a problem. Sorry that I'm taking away your motivation by trying to help you understand software licensing. I would propose that you stop violating the EQDKP license terms and switch to using the GPL for all your code. You said yourself you've only had one donation in the last two years, perhaps allowing commercial use of your code would change that, people who use software commercially do tend to give back (Both money and code. Although, I understand that some don't. Which is a shame)

Edit:
Sorry if I've come off as rude as well, I'm only trying to inform you of an issue I'd noticed (that could actually pose serious legal trouble for you), I like eqdkp-plus regardless. In it's current state the copyright holders of the original software can withdraw their license and you would legally not be allowed to distribute any more, which would be sad

your two hobby projects are pretty small. as i wrote, most of my projects are under the gpl.


as i wrote: it didn't work. they either removed the copyright and claoimed it was their work. that was enough.

nice try, maybe we'll change tghe license for 0.7 to an own (then its not CC any longer).

"If you use GPL'ed code in your project, you must specify the code used and release that code.". thats my final word on this... dosn't make any sense to argue any longer.

400,000 hits a month is small?



They have just as much ability to do this with your current license as they do with the GPL, it's also just as much of a license violation. The only difference is that with the GPL you stand a much larger chance winning should you choose to take legal action.



Would be sensible to change the license to a GPL compatible license for 0.7, yes.



This is false, the GPL does not require you to release your code at all.
The GPL states that if you distribute your code, you must distribute the source as well as the binary, and that the person you have given it to has the freedom to modify and distribute that code.

The GPL does not require you to release anything, you can have in-house private GPL code.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just pointing out a rather big issue with your licensing.