Author Topic: Microsoft to buy Mojang?  (Read 4529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AdmiralRalwood

  • 211
  • The Cthulhu programmer himself!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
The GPL never covered the project in the first place, and the DMCA request had nothing to do with the GPL.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Codethulhu GitHub wgah'nagl fhtagn.

schrödinbug (noun) - a bug that manifests itself in running software after a programmer notices that the code should never have worked in the first place.

When you gaze long into BMPMAN, BMPMAN also gazes into you.

"I am one of the best FREDders on Earth" -General Battuta

<Aesaar> literary criticism is vladimir putin

<MageKing17> "There's probably a reason the code is the way it is" is a very dangerous line of thought. :P
<MageKing17> Because the "reason" often turns out to be "nobody noticed it was wrong".
(the very next day)
<MageKing17> this ****ing code did it to me again
<MageKing17> "That doesn't really make sense to me, but I'll assume it was being done for a reason."
<MageKing17> **** ME
<MageKing17> THE REASON IS PEOPLE ARE STUPID
<MageKing17> ESPECIALLY ME

<MageKing17> God damn, I do not understand how this is breaking.
<MageKing17> Everything points to "this should work fine", and yet it's clearly not working.
<MjnMixael> 2 hours later... "God damn, how did this ever work at all?!"
(...)
<MageKing17> so
<MageKing17> more than two hours
<MageKing17> but once again we have reached the inevitable conclusion
<MageKing17> How did this code ever work in the first place!?

<@The_E> Welcome to OpenGL, where standards compliance is optional, and error reporting inconsistent

<MageKing17> It was all working perfectly until I actually tried it on an actual mission.

<IronWorks> I am useful for FSO stuff again. This is a red-letter day!
* z64555 erases "Thursday" and rewrites it in red ink

<MageKing17> TIL the entire homing code is held up by shoestrings and duct tape, basically.

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
You're missing the point: the DMCA request worked because the programmer responsible had licensed his contributions under the GPL. Bukkit violated the terms of the GPL, and he can therefore demand that they stop using his code. We're both saying the exact same thing with different words.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
You're missing the point: the DMCA request worked because the programmer responsible had licensed his contributions under the GPL. Bukkit violated the terms of the GPL, and he can therefore demand that they stop using his code. We're both saying the exact same thing with different words.

No, you're not.

Here's a site which deals with "violations" of the GPL.

http://gpl-violations.org/index.html

Violations in this case are when companies use GPL software and fail to follow the terms of the license. They are in violation of the license and legal action has been taken against them.

Having the license for bukkit no longer be GPL due to the use of Mojang's code isn't a violation of the license, it's a disqualification from using the license. It no longer meets the criteria against which GPL software is measured.

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
Those violations are being prosecuted on the exact same legal basis as the DMCA claim made against Bukkit. Look, here is how it works: I am a programmer. I write some code. Under copyright law I can take legal action against anybody who redistributes or modifies this code without my permission. Because I want people to be able to redistribute and modify my code under certain conditions, I attach to it a licence stating the conditions under which it may be redistributed or modified. Anyone who redistributes or modifies my code in a way which does not meet these conditions -- that is, violates the licence -- no longer has my permission -- that is, is no longer covered by the licence -- to redistribute or modify my code, and I can therefore take legal action against them.

This is what happened with Bukkit under the DMCA. This is what happens when the FSF prosecutes GPL violations. There is no difference between these two concepts. You have spent the last page or so tilting at windmills.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 07:16:41 pm by Phantom Hoover »
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
OK look, there is one error I made earlier: if Mojang wholly owned all the code in Bukkit (which they categorically do not) they would indeed be able to distribute it under the GPL. Please let that be enough to put this thread-killing tangent to rest.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
We still care about Minecraft here? I thought we all got bored of it after like a month since we're not 12. I guess it was just me.

Let Microsoft buy them. If the minecraft IP was going somewhere, it wasn't without corporate sponsorship. Good move by Microsoft, IMO.
Fun while it lasted.

Then bitter.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
Seriously, the "I'm a big hard man who doesn't play childish computer games" shtick is not going to win you any friends on this forum.

And is rather foolish given that a similar dismissive view would have people saying that we're basically on a forum devoted to changing the pew pew noises on a 14 year old video game. One from back in the days when video games in general were still regarded by many as a kids hobby.

If you don't care about Minecraft, leave the thread to those who do.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
The thing is as I understand it,

If the minecraft code integrated in Bukkit, obfuscated or not, is there without permission then Bukkit is no longer GPL since the integration of that code.

If wolverness started contributing to bukkit after this code was integrated, he's contributing to a product which is not under GPL license.

Therefore his code is not GPL either but is rather released without license (but would still be assumed to be his copyright).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleAlone

Assuming that's all correct, I think that's what the lawyer means when he says the license is negated. It's not a violation, but a negation of the license itself but the guy still retains the rights to his code.


 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
OK, you're still a bit confused about the licence situation but this phone keyboard is too fiddly to explain in detail right now. Basically, Wolfe's contributions are legitimately covered by the GPL, the problem is that they can't be used alongside the Minecraft code because it's not open-source.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
OK, you're still a bit confused about the licence situation but this phone keyboard is too fiddly to explain in detail right now. Basically, Wolfe's contributions are legitimately covered by the GPL, the problem is that they can't be used alongside the Minecraft code because it's not open-source.

Yes but if minecraft code was integrated before Wolfe's contributions is the derivative work still GPL? That's the question.

"If a program P is released under the GPL that means *any and every part of it* can be used under the GPL. If you integrate module Q, and release the combined program P+Q under the GPL, that means any part of P+Q can be used under the GPL. One part of P+Q is Q. So releasing P+Q under the GPL says that Q any part of it can be used under the GPL. Putting it in other words, a user who obtains P+Q under the GPL can delete P, so that just Q remains, still under the GPL.

If the license of module Q permits you to give permission for that, then it is GPL-compatible. Otherwise, it is not GPL-compatible.

If the license for Q says in no uncertain terms that you must do certain things (not compatible with the GPL) when you redistribute Q on its own, then it does not permit you to distribute Q under the GPL. It follows that you can't release P+Q under the GPL either. So you cannot link or combine P with Q."

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
It doesn't matter, really; it'd be at issue only if someone wanted to stop Wolfe from distributing his contributions. He released his code under the GPL, so anyone using it in a GPL-incompatible way is fair game for a takedown from him.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
It doesn't matter, really; it'd be at issue only if someone wanted to stop Wolfe from distributing his contributions. He released his code under the GPL, so anyone using it in a GPL-incompatible way is fair game for a takedown from him.

Yes but the GPL of Bukkit is not legitimate. As videogame guy confirms in that reddit thread, it was the wrong license from the start.
Thus wolfe's takedown is really not based on the violation of the license but the inclusion of his code.

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
That picture sacrifices Minecraft's feel so brutally you'd need a large stepped pyramid and a steady supply of obsidian to recreate it. I really do not understand the number of people who think Minecraft is somehow inferior for not being photorealistic.

It still looks like Minecraft but with better textures and lighting, I dont think it sacrifices the feel of MC. Tough I never liked MC graphics anyway, it is quite an ugly game, and not ugly in a stylised 8bit oldschool way, just ugly. Adnancing the graphics certainly wouldnt hurt.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline Aardwolf

  • 211
  • Posts: 16,384
    • Minecraft
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
Let me get this straight...

Bukkit contains the obfuscated code from Minecraft, and therefore GPL can't be applied to it, and even if Bukkit has the GPL license in its installer, etc., the license is void... Ok. Has that always been the case, or was there a time when Bukkit didn't contain the obfuscated Minecraft code, and was therefore GPL-able?



From a technical standpoint...

If I write a program that uses java.util.ArrayList, I can still GPL my program, despite the fact that the source code for that class is not mine to re-license. Still, if I wanted to, I could put up a separate download for the source code for the referenced libraries. My program would still be GPL, and even though the assholes at Oracle could send me a C&D saying "the source code for java.util.ArrayList is proprietary, zomg!!!", that wouldn't invalidate the GPL on my program itself.

So, what if the compiled library containing java.util.ArrayList were also proprietary? I don't entirely remember the details, but I think maybe that would mean my program has to be LGPL rather than GPL, right? But if the people at Sun were nice (because **** Oracle), they could permit me to offer a third download, a mirror for the official download for the compiled class file for java.util.ArrayList, covered by their proprietary license, and that wouldn't invalidate the (L)GPL either.

 
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Minecraft 2 within probably only 2 years, with all new code and (optional) graphics, that manages to keep what made the original great.

It would be easy for such a huge company to throw a few million dollars and a handful of coders and artists at Mojang to rebuild the whole game from the ground up. If they manage to make it good, without screwing it up with in-game purchases and stuff, and actually market the thing, they will make all the monies.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
Yes, I can totally see Minecraft 2 with xbone improved Grafix and with an option on the menu "Classic visual style" that renders things just like today.

 

Offline Hades

  • FINISHING MODELS IS OVERRATED
  • 212
  • i wonder when my polycounts will exceed my iq
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Microsoft to buy Mojang?
343 Studios should totally make Minecraft Anniversary.
[22:29] <sigtau> Hello, #hard-light?  I'm trying to tell a girl she looks really good for someone who doesn't exercise.  How do I word that non-offensively?
[22:29] <RangerKarl|AtWork> "you look like a big tasty muffin"
----
<batwota> wouldn’t that mean that it’s prepared to kiss your ass if you flank it :p
<batwota> wow
<batwota> KILL