GPL2+/GPL3+, maybe AGPL?

[o11c]

Currently, all TMW content is GPL2+ (note that part of the client is GPL2-only, but that's irrelevant for this discussion).

The GPL2 has some known bugs, which I would not like to affect my new code, some of which has involve substantial creativity on my part. This is a request to allow content and code that is *not* licensed under GPL2, only under GPL3+.

Note that this will not reduce the set of importable materials, since we already required the + in GPL2+.

----------------

Once that is taken care of, let's talk about the AGPL. The only difference between the GPL3 and the AGPL3 is that the AGPL also requires the source to be given to anyone connecting over the network. Note, the FSF says "We recommend that people consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network."

13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary
means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source
shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3
of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the
following paragraph.

Obviously this would have to be done extremely carefully - we don't want to stifle development of modifications.

Files under the AGPL and the GPL can be mixed into the same program, so we wouldn't have to apply it to everything.
However, they cannot be mixed within the same file. However, dual-licensing can take care of this: "everything under the GPL may also be used under the AGPL". Of course, this relicensing cannot be applied to old or imported code. Still, in my rewrite, this is not an issue.

I can think of three cases where the AGPL would make a difference: applied to the server code, applied to the server scripts, or if applied to a client.
1. Applied to the server code, this would prevent forks of the project from adding new features and not allowing us to take them back. Not that this has been s very "present" problem so far ... but it is stuck in my mind that the Evol repositories haven't been updated since February 2011 and I don't think they stopped working on it.
2. Applied to server scripts, besides the above, this could prevent privatization of things like the magic file and the answers to the Hitchhiker's quest. I really don't like the way we are doing it currently - at the moment it is not possible to set up a server identical to the official server. If we must hide them, can't we just ROT13 it or something?
3. Applied to a client ... I'm not talking about the Mana client here. Rather, as part of my rewrite I have great plans for an admin/bot interface. Although the particular packets would require authentication, I am nonetheless concerned that this could easily be abused to make unfriendly bots ("see monster at location, go attack it; see GM begin botcheck, stop and send an SMS to my human") - after all, my code would be much more readable and flexible than Mana . TOS aside, although this wouldn't prevent them from creating such clients, it would force them to publish. It would also be possible to add a copyright that the hypothetical client sends when connecting, which (even under the GPL) could not be removed. Since, you know, we can't add a copyright license restriction like "this code cannot be used to develop automation of player characters" (although such automation can of course be in the TOS). See this faq entry, but note that unlike the example they give, other users *do* interact with bot clients (and this is the real issue with such clients in the first place). It might be worth raising the issue with the FSF of something less clear, like an IRC client.

Looking at that ... the AGPL *does* begin to look like an awfully restrictive license. But then, that's what BSD fanatics say about the GPL. It's a careful balance.

Finally, although I this information is accurate to the best of my knowledge, I still don't know everything, and IANAL. The issues with the GPL are *much* better understood than the issues with the AGPL.

Discuss.

[Frost]

In reply to http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... 23#p127323

Do we really have to have this discussion again?
A lot of discussion happened on IRC, but here is a brief discussion of GPL3+ and a longer discussion about AGPL

"Again?" A decision to change the license of TMW code should happen in a more formal fashion than some discussion on IRC. Also, such a discussion should have more than one participant.

The only people with a reason not to use GPL3 rather than GPL2 are:

• People who need to import source from another project that is GPL2 only, or that are GPL2 historically and do not have access to all the copyright holders.
• Evil corporations who make free software nonfree by exploiting loopholes in the GPL2.

Is all existing server code really GPLv2+?
I'll add a third item to your list: Projects that don't wish to change the terms of their license. A change should be justified, not made by default.

As a developer, I am unwilling to let my works (which represent a significant amount of creativity) be released under a license that has known flaws.

You disagree with it. That doesn't mean it's flawed.

[Crush]

Regarding the AGPL for the client:

I don't think that someone who has enough criminal energy to write a private bot wouldn't have enough criminal energy to break the license terms. It would also mean that any client modification which connects to any public server must be published, even when it's a non-final testing build. This would be very inconvenient both for TMW developers and for 3rd party developers like 4144. Considering that a client would be useless without connecting to the server, this could be seen as a restriction to freedom 1 of the Free Software Foundation ("The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish"). It would not remove this freedom, but being forced to publish every single one-line change would make it much more inconvenient to practice it.

One could argue that the "no botting" rule of the official server also impairs freedom 1, but remember that this is a house rule on server.themanaworld.org. When someone creates an own public server, they don't have to forbid botting. But licensing the client under AGPL would be binding for every public server.


But the AGPL is out of discussion anyway, because you can't relicense GPLv2 code under AGPL without the permission of the authors. The number of authors who contributed to TMW client, server or content is three-digit by now and to most of them we haven't got any contact anymore (when it would be that easy to change the license, I would be lobbying for switching the content license to CC-BY-SA for years).

[o11c]

Is all existing server code really GPLv2+?

Yes. Most of it is GPL-any, and some of it is GPLv2+.

As a developer, I am unwilling to let my works (which represent a significant amount of creativity) be released under a license that has known flaws.

You disagree with it. That doesn't mean it's flawed.

There are at least five major improvements in GPLv3, relating to: tivoization, patents, definitions, distribution, and license compatibility.

I'm quite aware that you would rather I not contribute to this project.
I guess my ultimatum could come to this: I will continue to develop tmwa under GPLv3+, and it is the choice of the rest of TMW's development team whether they take my improvements.

Regarding the AGPL for the client:
<snip>

I've thought quite a bit about this, and my argument for AGPL is tentative. Rather, I hoped to raise discussion.

One thing you seem to have missed, though: I was not talking about the *existing* client, but about a new client, based on the server codebase, that is not *intended* for normal players to use.
Rather, it is intended for friendly bots that log into player accounts. One unfortunate side effect of creating this would be that it would become trivial (admittedly, my definition of trivial might not exactly match others') to write a client that connected to multiple accounts within the same program (so they are capable of synchronizing without lag). (The existing client code is not designed well enough for this - too many global variables and such)
Although I would likely develop a new network protocol so it could not be used for evil purposes without a bit of modification, I still think it would be problematic.

I do believe that the ability to study how the program works (freedom 1) is important for authorized bots and for server scripts, as they are essentially part of the server. The GPL does not protect this freedom, but the AGPLv3 does.

But the AGPL is out of discussion anyway, because you can't relicense GPLv2 code under AGPL without the permission of the authors.

True, but you can link GPLv3 code (which includes code licensed as GPLv2+) with newly-written AGPLv3 code in the same executable. In particular, I am thinking of a new network/timer interface, and the new script engine.

Linus Torvalds explains why he uses GPL2 and how he felt dirty after talking to the FSF:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw58LZTuZjA

So, he doesn't think tivoization is bad. I choose to disagree. Also, that video does not mention the patent problem, the clarified definitions, distribution, or license compatibility.

[Frost]

Is all existing server code really GPLv2+?

Yes. Most of it is GPL-any, and some of it is GPLv2+.

I don't see explicit license declarations in many files, but as an example, map/storage.cpp declares:

// Copyright (c) Athena Dev Teams - Licensed under GNU GPL
// For more information, see LICENCE in the main folder

The LICENCE file referenced is GPLv2.

As a developer, I am unwilling to let my works (which represent a significant amount of creativity) be released under a license that has known flaws.

You disagree with it. That doesn't mean it's flawed.

There are at least five major improvements in GPLv3, relating to: tivoization, patents, definitions, distribution, and license compatibility.

I'm quite aware that you would rather I not contribute to this project.

First, I think you are an important contributor to this project. o11c, I apologize that I gave the impression that I would like you to leave. That's not true.

You are a capable and motivated programmer. I completely agree that you should release your work only under a license with with you are comfortable. It's possible that at some point your personal goals will diverge with those of the project, but I don't think we're in that situation.

I believe that people who are trusted with commit access to the source code have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the project, which includes involving other decision-makers before making changes which potentially affect the status or the future of the project. By "involving" I mean discussing with others, listening to what they say, and respecting the decision of the group.
That dialogue did not happen before you committed code which (at best) changes or (at worst) violates the license of existing source code. We need to learn from this and do better in the future.

I guess my ultimatum could come to this: I will continue to develop tmwa under GPLv3+, and it is the choice of the rest of TMW's development team whether they take my improvements.

Of course. You have always had the right to decide the terms of your work.
On the other hand, the TMW project has always had the right to choose which work to include. This is as true for source code as it is for graphics and anything else. This was never in doubt.

[o11c]

// Copyright (c) Athena Dev Teams - Licensed under GNU GPL
// For more information, see LICENCE in the main folder

The LICENCE file referenced is GPLv2.

If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

The fact that LICENCE happens to contain version 2 is incidental.

This dialogue did not happen before you committed code which (at best) changes or (at worst) violates the license of existing source code.

I have not yet committed any GPLv3+ code to the main repository on any branch. All my GPLv3+ code is either in my forks (on gitorious or github) or on one of my personal machines.

[o11c]

From my IRC logs, with lines removed.

--- Day changed Sun Nov 27 2011
20:09 < Rilke> Technically, one could also make an MMO under the GPL, host it as a service, and never release, but that's a bit less straightforward.
20:10 < o11c> that's why I'm going to use the AGPL when possible
20:10 < Rilke> yeah

--- Day changed Sun Nov 20 2011
07:50 < wombat> an fyi on eAthena's copyright is gpl3, though they are having issues now with third party developers selling server updates while the main developers having issues with maintaining official updates.
07:52 < wombat> I informed them of our desires to possibly move in this direction, though art contributions seem to have an issue with us. Not sure if we can move to gpl3 universally.
07:54 < wombat> Aethyra's copyrights are also very different, I believe they are using a creative commons non-commercial license for much of their new stuff.
07:55 < Jenalya> i suppose gpl2 and gpl3 are compatible? could we just license new stuff as gpl3 and leaving the already existing things as they are?
07:55 * Jenalya doesn't know much about licences
08:03 < wombat> Jenalya: I believe we might be able to do that. It is something we can discuss more publicly and perhaps o11c will spearhead the discussion, since it seems he has reasons to be a proponent of a copyright change.
08:04 < wombat> I'd recommend the "Feedback" forum for the discussion, to invite public opinion, though other forums could also host such a discussion.
09:38 < o11c> There are no issues to move the server code to GPL3. As for content, a license change *could* be applied per-work, if that were somehow indicated clearly.

--- Log opened Fri Nov 11 16:40:02 2011
22:18 < Frost> You'd never expect to hear this coming from me of all people, but I eschew beta filesystems.
22:21 < vlapan> GCC changed licence
22:25 <&o11c> vlapan: I don't see GPL 2->3 as a "license change", merely an update that better addresses the legal issues
22:25 < vlapan> bsd and other are not compatible with it
22:25 < Frost> The license terms are different.
22:25 < Frost> You can argue whether they're better or worse, but they are different.
22:32 <&o11c> I'm runnining a word-diff on GPL2 -> GPL3: Finally, [-any free][+every] program is threatened constantly by software patents.
22:32 < Frost> o11c, they're different. Thanks for arguing why different is better.
22:34 < Frost> Until you said that changing the wording of a license and making it not backwards compatible isn't a license change, I thought you might be a good lawyer
22:39 <&o11c> I'm quite aware that there are legal differences between GPL 2 and 3. That said, the intent has never changed, and it's only a problem for those programs that were shortsighted enough to specify "only version 2" without providing an entity capable of approving new versions
22:39 < Frost> no, it's a problem for those who don't choose the different terms
22:39 < Frost> In contracts, you see, wording actually does matter, not intent.
22:40 <&o11c> do you have specific wording in mind, other than "it changed"?
22:40 < Frost> Let's start with "it changed"
22:40 < vlapan> +)

--- Day changed Fri Oct 28 2011
11:32 < o11c> What are people's thoughts on GPL3? I've checked tmwAthena's history and find no versions specifications except an occasional "GPL2+"
11:33 < Wombat> o11c: I prefer simplicity in our licensing...we currently don't use various licenses and I'd rather keep it that way
11:34 < Wombat> Is there an advantage you like in gpl3?
11:34 < o11c> additional protection, there were unforeseen problems with GPL2 (tivoization ...)
11:36 < o11c> in particular, I have created (not yet pushed) some extremely creative code and I want to maximize its protection
11:36 < o11c> also, GPL3 can be combined with the AGPL
11:37 < o11c> which I highly recommend for any program that is accessed over the network
11:39 < Wombat> bjorn: who controls how we license our work? We can re-license as GPL3 for everything rather than opening a pandora's box on multiple licenses. I agree with o11c that tivoization should be counter-acted by stronger licensing.
11:39 < o11c> Wombat: the problem is, we haven't used copyright assignment or delegation
11:40 < o11c> I know that a lot of the art has been released "under the GPL2"
11:40 < Wombat> all art has
11:40 < bjorn> Wombat: I think so far we have only demanded the art is GPL-compatible, and we've always released the client as "GPLv2 or later", so I think we're also fine with GPLv3 (though I don't see the point in switching).
11:40 < o11c> so you woul have to get permission from every artist
11:40 < Wombat> http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1177
11:40 < Freeyorp> There's a sticky requiring all art uploaded to forums to be implicitly GPL
11:40 < bjorn> Wombat: If we want to do anything else, we have to track down the contributors, or drop their art.
11:40 < Wombat> by submitting art, they agree
11:41 < Freeyorp> Well, they agree to GPL2+, there's no delegation involved if we wanted to change later
11:41 < bjorn> It doesn't seem to mention any version.
11:41 < bjorn> And I think we can be pretty sure nobody will start to claim they "only agreed to version 2".
11:44 < o11c> re: the forums: I know that people *have* attached things that are explicitly not GPL ...
11:45 < o11c> in particular merlin attached one that he mentioned was the bastard child of some incompatible licenses (so it's not legally redistributable at all ...)
11:45 < Wombat> o11c: and he was reemed for it
11:46 < o11c> I suggest adding an explicit note, not just as a forum announcement, but when you register, saying attachments must be GPL2+
11:47 < o11c> and then PM-spam the whole Registered Users group
11:47 < Wombat> only for art meant for the game, sure
11:47 < o11c> I notice that there are no warnings on merlin's forum account ... he earlier claimed ignorance of why he was removed ...
11:48 < o11c> also, this is still up: http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... 04#p117104
11:48 < Freeyorp> Not sure what went on there, I think I was away for the incident
11:48 < Wombat> he was removed and isn't allowed on the tmwa developer group
11:48 < Wombat> though I didn't offer a warning via forum tool
11:49 < o11c> anyway, my point is, people don't read, or don't remember, forum announcements
11:49 < Freeyorp> So you would send messages to a group with thousands of members instead?
11:50 < o11c> only once
11:50 < o11c> and add it to http://forums.themanaworld.org/ucp.php?mode=register
11:50 < o11c> which every subsequent user can't claim they didn't read
11:51 < Wombat> maybe we should request some lawyers volunteer their time to drafting this?
11:54 < Lizandra> mhm, I'll read whatever you decided, could you make it a post on the forum later?
12:01 < Wombat> Kaiser was studying for a law degree last I talked to him. I have some lawyer associates, but they aren't interested in video games
12:01 < Wombat> mainly interested in social justice law, so might not be the best anyway

12:32 < o11c> I think there should be added, at top level, a new, up-to-date COPYING and README
12:32 < o11c> still gpl-2.0.txt or add gpl-3.0.txt ?
12:33 < Wombat> o11c: We should discuss it in the forums before adding...it should be gpl 2 atm, but it seems we might change soon.
12:34 < Wombat> Crush usually has some strong opinions....I wish Jax was around because he was familiar with licensing... Platyna might be able to toss an opinion as well
12:35 < Wombat> Rotonen: maybe also
12:36 < Wombat> I think it will probably happen, though I'd want to make sure objections are addressed before implementation
12:36 < Rotonen> ?
12:36 < o11c> switching to GPL3+ going forward
12:36 < Wombat> we are thinking of moving to gpl3
12:36 < Rotonen> i do have strong opinions, but i do not see how this project has 1) ever listened to me 2) should listen to me after i've not been active for over a year?
12:37 < Rotonen> for art, please contact all the authors to relicense under cc3-by-sa
12:37 < o11c> eh, the reason I don't listen is because you go on about manaserv
12:37 < Wombat> because you are smart and might pose an objection that is reasonable and should be heard?
12:37 < Rotonen> gpl in any format does not do well for art
12:37 < Rotonen> for example it does not reserve the moral rights of an artist
12:37 < o11c> I know, but contact all artists might not be feasible
12:37 < o11c> Rotonen: what moral rights are you talking about?
12:38 < Rotonen> o11c: read the related creative commons articles directly rather than making me copy paste?
12:38 < Rotonen> i do strongly believe in independent background research :>
12:39 < Wombat> So yeah, this would be best discussed on the forums with appropriate hyperlinks to licenses. It is fairly important and I'd feel uncomfortable if we speedily changed license.
12:39 < o11c> Rotonen: I'm not seeing anthing obvious
12:40 < Rotonen> o11c: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequen ... _rights.3F
12:40 < Rotonen> in the FAQ, first google hit for "creative commons moral rights"
12:40 < o11c> GPL can include an attribution requirement
12:41 < o11c> and an optional prohibition on misrepresenting the origin
12:41 < o11c> See section 7 of GPL3
12:42 < Wombat> does such protection prevent parody?
12:42 < Rotonen> sure, but cc3 is plain outright cleaner for art without any statements you have to make
12:42 < o11c> it's much improved from GPL2
12:42 < Rotonen> cc3 for graphics is clear off the bat without making extra statements or explaining yourself - it's designed for that
12:42 < o11c> but, it's not feasible to contact all authors
12:43 < o11c> "in the manner specified by the author or licensor" is equivalent to what the GPL allows
12:44 < Rotonen> well, then you just have to drop all the pieces of art which do not comply if you change the license or take on the maintainance of the overheady LICENSE file

--- Day changed Wed Dec 07 2011
12:53 < wombat> Well, when we release the demo for tmwa: adventures, it might be possible to more free form fix consistency there since it would start from bare bones with a minimalist/simplistic approach to content development.
12:53 < wombat> It also wouldn't have as many stress issues about bugs since a great deal of it is to help with experimentation.
12:56 < wombat> I think the first release would be an alpha demo for git to begin public development and help with experimentation. It could start with gpl-compatible with a stress on gpl3 for new scripts and link with o11c's experimental tmwa eathena source.

--- Day changed Fri Feb 17 2012
01:29 < bjorn> salmondine, Yubaba: Just to clarify, "free" does not only mean freedom to use it for anything, but also the freedom to study how it works and change it.
01:29 < bjorn> The four essential freedoms are explained here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
01:29 < bjorn> I'm not saying we can't legally include Yubaba's music, or the music we have already, I'm just saying it's not released in the same spirit as the rest of the project.
01:30 < bjorn> As to what files should be made available for music to offer these four freedoms, I think it's not that hard to answer.
01:30 < bjorn> It's basically whatever you would share with a fellow artist to be able to work together on one piece of music, I guess.
01:31 < bjorn> This includes the melody (sheet music if that's what you're writing), instruments (or the samples if it's digital music), the tracker file when applicable, etc.
01:33 < bjorn> If you don't want to offer others these freedoms, that's your choice. As a project we should however have truly free music as our goal.

03:35 < Ali-G> bjorn: Is there, by editing the musics of TMW, a way to show they are ours?
03:36 < Ali-G> bjorn: Okay... I just downloaded a tool that can edit musics, by giving them for example an author, a title, a license, whatever... Is there something we should modify on TMW musics to make them be under TMW's control or something similar
03:37 < bjorn> Ali-G: Sorry but the music is by each song's respective author.
03:37 < Ali-G> uhm... well nvm then
03:38 < bjorn> And "free" in free software means that is isn't under anybody's control, so watch your language...

11:41 < salmondine> Bjorn so all we need is the key it is written in? that's all I usually have to tell another musician seriously
11:43 < salmondine> if you needed more than that after hearing it, I would probably not hire you again
12:04 < bjorn> salmondine: It really depends. If you're just playing an instrument however you feel like it then I guess that may be the only information necessary, though usually I see people using sheets with notes and stuff.

12:43 < salmondine> bjorn these files for future editing are huge files and usually raw wave files where do you propose we store them?
12:43 < bjorn> salmondine: Hmm, I thought you usually used samples.
12:43 < salmondine> the forum won't handle those
12:44 < salmondine> me I have sound engines and trigger with a roland ready fender start
12:44 < bjorn> salmondine: For wave files there's lossless encoding which I think about halves the size (flac), and platinum still has 100 GB available.
12:44 < bjorn> Well actually it has 1.3 TB available.
12:45 < bjorn> Anyway, I don't see why you couldn't store these tracks as high-bitrate ogg.
12:45 < salmondine> the forum file attachment size has limits and maybe a per user limit
12:45 < bjorn> Once the human ear can't hear the difference anymore, what's the point?
12:45 < bjorn> I wouldn't suggest attaching to forum, no.
12:45 * o11c wonders whether uncompressed files make VCS happy
12:46 < bjorn> Also software like CoolEdit Pro can handle tracks with mp3 just fine, it doesn't require wav.
12:46 < o11c> bjorn: the idea is, every time you convert from ogg, frob, and recompress, you lose a little
12:46 < bjorn> o11c: Yeah why would you do that?
12:46 < o11c> the problem is pretty obvious with jpeg ...
12:46 < salmondine> cool edit pro won't run on debian I own it
12:46 < o11c> < salmondine> bjorn these files for future editing
12:46 < bjorn> salmondine: Yeah, well maybe Audacity is an option.
12:47 < bjorn> o11c: Not for editing those files themselves.
12:47 < bjorn> o11c: They're recording tracks of a song.
12:47 < bjorn> o11c: For the final song, you apply affects, tweak volume, cut parts, etc.
12:47 < salmondine> also most loops are free to use after purchase but not to reproduce in themselves
12:47 < o11c> anyway, whatever, I'll let you guys talk
12:47 < bjorn> o11c: Open source music would need those things not hardcoded into a final "downmixed" song.
12:48 < bjorn> salmondine: Well, then we need to search for free to distribute loops...
12:48 < bjorn> salmondine: Or record our own instruments.
12:49 < salmondine> we would need to compile a sample library then
12:49 < bjorn> Yes, if there aren't already libraries like that out there, similar to opengameart.org.
12:50 < o11c> there are the midi patchfiles ...
12:50 < salmondine> with the final product there is no problem
12:50 < derpella> <someone> i would like to point out that the free software song, sung by stallman himself and hosted on gnu.org, is in ogg with no .wav file as source
12:50 < o11c> fluid-soundfont-g{s,m}
12:51 < o11c> (that's the debian package name)
12:51 < derpella> I was just interested
12:51 < salmondine> me I can't contribute music here under gpl anyway because I have contracts for the next 8 years
12:51 < salmondine> but these are the issues I see
12:52 < bjorn> Btw, distributing truly free music is just the way I think it should be.
12:52 < o11c> derpella: "sung" means it wasn't another source
12:52 < bjorn> I hope it is clear that I'm not saying we can't legally distribute for example CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licensed music.
12:53 < o11c> yeah
12:54 < derpella> <someone> ofc there is another source, the melody is an old bulgarian song
12:54 < derpella> <someone> it is clearly a derived work
12:54 < o11c> btw, wesnoth also does their music under GPL, and don't provide sources
12:54 < o11c> but as a musical tinkerer I'd like to see sources
12:54 < o11c> derpella: that would be public domain
12:56 < bjorn> o11c: Of course, they will be fine even if it's legally questionable, since GPL was meant for source code and doesn't define what the 'sources' should be for music. Argueably you can still edit the final song, but obviously that's not what GPL would have meant.
12:57 < o11c> it says "preferred form for editing"
12:57 < o11c> e.g. for images that quite clearly means a form with layers, not a .png ...
12:57 < bjorn> Right, and the GPLv3 uses more generic wording so that it may apply to non-source code. Not sure about GPLv2.
12:58 < bjorn> Well, seems also quite generic to me.
12:58 < o11c> hm, I need to start the GPL3 discussion ...
12:58 < o11c> GPL2 has some weaknesses I don't want to apply to my new server code
12:59 < o11c> and raise the *possibility* of AGPL ...
12:59 < bjorn> I think AGPL would be a good choice for server, but we should make sure it won't necessarily apply to the content.
13:04 < Meway> speaking of license
13:04 < Meway> whats the deal with the magic file used by tmw
13:05 < bjorn> Meway: The deal with it?
13:06 < bjorn> Meway: This is server configuration.
13:06 < Meway> bjorn: the file used in the server is different
13:07 < PjotrOrial> gplv2 has some weaknesses for servers, since you are not running the code yourself
13:08 < PjotrOrial> so you cannot demand to get those configs, which are gplv2
13:08 < bjorn> Indeed, muhaha.
13:08 < PjotrOrial> that's why gplv3 exists
13:08 < bjorn> No, that's why AGPL exists.
13:08 < Meway> I already have them I was just saying :p
13:21 < salmondine> so eathena is which license? :p
13:22 < BigCrunch> gpl?
13:22 < salmondine> that's the elephant in the room for me
13:23 < BigCrunch> why would it be an issue to have 2 different licenses, one for code & graphics, gpl, and one for music, CC?
13:23 < salmondine> ragnorok stopped suing eathena users I know this much
13:24 < o11c> eA is GPL2+
13:25 < BigCrunch> and if someone says to avoid complications, i'll be forced to shank them
13:26 < Meway> lets not shank people to avoid complications
13:27 < BigCrunch> meway i'll shank you on principle
13:27 < o11c> or just ...
13:27 < BigCrunch> and for shiggles
13:27 < o11c> ninja'ed :/
13:27 < Meway> afk
17:53 < o11c> Well, I posted my thoughts on the GPL2+ vs GPL3+, and the AGPL