Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   gnu/iskat (iska@mk.starnix.network)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Jan-2023 22:46:58 JST gnu/iskat

   There's a program (or rather a version of it) licensed under LGPL but claims its outputs would be under CC-BY-NC, is that possible? can I remove that restriction without being the author/CR holder?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Jan-2023 22:46:57 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @iska >a program (or rather a version of it) licensed under LGPL
     Which LGPL version?
     
     In most cases, the output of a program is based off the input that you provided, rather than having any copyright relation to the software, so if the output qualifies for copyright, you are usually the copyright holder: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput
     
     One example is gcc, where you can compile C programs that are under any license.
     
     One exception to the rule is when the output contains copyrighted software or media from the program, in that case the license on the software or media itself applies.
     
     
     gcc generally includes the libstdc++ runtime when compiling C++ if I remember correctly, but there is an exception that allows even proprietary software to use the runtime.
     
     If a program was to include png's in its output that are under CC-BY-NCvX licenses, the CC-BY-NCvX would apply to the png's in the output, but you could probably delete the png's.
     
     
     If the developer decided to include software in the output for no real reason, the license on the software doesn't apply to merely aggregated data alongside the software - in that case you can probably delete the software and use only the data.
     
     
     The Lesser GPL's are quite a lot weaker than the GPL's, as combination with proprietary software is allowed as long as certain conditions are met.
     
     I need the version of the LGPL and the name and version of the software to come to a conclusion if the output is under CC-BY-NCvX or not.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? neet (neet@refuse2.work)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Jan-2023 22:49:22 JST ?? neet

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Alexandre Oliva
     @iska @Suiseiseki @lxo licenses don't exit
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Jan-2023 22:49:22 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ?? neet
     @neet I'm sure telling that to the court will go great if you are unlucky and are sued for copyright infringement.
   • Embed this notice
     gnu/iskat (iska@mk.starnix.network)'s status on Wednesday, 18-Jan-2023 22:49:23 JST gnu/iskat

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Alexandre Oliva

     cc @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @lxo@gnusocial.net you know about licenses

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 06:55:05 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @iska Okay, reading the license header:
     RPG Paper Maker engine is under LGPL-3 license.
     
     Commercial license for commercial use of your games:
     https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
     
     The author is committing doublespeak, saying "this is free software" and "this is proprietary software" at the same time.
     
     The reason why the author licenses under LGPLv3 is because (unless you pay for an exception), qt5 is licensed under GPLv2 or GPLv3 or LGPLv3 and your software needs to be under a compatible license.
     
     Even so, CC-BY-NC 4.0 programs can use LGPLv3 libraries provided the LGPLv3 library and CC-BY-NC 4.0 parts are separate and are dynamically linked (the CC-BY-NC 4.0 doesn't do things like forbid reverse engineering totally. There's also other ways to combine, but that's out of scope really).
     
     
     The LGPLv3 is the GPLv3, but with certain extra exceptions - it gives permission to convey modified versions under the LGPLv3 OR under the GPLv3 no matter what: "2. Conveying Modified Versions."
     
     As the GPLv3 notes:
     7. Additional Terms.
     ...
     All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
     restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as
     you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that
     it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further
     restriction, you may remove that term.
     ...
     You can just delete the "Commercial license for commercial use of your games: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/." part from the license headers, or upgrade to GPLv3 and then do the deletion if you aren't confident.
     
     
     There are some other files without a license header or a marked license though:
     Editor/Ressources/*
     Editor/Shaders/*
     etc.
     
     As I don't see a LICENSE file, I believe "RPG Paper Maker is a game making engine, free [sic] for non commercial use" in README.md is a restriction that applies to the unmarked files.
     
     
     Pretty much, the developer(s) of that game engine seem to be an incredibly nasty sort, so I would recommend using a different game engine instead.
     
     
     If you still want to use it, you'd best go and start with the older version and remove the CC-BY-NC 4.0 headers and replace the files that seem to be licensed only under the CC-BY-NC 4.0.
   • Embed this notice
     gnu/iskat (iska@mk.starnix.network)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 06:55:06 JST gnu/iskat

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com which LGPL version3.0
     https://github.com/RPG-Paper-Maker/RPG-Paper-Maker/ commit ae29b783df72f1eea13b8266612032a207606f9d
     (the other repos it depends on should be on early enough versions too)
     that's the last version of the program before a EULA was added. An even earlier version (tag 1.0.1) doesn't have this restriction and is under GPLv3

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 18:44:51 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @iska >What I gathered is that at that point in time the engine itself was fully free
     I really doubt it, as it seems that the README has noted that the engine is proprietary since the very start.
     
     For a time period maybe the engine itself was fully free, but only unintentionally.
   • Embed this notice
     gnu/iskat (iska@mk.starnix.network)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 18:44:52 JST gnu/iskat

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
     What I gathered is that at that point in time the engine itself was fully free but the JS/data the outputs will be linked to (in seperate repositories) got proprietary. 1.0.1 + a few backported commits seems to be my best bet.
     
     I want to use the engine for hacking around with an RPGMaker MV game, and that's the only compatible engine I know.
     
     Thanks for helping.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Saturday, 21-Jan-2023 21:46:04 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to
     IANAL, but if the author of the program author claims any copyright over the program's output, it is presumably the case case that the program outputs part of itself. but if the entire program claims to be licensed under LGPL, then no part of it is under CC-BY-NC, and more, no part of the licensing terms demand the output portion to be relicensed under CC-BY-NC, so the origin of that statement is hard to guess. there appears to be a contradiction or missing information (e.g., it's not the whole program that's under LGPL), which makes it hard to make any safe recommendations.
     it is certainly the case that if you modify the program so that its output no longer contains parts of the program itself (or of any other material copyrighted by the author), then you could remove that statement. but don't take that statement as a restriction, it is either a statement of fact, or some misconception from an author that doesn't understand copyright. the latter is more common than the former, alas.
     is contacting the author for clarification a viable plan?