Module licensing questions

I don’t see an compatibility issue between GPL licensed code and other license terms for artwork. The specific artwork is not required to compile or run the code, and can be excluded.

By way of another example, the Quake II source code was opensourced using GPL, but the graphic assets and models were not.

1 Like

ok, clearly you have thought about these issues much more than I have. I will bow out now.

Sure, a distro could include the source-code and leave all the artwork out and leave all the panels blank.

But is that really intended by the authors?

Quake-II is quite a poor example imo. You know as well as me that you can’t actually use the code without having any assets. So sure you can study the code and maybe create a mod with completely new assets. But there is nobody that can distribute a functional Quake-II in any way.

Do you think that is the most productive way to distribute FOSS projects?

In the case of VCV module authors, which both I and @carbon14 are, that is exactly how we interpret it. “you can do whatever you want with the code, but don’t take my branding. If you decide to make a blank panel, that is an odd decision, but go ahead. We actually envision that you substitute you own branding so it looks reasonable, but that’s your choice”.

1 Like

It’s not exactly reasonable to assume that ie. a Linux Distro would recreate all possible module panels in order to include them in a project. This is already somewhat problematic for single code projects (see Firefox VS Iceweasel), let alone with thousands and thousands of available opensource modules.

So ok, if that is the explicit intention, to not allow any re-distribution of the modules as-is, then sure. But I bet a lot of developers have just copy/pasted what others have done in good faith that this is the “best way” without realizing such unintended consequences.

Again, I find such incompatible licensing problematic to interpret in many cases.

ok, that’s cool. I think it’s ok if you find it problematic and I don’t. It’s a big world.

I also don’t consider you representative for the rest of the community, sorry.

n = 1 and all.

No. VCV Rack is not a derivative work of any third-party plugins (except Fundamental since the Rack installer includes it), so the copyright/license of third-party plugins do not apply to it.

As a thought experiment, suppose I make a Photoshop plugin today. Is Photoshop now a derivative work of my plugin, and does Adobe have to pay me royalties if I wish? That would be absurd. I could use that superpower to run any IP-based company out of business, instantly.

Virtually all open-source, freeware, and Creative Commons licenses allow redistribution even if they do not allow derivative works. Anyone discussing the licenses you mentioned (GPLv3, MIT, CC BY-NC, etc) should, at the bare minimum, read the complete licenses. You will find terms in all of them explicitly allowing redistribution. Additionally, these licenses allow users to use/run the software for any purpose. See GPLv3 §2 for example. Otherwise it would not be an open-source license, according to many definitions.

Copyright is a large subject and takes many years to understand! That is why lawyers exist, in order to help others who don’t have years of expensive training.

1 Like

haha, good one!

2 Likes

I’m not saying it’s derivative work. It gives access to this work through commercial means. Without these plugins the value of your commercial product is arguably gone. You are redistributing these modules through specific commercial means, which arguably the CC BY-NC license does NOT allow.

This is exactly why FSF scholars/lawyers say this is not compatible with the GPL.

So yes it certainly is a complex problem, which is exactly why I opened this topic!

I appreciate your time in bringing up this topic, but you’re confusing a lot of distinct concepts together to reach uncertain conclusions. I encourage you to read about the field of IP law, as I find it very interesting! Or consult a lawyer as you might find the answers to your questions are more clear than you think.

1 Like

The question whether external parties can distribute CC BY-NC licenced artwork on a commercial medium (ie. CD or USB-stick) is clear: they cannot.

Whether developers always fully intend this (barring ie. Linux Distros from distributing their work. yes I am a Linux user that relies a lot on distros to provide opensource software packages) is not always clear.

The guidelines for code licensing is clear and VCV clearly promotes the use of GPL3+, but it would be good to have similar guidelines for the artwork as it seems people will just use the first CC license that sounds remotely applicable (even though it may not be).

That is a good point, we could encourage a specific graphics license on VCV Manual - Plugin Licensing, such as CC BY 4.0. (I’m curious, what would you choose?) However, it is ultimately up to the developer, and I would want to make sure it’s only a suggestion to save the developer’s time in case they are on the fence or don’t care, not a manifesto to convince everyone who reads it to choose a certain license.

2 Likes

Sure, not like your current GPL3+ promotion is a manifesto :wink:

(however it could be made more clear that plain GPL3 is problematic for any future licenses)

Personally I go with the FSF stance on the incompatibility with CC licenses, but since I’m not much of a designer I find it hard to argue with any artists decision on a license and I don’t know what would be the best license to pick depending on the circumstance.

I totally understand why anyone would not want others to profit from their name, logo or artwork though. However in many cases it’s hard to pinpoint where there is any profit made, simply for selling a certain medium containing such content. So again there are no easy answers here :slight_smile: