Bukkit is not dead.

Discussion in 'Bukkit Discussion' started by pookeythekid, Sep 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Offline


    spigot has their own (almost fully compatible) version of bukkit. you can compile it yourself following their instructions, and it is 1.8 compatible. To avoid issues I've seen with people providing links to alternates, in the past weeks, I'll refrain from giving an actual link, but will say that it is under the news and announcements header on the spigot site.
  2. Offline


    Have you hired a lawyer who is advising you on the claims you are making, or are these based on your own interpretations of law?

    I question whether he is ever planning on a real court case, or if his plan is just to threaten legal action in the hopes that it will be enough to get his way.

    Not if the GPL actually allows for that method.

    That may or may not be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the specific clauses that he is referencing in the license.

    EDIT by Timtower: merged posts
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2014
  3. Offline


    Whether or not you agree with this, I believe Adam has a perfectly valid point. Spigot may not be distributing a finished, illegal version of CraftBukkit, but the end product of the separated items and the tool they give you is the same thing as that illegal CB. At least, that's my interpretation of what he's saying. I know Spigot did some recoding and stuff, but based on what I've read in this thread, it appears the recoding wasn't enough to regain stable ground.
    AdamQpzm likes this.
  4. It's just not the same thing, also not legally and i assume they're not the same seen from GPL/FSF. If you go back at "what things are meant to be", then you can't stop where you had decided that the DMCA is "ok-ish", but you have to go back to where the license had been chosen. The GPL is not meant for this kind of case, so you can't really construct an overall convincing argument with "legal but cheating" here.

    If or if not Spigot has a valid license might be decided on other grounds, but i think the timing question won't be striking here, you'd finally end up at court with that, where it finally might add up, that Wolvereness has contributed to the license violations for two years (claiming to have contributed to CB under GPL without noting so in the files means to have placed the bomb yourself).
  5. Offline


    @asofold Legally it isn't the same thing, I'll agree with that. But a running server that functions with plugins and is under the name of Spigot? If you don't care about code or licensing or any crap that normal people don't understand, I'd say the finished product is generally the same thing as if it were handed to you as a compiled jar.
  6. What makes it the same thing? You have other mods running plugins (not all Bukkit though), they're not exactly the same thing, but players might not notice. If you go for "what it means", did you reconsider what the DMCA means and what the choice of license for the initial project means? What means stopping it what means continuing it?

    In my opinion, if this is legal, you have to question the transition from the "original state" to the DMCA in the first place (or again).

    I'll stay with that it's not the same, if licenses are valid. For someone who wants to kill the code it's a difference, because the plan probably ends up "not working", but that need not bother us in this case. If the licenses are valid, this probably is one of the ways the project should have turned to earlier on, given the initial licensing. The alternative would have been to use a different licensing from start. In that sense what Spigot represents is a repair attempt, not an attempt to destroy or take away something. On this argument you can't turn back and say "Wolvereness has the right to... so they are cheating", because he doesn't have that right in this context (provided the used method is legal). If they feel better with coming to an agreement about officially accepting the licensing and doing without future claims, in order to get to more calm waters, i can't tell.
  7. Offline


    @asofold I meant it's the same thing in that it runs Bukkit plugins. I believe that's what most (simple) server owners care about.

    As for Spigot attempting to rescue a dying CraftBukkit, I respect them for that. It's a great thing that they're trying to revive a server mod that thousands of servers run off of. I simply question their action in doing so if it's not on totally stable ground. If there are any loopholes that Wolfe can find, then Spigot's CB may not be as solid as it could/should be.
  8. Offline


    This has been a very informative thread. I am not a lawyer, but I have been studying this issue since the "revised EULA" fiasco began.

    Honestly, I'm still totally unclear as to who is legally "right" on the various points. Did the Spigot team ever legally regain their license to the work? Did they violate it again by bytecode modifying infringing binaries?

    Presuming that they weren't in violation of the license at the time they created the new build tools, do the new works violate the license? Presuming they provide only valid modified works, and a build tool to create a binary linked with the mojang code, is this a violation?

    Then, there's the whole situation around whether or not wolvereness participated in breaking the GPL license, when he worked as part of the Bukkit team, distributing illegal copies of their own works.

    (BTW, I'm not looking for more "armchair quarterback" debate on these items.)

    I think this case has opened up a whole can of worms that I would really like to see folks like the FSF get involved in. This can't be the first, nor will it be the last time a project was compromised by ambiguities like this.

    I think the moral of the story is that the Bukkit software should never have been licensed under GPL in the first place, since it appears that license has never been valid.

    I will continue to watch this issue with interest. :)

  9. Offline


    @Sage905 At first I'd figured what Spigot did to their version of CraftBukkit made everything on their side totally valid, and that everything was fine with them now. But, as I read through this thread, I found out that apparently it isn't on totally stable ground. And then when I found out that they have quite a loophole through what I hear Wolfe is going after them about now, I begin to question their ground as well.

    As for the GPL license: Eh, I'd say it was a mistake to use Minecraft Server code in CraftBukkit in the first place. Apparently, as demonstrated by the Trident project (feel free to make me aware of others), you don't need Mojang's code to make a functional, modded Minecraft server.
  10. Offline


    Gerov I also wanna say this, u caught my words.
  11. Offline


    Could you post any trident youtube videos? I see none yet which makes me think Trident isn't running yet. I'm interested if it is.

    Spigot is running and many servers (including some big ones) have been using spigot for a couple weeks. About 160/190 issues have been resolved. Even if the repositories go away, everyone who builds spigot downloads a complete copy of the source needed to build it and then builds it. So there is no single repository that can be shut down any more and everyone is aware the current repository could be closed at any time so they stay up to date.

    The current version is probably good enough to get players to Minecraft 1.9 and 1.9 may contain the API (lol .. ha ha.). But seriously.. Mojang has been doing a lot of API work in the code and a working API is probably higher priority now.

    And anyway, while the new features are nice- we could probably stay on 1.7.10 for another year. Heck- there are still servers running 1.45 and 1.6.

    It's a legal issue. Each side thinks they have good legal standing for their positions. Spigot hired a lawyer who told them how they could proceed legally. Some (including Wes obviously) think the spigot team is not proceeding legally. It may or may not go to court at some point. It seems like a legal squabble between groups who have few resources and no assets to lose.

    It certainly makes me leery of using GPL and LGPL. I've read there are several other licenses which would have avoided this issue if they had been arbitarily chosen instead back when this started.

    From where I'm sitting- it absolutely doesn't hurt most minecraft players. All it hurts are minecraft players playing on large servers who want to go to 1.8.1. They've already paid mojang their money so there are no lost revenues there.

    The new players I know of are playing on realms, xbox, small servers, phone platforms, and single player mode on their own machine. None will be effected by the large multiplayer server issue until long after they bought the game.

    So I can't see how the DMCA hurts mojang-- it only hurts players who already paid for the product, who are on a large server, and who feel playing on version 1.8.1 is a dealbreaker issue to them. In another post, I likened the DMCA to Wes burning down the garage apartment to hurt people in the main house down the drive. Only people in the garage apartment are being hurt.

    The entire thing has been interesting for me since now I have an eclipse set up and I've written a couple plugins and a world generator plugin. Before I was mainly just consuming minecraft as a player/scenario builder and not even visiting the forums much. Now I'm programming again (first time since I retired) and enjoying it a lot. Staying up way too late!

    Well off for Hobbit marathon tomorrow! Peace. Out.
  12. I agree with the most of what you write, it doesn't affect the huge amount of players, neither would it affect M+M, other than being a thing where you can burn one or another of your fingers, if you do anything in relation to it at all.

    My impression is that the big servers are actually faster on bringing in new/interesting stuff, in case of an update taking too long, at least as a temporary addition. Medium to small server owners often don't have the resources to make something up on the short term. At least i can say that with an update taking too long, the player count is becoming lower and lower, but people still hang out on other servers (big ones too, maybe vanilla).

    Concerning Spigot i am more optimistic. The GPL has a lot of potential for creating trouble in this context, due to being used in the wrong way and/or place, but also because law is a couple of decades behind (as usual), and it's hard to tell where either countries law will go to (hopefully they don't use GOTO, though). Lucky that the DMCA (KISS: let the receiver deal with it) ~thing doesn't seem to work in the current setting.
    mactso likes this.
  13. Offline


    A month ago, Trident was at this stage. And here, Skionz notes that the commits are flowing steadily, so I'd say Trident is getting pretty darn close to release. I'm definitely joining the flock to that project to make some plugins when they're all done and have a working server and API.
    mactso likes this.
  14. Offline


    Thanks Pookey!
    I looked at Trident, it's wiki and JIRA pages.
    They don't have a public release yet but it looks like they have a good team and good momentum.
    pookeythekid likes this.
  15. Offline


    It shouldn't make you leery of using the GPL and LGPL, but it would make sense for any big open source project to get all contributors to transfer their individual rights to the project before accepting any of their code. It is a less-than-ideal use of open source for someone to join an active project a year after it began, add code and then use that code 30 months later as justification to DMCA the project. A project with hundreds of contributors could be derailed by any of them claiming copyright violations through a DMCA takedown.
    mactso and Gnat008 like this.
  16. Offline


    From what I have read, w/ spigot as it is now, they are not releasing under GPL, and as such the whole issue is non existent. those wanting to contribute to Spigot and their version of craftbukkit, have to sign a release, giving the spigot community full permission to both change and distribute via a CLA (Contributor Licence Agreement) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Vr3oLTgnVuRUJKWmtORXJrM2M/view?usp=sharing . Since they Have seemingly re-coded the code that brought about the DCMA, and have permission from contributors, the issue is resolved is it not?
  17. Offline


    As I understand it, Spigot downloads and decompiles net.minecraft.server code on the fly and then patches it with CraftBukkit modifications instead of distributing net.minecraft.server code with CraftBukkit. Because compiled net.minecraft.server code is the crux of the DMCA dispute, this separates the non-GPL licensed net.minecraft.server code from GPL-licensed Bukkit code.

    At least that's the premise. But it's a really funky build process and I'm not clear on all of what it's doing.
  18. They did not remove the GPL from Bukkit/CraftBukkit, but they changed the build process to use a patching technique to be executed by the end user, instead of mixing the non-free code with GPL code directly and distributing that, as rcade already has mentioned.

    I don't know if they actually have recoded the parts Wolvereness has added (and i don't know if it would go both for Bukkit and CraftBukkit...). They did change the CraftBukkit code, so all parts that mix with decompiled code from the Minecraft server will just be snippets to be patched into the decompiled code, but they don't do that themselves, so they only distribute the LGPL/GPL code and a description of how to build it. From what i read this is a sound approach, the last serious argument that i have heard against it was not about the process of Spigot (!), but about the timing when they are allowed to bring the project back to compliance, together with the claim that they have not done so timely and thus Wolverness would have to grant them the license explicitly, because that had already been "removed" ~ not an exact description, but i don't follow that reasoning, for a better understanding learn this by heart: https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guide.html . And teach us after understanding all of it :p.

    The CLA just ensures that things like this can not happen again, so current/future contributors can't go back and blow up the project, in case of some other law/license deficiency.
  19. Offline


    Im worried even when it would be recoded the commits laying in the history still could be shown as a work from someone, but ive no idea if that works like that with github and stash Im not the lawyer so.

    I only hope it doesn't going to end like patent rights, ive readed something very scary about open source and that is even when you use GPLv3 or perhaps it was a other license an algorithme for example can be a patent, so if someone forks your project and modifies it he can start lawsuite people because it invalidate the main license from where it was forked from.

    I don't know if Im saying it correctly with about the algorithme license it was a long time ago ive readed that but it did realised me that whenever Im going to program something new or with encryptions in specific I will make it private or use GNU(need to research that) because it seems a pretty much grey area there.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page