dl.bukkit.org - 451 Unavailable for Legal Reasons?

Discussion in 'Bukkit Discussion' started by extended_clip, Sep 3, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I feel potentially hit by the iron edges of the GPL, right now :). Whatever Bukkit is or can be, at some point the plugin API will come and there are a couple of questions to be answered on how and what with other mods. There is no doubt that using Bukkit as official API doesn't make any sense, so a Mojang-made plugin API has to come and some of the question have to be answered on the way there.

    Obviously Mojang is working towards integrating modding better, if you keep checking changes and reading the change lists at Mojang.com. I can't judge how far they are with a Plugin API and how far that will be at the time of release, of course.

    Who would've guessed that even after the initial discussions about GPL/LGPL back then, that they a GPL-kill-switch-bombs in a project like this, "for the good in the community" - of course this can only be speculation, as we can't be sure what's the case under which countries law and how much it actually affects stuff, and if it applies at all. Whose and which actions have done how much damage to the Bukkit community and the whole Minecraft community .... remains to be judged afterwards.

    If/once it's there it will be documented "somewhere", you can be sure that the API will not be obfuscated.
    jorisk322 likes this.
  2. Offline


    asofold likes this.
  3. Offline


    As said here you can see how the licensing will break down:

    Not quite sure how your math works, but it's been in development since 2012. The entire reason that bukkit was acquired was to build a new and better minecraft API that was directly integrated as part of the mojang minecraft server code.

    You can get the facts here:

    EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2016
  4. Offline


    God, I'm so sick of people accusing Mojang for all.

    If there is any company in the world, that is not greedy, it is Mojang.

    1. Mojang owns Bukkit for over 2 years now, the only time they used this was, when EvilSeph announced to stop Bukkit completly. If it weren't for Mojang, this forum wouldn't even exist anymore.
    They did not interfere ONCE before and let the Bukkit team do their work.

    2. Even before Mojang owned Bukkit, they had full control over it. They just had to send an DCMA and Bukkit would be gone.

    3. Realms is to Bukkit, what Bicyles are to Cars. They serve the same purpose, but have completly different use cases.
    Everyone who thinks Mojang tries to take over the whole server market with Realms is, excuse my words, fully retarded.

    4. According to statements from Mojang employees, Bukkit was provided the internal mappings for the update process.

    5. If Mojang wanted Bukkit to die, would not have interfered when it was about to die, or said it to die (they own it, remember?), or send an DCMA. ;)

    6. In what way does Mojang financially profit from the "new EULA"? Just because the problem they adress is over 2 years old, it doesn't mean they'll never fix it.

    7. Minecraft sales are still as strong as they used to be. ~10.000 per day.

    8. Mojang has at least 4 people + jeb, who are permanently dedicated to develop Minecraft PC and also a few for Minecraft PE (which's development recently helped the PC version).
    These 4 people were recruited out of the community, btw.
    The only other game Mojang distributes is Scrolls.

    9. The PluginAPI is about beeing developed. You can clearly see it, if you follow the changelogs and tweets.
    They're preparing the codebase to be able to hold the API effectivly.

    10. If there is anyone to blame for this Bukkit Drama, it is NOT Mojang (at least not as the main actor).
    Those who try to kill Bukkit once and for all are NOT Mojang, but those who think a DCMA is a good idea.
    If EvilSeph would've never announced to stop Bukkit, everything would be like before.

    The only things I'd blame Mojang for is the poor communication of the fact, that they own Bukkit and that they did not give the support to it, they should have.

    I feel very sorry for Mojang at the moment, because a bunch of idiots make their life so hard. I mean, there was a lot of talk lately about how Game Devs get harrased by their players, and I think this is true for Mojang as well.
    The problem about Minecraft and all about is not Mojang, it is a part of the Community.
    If you want Minecraft continue to exists, you should use your brains before you accuse Mojang of anything.
    They're not the government, who can be blamed everything...
  5. Offline


  6. Offline

    flying sheep

    Those two threads are loads of horseshit!
    The DMCA is righteous:

    Contributing code to a GPL project means that you offer code to be used under the terms of the GPL!

    This means that you still own the code and are able to take legal action if somebody uses your code while violating the license(=GPL) terms. You do not transfer ownership!

    Craftbukkit contains non-(L)GPL code (the decompiled minecraft server). (L)GPL, however, requires the whole project to be under the (L)GPL. Therefore Craftbukkit violates the LGPL and uses all contributions by all 181 contributors in violation of their license terms.

    i said Bukkit when i meant Craftbukkit. Sorry for further confusion, we really don’t need that.
    jonqrandom likes this.
  7. Offline


    DUDE! stop posting facts and making sense! you'll confuse people.
  8. Offline


    Please correct me if I am wrong, but bukkit does not contain the minecraft code, it refers to parts of the minecraft server jar. Bukkit is an API framwork as I understand it.

    Craftbukkit is the part of the bukkit project that incorporates the actual minecraft server jar. Craftbukkit uses the bukkit API to connect the dots as it were to the server.jar code.
  9. So in short any server using spigot or craftbukkit can be asked to close down.
  10. Offline


    you're not wrong. and the takedown was issued against craftbukkit.
    from: http://dl.bukkit.org/dmca/notification.txt
  11. Offline


    I feel this is good and bad at the same time.

    For one reason I think it is bad: We have to most likely re-code all of our plugins. If this occurs, pretty much all server developers will be confused with a new API which may or may not come.

    For one reason I think this is good: Mojang is developing the game for crying out loud! It can allow for more modifications including things that you couldn't do with Bukkit.

    And remember guys, Spigot is always around. Who says Spigot can't be the best server system out there? Half the biggest servers use their services. BungeeCord too! Spigot updated yesterday as well to support 1.8, not entirely, but to the point where at least 1.8 clients can join, which is pretty remarkable if you ask me.

    - AlzDoesMC/Alzeller1
  12. Offline


    spigot has also received a takedown notice which it intends to fight. spigot also seems to be suffering from the same issue as crafbukkit: distributing open and closed-source code in the same bytecode blob.
  13. Offline


    OK just was checking because of this statement:

    Emphasis mine, but wanted to clarify bukkit does not contain the minecraft server jar craftbukkit does.
  14. Offline


    To me, this seems to have been a very poor move. It's harming the community and servers that Mojang cares about, and Mojang can afford lawyers.
    Adzkii and jsalles like this.
  15. Offline


    I still have one question even after making this post; Why would someone file a DMCA complaint? What were they intending to do if/when Bukkit shut down? I know, you can say "Go read the other posts, you moron!", but considering there are countless messages discussing this, it shouldn't hurt to explain it again. Just copy-paste.
  16. Offline


    Spigot got a DCMA'd, too.

    However, Spigot wants to fight this activly.

    I really hope Mojang hurrys up with the Plugin API. I'm currently sick of this whole drama and parts of the MC community.
    AnorZaken and jsalles like this.
  17. Offline


    bastion yeah, that should have been craftbukkit rather than bukkit. it is important and i missed it.
  18. Offline


    Syd I'm pretty aware of that. I don't know why someone would DMCA all the open-source projects, however. How is it infringing them?

    Anyways. I'm offline for a while. See you guys in a couple of hours.

    Let's just hope this doesn't turn out to be hey0's mod all over again.
  19. Yeah spigot are gunning up with lawyers to fight this.
  20. Offline


    so far, there hasn't actually been any clear indication of what wolvereness is trying to get out of this, or accomplish by it.

    his complaint of infringement seems to be based on the fact that code he released under an open-source license is being distributed in a bytecode blob (a .jar in this case) that also contains and relies upon closed-source code to operate, in contravention (according to him) of the license he released under.

    if it is possible to release craftbukkit as an installer containing only LGPG code that requires a pre-existing vanilla server installation to run against, that may resolve the issue, so logic would suggest that might be the motivation behind this. or it could just be anger and spite. we're emotional creatures :/

    it says i can edit my post but the edit box shows up blank with no cursor :/
    should have read "containing only LGPL code". sorry.

    EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2016
    jsalles likes this.
  21. Offline

    flying sheep

    Very sorry to spew even more inaccuracies. I’ve now clarified that it’s about Craftbukkit!

    Here is a summary about all I know, with (I hope) speculations clearly marked.
    jonqrandom likes this.
  22. Offline


    Exactly!!! thats what I thought of too!!
  23. Offline


    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2016
    jsalles and Syd like this.
  24. Offline


    Just because Mojang claims ownership of Bukkit doesn't make it true, at least from the copyright prospective. In GPL works each contributor owns his or her share that they contributed. This was by design so that if anyone should infringe on the GPL of the completed work it would only take one contributor to shut them down.

    This is very much the way the Linux kernal works, for example. There are thousands of contributors. Each owning their own contribution to Linux. That way its practically impossible to change the way Linux is licensed.

    The only exception is if they signed an explicit legal document to transfer the ownership of the copyright to some central entity.


    jonqrandom that entire post is inaccurate. Just because an open source project gets its base from a closed source one doesn't mean that the license is magically invalid. Copyright applies to the written work and the translations from there. Not from the executable. An example of this is SourceMod for Valve's Source engine. They build a GPL licensed plugin for games like Counter-Strike. Just because it gets used with the proprietary Source engine does not magically negate their claim to GPL their own work.
  25. Offline


    Yes, welcome to yesterday, your behind. Things move fast on the internet.
  26. Offline

    flying sheep

    eeh, there are issues starting here:

    he provided his code under the terms of the LGPL. so only (L)GPL-compatible projects may do releases that execute his code. since mojang told him that their code in Craftbukkit isn’t LGPL, the Craftbukkit distributions use his code in violation of the GPL terms.

    that’s all which is needed for the takedown!

    the part about him wanting to relicense his code is silly and speculation. (he can’t even do that, the GPL is sticky and one can only relicense later versions, but any code snapshot that’s once GPL, stays GPL)

    Again, here my summary.
  27. Offline


    so mojang's claim of infringement against bukkit can be found where, please?
  28. Offline


    What are you talking about? YOU ARE BEHIND! Your quoting something I said yesterday before we had access Wolverness' written temper tantrum. At the time I wrote it we didn't know who was doing what, just that there was a DMCA takedown.
  29. Offline


    wow, ok, i missed that bit. jadedcat appears to be making an assumption about wolverness' motivations. not sure why, still, the rest of the post seems about right, neh?

    ah, it makes sense now. i was replying to a recent poster (the other person i tagged) who was replying very late to you. my apologies to you.

    EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2016
  30. Offline

    flying sheep

    yeah, everything up to that paragraph is OK, i think. and the stuff behind that paragraph is designated as speculation anywho ;)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page