Jump to content

Discussion of CKAN forking issues (split from another thread)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, damerell said:

github distribute software. To do that, they need permission from the copyright holder(s). CKAN don't distribute software.

[snip]

At no moment I said CKAN would be infringing any license. I'm saying CKAN would throw someone under the bus by claiming him/her exerted and additional restriction on its licensed material when using licenses as GPL and CC-SA.

These licenses says pretty clear that the licensor can not impose any additional restrictions, what includes the right to redistribute the material. If CKAN says that some work was not accepted due lack of consent of such a guy, such a guy is allegedly imposing restrictions on the licensed material - and so would be in license infringement himself.

So I'm kindly asking to not throwing authors under the bus by saying that. Say anything else, as some board deciding the work has not a place on CKAN or something. Just do not say anything about consent when GPL, CC-SA and similar licenses are involved..

Edited by Vanamonde
Tyops! Surprised?
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lisias said:

These licenses says pretty clear that the licensor can not impose any additional restrictions, what includes the right to redistribute the material. If CKAN says that some work was not accepted due lack of consent of such a guy, such a guy is allegedly imposing restrictions on the licensed material - and so would be in license infringement himself.

How is honoring an author’s request to not list their mod on Ckan be against the license?  Technically, Ckan could list all mods (and used to), but they are being good citizens  by honoring the request of the mod author.  Since when did being polite turn into a license violation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

How is honoring an author’s request to not list their mod on Ckan be against the license?  Technically, Ckan could list all mods (and used to), but they are being good citizens  by honoring the request of the mod author.  Since when did being polite turn into a license violation?

Again, and one more time. This is not about CKAN. This is about the author. When the work is licensed under GPL and CC-SA licenses, no additional restrictions can be applied by him.

So the author is not allowed to refuse a consent to the work be republished.

-- post edit --

Because the consent is already granted by the license, and the license explicitly forbids trying to withdraw any of the rights already granted by the license.

 

Edited by Lisias
pos edit
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lisias said:

Again, and one more time. This is not about CKAN. This is about the author. When the work is licensed under GPL and CC-SA licenses, no additional restrictions can be applied by him.

So the author is not allowed to refuse a consent to the work be republished.

 

You aren’t making sense.  The author is refusing consent to the work being listed in an index.  Ckan does NOT publish anything other than the index

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lisias said:

I'm saying CKAN would throw someone under the bus by claiming him/her exerted and additional restriction on its licensed material

That's why we don't claim someone has exerted additional restriction, but someone expressed their displeasure ("They don't want this mod indexed by CKAN"). This is perfectly fine with whatever license you can come up with.
Happy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lisias said:

At no moment I said CKAN would be infringing any license. I'm saying CKAN would throw someone under the bus by claiming him/her exerted and additional restriction on its licensed material when using licenses as GPL and CC-SA

You don't need to reiterate this argument. I understand it; it's just nonsense. CKAN wouldn't be claiming that, because CKAN doesn't modify or distribute software, so the author could not be forbidding them from modifying or distributing the software. This has also been explained to you several times already.

I wrote "github distribute software. To do that, they need permission from the copyright holder(s). CKAN don't distribute software." not because I failed to understand you, but because you appeared to be trying to draw an analogy between "Bob writes something, Alice uploads a modified version to github" and "Bob writes something, Alice modifies it, CKAN indexes Alice's version".

[snip]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

So the author is not allowed to refuse a consent to the work be republished.

And since CKAN doesn't republish anything, this is relevant to an author making an (unenforceable) request to CKAN not to do something else because...?

Edited by Vanamonde
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, damerell said:

And since CKAN doesn't republish anything, this is relevant to an author making an (unenforceable) request to CKAN not to do something else because...?

From the GPL:

Quote

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

0. Definitions.

<cut to save space>

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

Quote

2. Basic Permissions.

<cut to save space>

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

Source.

I will kindly abstain on further commenting about the rest of the post.

 

39 minutes ago, DasSkelett said:

That's why we don't claim someone has exerted additional restriction, but someone expressed their displeasure ("They don't want this mod indexed by CKAN"). This is perfectly fine with whatever license you can come up with.
Happy?

May I, so, recommend to CKAN maintainers simply avoid the word "consent", as well any other that could be interpreted as a further restriction when handling works under these and similar licenses?

Also, please understand that a derivative of that Add'On cannot be ruled out this way, or you could throw that other guy under the bus the same. Please use any other explanation - I'm not telling what you should or should not publish on CKAN, I'm just asking to be more attentive to what the licenses imply.

Edited by Lisias
Hit "Save" too soon.
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lisias said:

From the GPL:

A list of things CKAN doesn't do. So what's your point? (Also, please don't quote the GPL at me; I first read it - well, I read the pre-GPL licences that became it. I'm quite familiar with it.)

[snip]

51 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Please use any other explanation - I'm not telling what you should or should not publish on CKAN, I'm just asking to be more attentive to what the licenses imply.

Obviously you can't tell CKAN that because CKAN doesn't publish mods at all, the fundamental fact you are failing to grasp.

The licences imply restrictions on activities CKAN doesn't do and that a mod forker doesn't do when CKAN asks them about indexing their mod.

1 hour ago, damerell said:

And since CKAN doesn't republish anything, this is relevant to an author making an (unenforceable) request to CKAN not to do something else because...?

Please answer this question without dodging it - remember that this was written in response to "So the author is not allowed to refuse a consent to the work be republished", so you need to explain why that is relevant when CKAN doesn't republish anything.

Edited by damerell
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lisias said:

May I, so, recommend to CKAN maintainers simply avoid the word "consent", as well any other that could be interpreted as a further restriction when handling works under these and similar licenses?

Appreciate the advice. Can't make any promises, since none of the CKAN team are lawyers or have otherwise the time to carefully check the legal meaning of every word they type, and I for one am not even a native English speaker.
That should be it, then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

CKAN is a phone directory. It is not the Switchboard and neither is it anyone involved in the phone conversations.

Phone numbers are public domain but you can still ask phone directory companies not to list your phone number in their directory. 

I think its genuinely hilarious how much misunderstanding as to what CKAN is and how CKAN operates there is here. :D

Edited by Poodmund
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the crux of the argument is whether CKAN's indexing falls under the GPL definition of "propagation" or not, as part of the "in some countries other activities" clause. It seems pretty clear to me that indexing is not distribution, since CKAN does not store or transfer any actual mod source code or asset data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, if you asked a guy for directions to a restaurant, you wouldn't go back to him to complain that the food was bad.

I don't know how many more metaphors we can make about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DasSkelett said:

Appreciate the advice. Can't make any promises, since none of the CKAN team are lawyers or have otherwise the time to carefully check the legal meaning of every word they type, and I for one am not even a native English speaker.
That should be it, then?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. CKAN has no obligation to accept any submissions, and has the right to decline them at its discretion. The one that is not allowed to say "no" (as the license already granted such rights and the guy cannot revoke them without incurring in a breach of the license) is the Authors of the work (again, under GPL, CC-SA and similar licenses where the right to distribute and propagate are granted and cannot be revoked).

If CKAN cannot accept a submission to "propagate" a pirated copy of KSP, CKAN cannot accept a submission that propagates a work in breach of the GPL neither. It's the whole meaning of the paragraph:

Quote

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

Source.

Your signature says you are from Germany, so you can ask a local lawyer about this using this link instead. Keyword propagieren.

Please remember that different countries have different rules. On EU, linking to a copyright infringement material is a infringement itself because it's considered communication to the public. On USA, it does not - but CKAN users that eventually install the unlicensed material will be on copyright infringement for sure (it's the same logic used on torrents), and this is terribly bad.

TL;DR :

"The CKAN board decided this submission is not acceptable" it's OK. You don't even need to provide an explanation if you prefer.

"The submission was denied because we asked the guy that owns the repository you forked/download/took the work and he said no" it's not only NOT-OK, but you would be testifying that the guy is breaching the licensing terms. And once the guy had breached the licensing terms (and this is specially nasty on GPL, that just fully nullifies itself), Copyright Act bites: if the license is now null and void, the work is now unlicensed material (unless another license applies), and you would be essentially linking to a copyright infringement material.

Edited by Lisias
I had a second though on one of the answers. decided to play safe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about, "We asked the guy that owns the repository you forked/download/took the work and he said no so but on a completely internal, unrelated decision, the CKAN board decided this submission is not acceptable."?

19 minutes ago, Lisias said:

If CKAN cannot accept a submission to "propagate" a pirated copy of KSP, CKAN cannot accept a submission that propagates a work in breach of the GPL neither.

Its not a case of CKAN not being able to link to a pirated copy of KSP... its just that they don't want to. 

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

@moderators, since <snip> just doesnt seem to understand the valid points that many have posted regarding the topic, and this thread has just become a round and round argument, and since I'm officially the "owner" of this thread, and its not one I intentionally wished to start, and I would rather no longer be associated with it, can the thread be deleted? or at least locked, since it is going nowhere at this point?

Thanx!

Edited by Geonovast
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Poodmund said:

Its not a case of CKAN not being able to link to a pirated copy of KSP... its just that they don't want to. 

German UE Law appears to disagree with you.

Edited by Lisias
Fixing the argument
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lisias said:

German Law apperars to disagree with you.

Hmm... not so sure about that.

Quote

As previous case law has indicated, the existence of an ‘act of communication’ will depend on whether the user has played an ‘indispensable role’ through a ‘deliberate intervention’. Specifically, the user must have intervened, in full knowledge of the consequences of her action, to give access to a protected work to persons who would not otherwise have been able to enjoy it. [emphasis added] In light of its earlier case law, the Court concluded that any act by which a user, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, provides its clients with access to protected works is liable to constitute an ‘act of communication’.

CKAN doesn't work the same way as a torrent client. CKAN indexes mods that are already publicly available in cleartext. Anyone can go to the mod host sites and get the mods themselves, with the same end results as with CKAN. With torrent files, you cannot make use of them at all without a torrent client and an index site.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

CKAN doesn't work the same way as a torrent client. CKAN indexes mods that are already publicly available in cleartext. Anyone can go to the mod host sites and get the mods themselves, with the same end results as with CKAN. With torrent files, you cannot make use of them at all without a torrent client and an index site.

Fair enough. I stand corrected on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...