FOSS gamedev and creative worlds

A GITHUB REPO HAS BEEN OPENED!

azekill_DIABLO wrote:guys, today i went to google-PLAY, and i searched "craft" and "mine" and i found over TWELVE games made with minetest and using famous mods and games of our community...Some of them where so bad that there was written minetest 4.12 android on the top of the screen.

The other thing is that most of them are full of ads and sometimes THEY ARE NOT FREE AND THEY COMPLETELY VIOLATE THE LICENSE.

Pls do something, this is very sad, some of them are more famous than the base game :€

It's kinda hard to do anything... other than to warn others, and inform them of the facts. As well as send the links to the devs and let them handle it. It's a crazy world out there. It's hard to keep control of anything these days.
And... maybe they didn't "intentionally" violate any license or laws :P (I shouldn't have but, I had too...)

Charging for software does not violate the gpl licenses. All the gpl says is that the source code must be available, which it is, except for any advertising templates (and they might be a separate library). As long as these guys don't modify the code, they can do pretty much anything they want with it.

The thing they can't do is claim that they wrote it. If they admit that it's minetest, they apparently aren't doing that.

They don't have to attribute Minetest at all, they only need to keep copy right in the source code. They need to provide a link to the source code to end users

TumeniNodes wrote: It's kinda hard to do anything... other than to warn others, and inform them of the facts.

its desperate to explain them, that the game multicraft isnt minecraft and that they play minetest...

If they every do violate the license and you have pointed this out to them and they have done nothing you can report them to the Software freedom conservancy
https://sfconservancy.org/

cool! i will soon post a poll, just to know wat u think of this.

Wanna see that!

added!!!!

EDIT -- the license is LGPL, not GPL

====

Helloo

Ubuntu+CentOS user here.

Minetest is license by c55 as GPL2+ This has the following notable consequences (and more, but hey)

* you are allowed to compile, distribute, modify, re-compile, rename and redistribute a modified version as you see fit
* however if someone asks you for the source code of the software you are distributing, you must provide it
* you can (as per GPL3 explicitly stated, but under GPL2 implied) protect your trademark and prevent people from compiiling with trademarked media or verbal items (se CentOS v RedHat; IceWeasel v Firefox), but you cannot prevent people from re/using the code

People making ill-compiled client software do us a disservice, and as such it is probably fine that they make sure that they do not use Minetest in any advertising, claims or branding - on the contrary, the holders of the Minetest trademark (if any such at all!) should enforce this omission in the first place.

In the above poll, I voted for more communication. The desktop client on Linux works well, though the Mac one (I do have a mac...... *cough*) tends to crash on exit - even though it otherwise seems to work fine. I don't have a Windows unit to test with.

Probably the main thing to do would be to get an "official" mobile version out there, explicitly marked as alpha, and push people to use the desktop version (in the interim, until someone wants to own the mobile client's development process), and specifically ask knock-offs not to brand as Minetest. (HTML5 version anyone.....? beat MineC to the punch....?)

The other corollary of the license means that it is specifically a contract, and that anyone breaching the contract would have to be taken to courts to litigate or enforce or seek damages. People compiling knock-offs are not "breaking the law" even if they don't attribute or provide the code until compelled by a Court of Law to do so - there is no precedent in law or ruling to this effect.

At this point in time, what Minetest does have is the option of trademarking: I would urge one of the core devs to register a trademark, or for a nominal foundation to be created to own the trademark. The rest should follow pretty ingenuously.

Thoughts?

those things are not respected at all:

* however if someone asks you for the source code of the software you are distributing, you must provide it
* you can (as per GPL3 explicitly stated, but under GPL2 implied) protect your trademark and prevent people from compiiling with trademarked media or verbal items (se CentOS v RedHat; IceWeasel v Firefox), but you cannot prevent people from re/using the code

People making ill-compiled client software do us a disservice, and as such it is probably fine that they make sure that they do not use Minetest in any advertising, claims or branding - on the contrary, the holders of the Minetest trademark (if any such at all!) should enforce this omission in the first place.

taikedz wrote:At this point in time, what Minetest does have is the option of trademarking: I would urge one of the core devs to register a trademark, or for a nominal foundation to be created to own the trademark. The rest should follow pretty ingenuously.

celeron55 already considers Minetest to be an unregistered trademark, but many popular clones that appeared on the app stores do not use the "Minetest" branding.

yep, but lot of them does...

There is already an official app on Google play. Minetest by Nrz

Other apps should credit Minetest in their description, but shouldn't use the name in their title or the logo in their image.

OMG
https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... ecraftplus
https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... ion_4_mine
...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... ketedition
https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... ketedition

Even more: https://play.google.com/store/search?q=minetest&c=apps

rubenwardy wrote:There is already an official app on Google play. Minetest by Nrz

Ah right. I know I found 2 "minetest" apps in the past, not knowing if either was official-from-core-devs (and ssuming neither was). Would be nice to know/be explicitly stated....

rubenwardy wrote:Other apps should credit Minetest in their description,

Actually I don't think crediting in descriptions is required. Copyright notices in the code must be kept yes, and any lists of contributors in the file set; but nothing says it should be stated in the "marketing" so to speak.

rubenwardy wrote:but shouldn't use the name in their title or the logo in their image.

Noted that celeron55 considers it an unregistered trademark, but I don't know where that stands in terms of representation rights in various jurisdictions.... and it only stands at all if the trademark is actively enforced.

Maybe it would be of interest to keep a wiki-ish (or git?) list of trademark/copyright breachers and do a mini-campaign to set our world to rights by sending stern letters? :-p

maybe...

taikedz wrote:

rubenwardy wrote:Other apps should credit Minetest in their description,

Actually I don't think crediting in descriptions is required. Copyright notices in the code must be kept yes, and any lists of contributors in the file set; but nothing says it should be stated in the "marketing" so to speak.

I forgot to add ethically should.

I thought that Minetest was LGPL, not GPL..

benrob0329 wrote:I thought that Minetest was LGPL, not GPL..

It is "LGPLv2.1 or later" indeed.

EDIT - upon reviewing the text of the LGPL, it explicitly states that mention of the use of the library (engine, here) needs to be prominent - possibly invalidating my below assertions.

+++

That all depends on whether the upstream project (minetest) wants the downstream (playstore apps, in this case) to be associated with their name.... which is a useful corollary of it not being part of the license.

Core devs would have to comment really. I jest about sending stern warnings to the "offenders" as we're not trademark owners, and don't know what the official wish is.

Seriously, do we want to enforce the minetest name being associated with an ill-managed derivative?

Calinou wrote:

benrob0329 wrote:I thought that Minetest was LGPL, not GPL..

It is "LGPLv2.1 or later" indeed.

Indeed. Mea culpa.

azekill_DIABLO wrote:yep, but lot of them does...

I would imagine, it might be best..., if you see any which violate the license, post a link and let c55 or one of the devs act on it if they feel it is warranted?
Trying to reason with people who do this is often either useless, or they apologize and then respect the terms.

To abide by the license, the game should include (as was mentioned before) a link to the source code (on GitHub). If a game DOES violate the license, then you can do as mentioned by TumeniNodes, and post a link. I believe you can also report apps/games directly from the Google Play Store. (Sorry, can't confirm that though. The Play Store won't load for me.. who knows why...)

Yes, you can report apps on the Play Store. (Which I have done many a times)

Great! we must start now! we have a way to counter this!

i'm happy to see that the poll interested many people!!

endev15 wrote:To abide by the license, the game should include (as was mentioned before) a link to the source code

Indeed. I should add, this should be the relevant section of the LGPL (emphasis mine)

4. Combined Works.

You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following:

a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.

b) Accompany the Combined Work with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document.

c) For a Combined Work that displays copyright notices during execution, include the copyright notice for the Library among these notices, as well as a reference directing the user to the copies of the GNU GPL and this license document.

d) Do one of the following:

* 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
* 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.

e) Provide Installation Information, but only if you would otherwise be required to provide such information under section 6 of the GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information is necessary to install and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version. (If you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must accompany the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the Installation Information in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.)

I am not a lawyer, so I may be talking rubbish, but section 4d effectively makes integrating a LGPL-licensed library/engine extremely difficult to do for the Play Store without being afoul of the license - so basically any non-official copy that hinders or does not provide a mechanism for the user to update the underlying minetest copy would be in violation. Is this corect?