GPL, UMC & intellectual property?

[Jodwin]

First, I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this but since my question is about UMC in general, not just some small subset, this wouldn't really fit into the specific forums either. Also, this might be brought up before but I took a look around and wasn't able to find any info, so...

Anyway, what I'd like to ask is to what extent GPL is applied to any user made content uploaded to the forums and/or to the campaign server? As far as I understand, the computer files uploaded are subject to GPL by default, and that's a pretty simple concept easy to understand. However, how, if at all, does GPL matter to the intellectual property (IP) behind material uploaded for Wesnoth? I know that copyrighted material isn't allowed on the server for obvious reasons, but what would happen if, for example, I created a scenario based on a short story I wrote and uploaded that? Certainly the WML code in the scenario would become GPL, but what about the story of the scenario?

Or for an other example, the add-on server includes some eras taking place in a completely different world, such as EoM and the Orbivm eras. Having been uploaded to the server, does the IP behind these eras also become GPL, or is GPL only applied to the computer files?

Last, assuming that GPL is by default applied to the IP as well, would it be technically possible to upload content to the server with a special license that puts the computer files under GPL while keeping the IP behind the material as property of its original owner?

Thanks!

[Unlucky Wizard]

I know that copyrighted material isn't allowed on the server for obvious reasons...

Technically, GPL material is also "copyrighted", isn't it?

[Tomsik]

As far as I know everything on add-on server is GPLed and uploading things on it is equal to agreement on licensing these under GPL.

[Turuk]

You can do a bit of research on GPL just by reading about it.

[turin]

You can do a bit of research on GPL just by reading about it.

Yeah, but I'm not sure that actually answers the question... obviously if the GPL is applied to, I guess, the "setting" of the era/campaign/whatever, then it's pretty straightforward, but can we assume that it is from what the agreement you click on says? I'd guess so, but...

[Iris]

First of all, I am not a lawyer.

Jowever, how, if at all, does GPL matter to the intellectual property (IP) behind material uploaded for Wesnoth

Reading the GNU General Public License itself you'd notice that authors do retain copyright on their works - however, the license allows certain freedoms for the redistributors of them, or derived works. Those freedoms are enforced by the terms that ensure that any redistribution of the original or derived work must be licensed under the same license and terms. The author may optionally choose to allow such redistribution under the terms of a newer version of the GNU GPL, if they choose so.

What people often call "copyrighted work" (misnomer) here is actually "unlicensed usage of copyrighted work". For the case of GNU GPL'd work, there are few ways of using it in unlicensed manners; one way would be publishing non-GPLd work under the GNU GPL without consent from the authors; the other way would be taking a GNU GPLd work and publishing it under an incompatible license - be it a permissive one like a BSD-style license, or a non-permissive one like most proprietary software licenses.

I'd say that the GPL applies too to what you call "intellectual property" (other misnomer) for Wesnoth UMC.

Last, assuming that GPL is by default applied to the IP as well, would it be technically possible to upload content to the server with a special license that puts the computer files under GPL while keeping the IP behind the material as property of its original owner?

Yes, it is technically and ethically impossible - either release your add-on under the terms of the GNU GPL, or distribute it under a custom license (that would most likely fall into the proprietary category) in a place that allows that; the official add-ons server is not such a place, of course. By trying to impose limitations to how your work may be used, you are defeating the purpose of the GNU GPL itself, which is to provide users with the freedom to improve, reuse and redistribute modifications of your work, and ensure that such freedom is not lost at any point of the redistribution chain.

There is a pretty long FAQ list regarding the GNU GPL at the GNU Project website.

[Turuk]

Yeah, but I'm not sure that actually answers the question... obviously if the GPL is applied to, I guess, the "setting" of the era/campaign/whatever, then it's pretty straightforward, but can we assume that it is from what the agreement you click on says? I'd guess so, but...

True, but as Shadow Master pointed out, anything that is released on the add-on server falls under GPL. The whole issue of GPL and intellectual property has been a point of contention for some companies lately in the news, but releasing a short story he wrote under GPL and then trying to claim intellectual property on it would probably not hold up in court. While there would be no argument that it is his, the terms state that anything released under GPL may be used or modified by anyone else, with the catch of it having to be released under the same terms. Now if someone took his story and made a best-selling movie....

[Max]

Now if someone took his story and made a best-selling movie....

not sure if i got that right:
the movie itself would then have to be GPLed as well. But the one who makes the movie would be better off by licensing the story from the original author to avoid this issue...

i guess the same would be true if someone wanted to commercially use one of the great pieces of music in wesnoth - he/she would just have to find the original contributor and make a good offer...

[Iris]

Now if someone took his story and made a best-selling movie....

Commercial stuff aside, that would probably be illegal unless the producers released the movie and its "sources"* under the GNU GPL, which they would obviously never be able/willing to do.

* script and technical stuff involved.

If they licensed the story from the original author, given that the story is GNU GPL'd already, problems would arise as well. The GNU GPL is not revocable once copies of the licensed work start circulating in a public medium. And you cannot make special exceptions to the use of your work such as "I allow XYZ to use distribute derived work under the terms of <insert proprietary non-permissive license here>" - that would defeat the purpose of the GPL again, technically and ethically.

[Max]

If they licensed the story from the original author, given that the story is GNU GPL'd already, problems would arise as well. The GNU GPL is not revocable once copies of the licensed work start circulating in a public medium.

the original author is not able to revoke the license, but free to issue whatever additional license he/she likes.

[Iris]

Um...

And you cannot make special exceptions to the use of your work such as "I allow XYZ to use distribute derived work under the terms of <insert proprietary non-permissive license here>" - that would defeat the purpose of the GPL again, technically and ethically.

[Ranger M]

Actually I believe Max2008 is correct, I know for example that I can submit any art that I do for my UMC to the server, and then also licence it under a CC licence when I add it to my deviantart account. I think that it's called duel licenceing, but it does mean that so long as anybody can prove that they obtained (or may have obtained, if they know of both sources) the licenced thing from the more permissively licenced source, then they can use the rules that that licence sets out. However only I as the original artist can do that, somebody making a derived work from my GPL'ed thing cannot release it under another licence.

[teddy]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... erGPLAndNF

I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs.

To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

[Jodwin]

Thanks for the replies so far. I'm not sure if everyone really got what I meant, so I'll try to explain a little better:
GPL is targeted to be used for software for the most part, and although it can be used for pretty much anything the legal jargon about it can be a bit confusing and not all comparisons between software and other "products" work perfectly. For example, if a final png image is for art what an executable for a program, then I guess the files used to create that png (.xcf in Gimp) would be the "source." But what about, say, a written story? What is the "source code" that GPL talks about in this case, where the story itself is the "final product"?

But that's only one part of the issue. The other part is, to what is the GPL applied to when I upload something to the server? "Everything" is a nice thing to say...but it doesn't really help here. What I'm uploading are computer files, and yes, the GPL is definitely applied to each and every file I upload. But what about the "immaterial property" related to the files? (Yes, this isn't really proper jargon since technically files are immaterial as well, but you know what I mean) To use EoM as an example, every file regarding the Warg-faction is certainly GPL'd, but how about the concept and stories of the Wargs? As you can't really upload a concept of the faction to the server (you know what I mean ), what is the legal status of that?

If I'd have to try making a comparison to the software world, lets say I write a program using bubble sort or any other algorithm in it. Certainly the code used to implement the algorithm becomes GPL, but what is the legal status of the algorithm itself once the license is applied?

[Iris]

To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

It still defeats the purpose of releasing something under the GNU GPL in the first place. If that proprietary licensing results in a better product, we will not be able to enjoy it in the sense of being Free software. Of course, it's an ethical issue, rather than technical, but it is still awkward.

For example, if a final png image is for art what an executable for a program, then I guess the files used to create that png (.xcf in Gimp) would be the "source."

In Wesnoth we consider the PNG files to be the source. That holds technically true most of the time for sprites.

(By the way, http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22098.)