So who owns the copyright for the plugins ?

Discussion in 'Spigot Plugin Development' started by NacOJerk, May 10, 2017.

  1. NacOJerk

    Supporter

    is it me owning my plugins
    Or is it spigot owning my plugins ?
     
  2. You own your own material which is licensed under LGPL just like bukkit, due to the terms of the LGPL licensing.
     
  3. As stated in resource rules you own the plugin.
     
  4. MiniDigger

    Supporter

    actually, bukkit is gpl, craftbukkit is lgpl.
    but yeah. every plugin is automatically licenced under the gpl as to the rules defined in that license.
    spigot doesn't have todo much with that.
    if you upload your resources to spigot you are additinally subject to spigots TOS which state:
    "You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content."
     
  5. Except that line is probably unenforceable in a legal context and I'm willing to bet that if someone were to file a DMCA or lawsuit they would quickly salvatore that statement. Specifically the "permanent/irrevocable" part.
     
  6. MiniDigger

    Supporter

    as are most TOS ^^

    same for the gpl. go buy AAC and then ask konsolas for source access and see how he reacts ^^
     
  7. technically you can sue him if not, cant you?
     
  8. [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. WAS

    WAS

    Definitely not enforceable. They used the word non-exclusive instead of inclusive. Not to mention most of that statement contradicts ICL (which you must adhear to when writing an agreement like this).

    Both Evanto and Fiverr tried this when they opened doors. Any mention of them having rights to your intangible products has since been removed.

    Additionally using an API does NOT bind you to ita license. It binds you to that APIs data usage. Your code is your code, no matter what it references. The LGPL only covers data from Spigot API. Just like I can write snippets for Spigot and release the MIT. It is not Spigot API itself.
     
    #9 WAS, May 10, 2017
    Last edited: May 10, 2017
  10. fakers will say its hate

    but srsly did he really answer yes? xD
     
  11. MiniDigger

    Supporter

    well, its your right as a user of the software to get a copy of the sourcecode and the right to modify it to your liking
     
  12. WAS

    WAS

    Of course it's not a right. Lol It's a privilege. What all of FOSS is based on. The willingness to, nothing about being forced, or granting rights. Just like Open Source software can go Closed Source at any time and change their license on future builds.
     
  13. change bukkits license for me. it enforces anything depending on it requires its license, GPLv3, making me allowed to demand the source code.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. WAS

    WAS

    If it's open source, and under such license, a means should already be available,whether shipped with or linked, there should be no reason to demand anything, that would mean the license is not being correctly followed and void.

    Example: I make version 1.0 of my software open source. Version 2.0 is now closed source and paid for. I removed links to 1.0. Someone obtains 1.0 without the source code. I am in no way obligated to provide the source. Or maybe they have the source and just want a bundled copy, or whatever the case.
     
  15. As long as the product is publicly available under your distribution, be it another company's servers or not, you're obliged to provide source code under GPLv3 if a user requests it.
     
  16. WAS

    WAS

    Again, that is not true. As the holder of the license, if I do not support, or offer it, that is the case. Period. Most especially to 3rd party distributors. Even with most plugins, only the Main class and those that are actual sub-classes and not just using the API are subject to Spigots license, aka the "data".

    Boy if you couldn't just use frameworks and APIs with limited interference there wouldn't be any.