Open source DLL license

[Crashed]

Is EA aware that the license they released the Red Alert and Tiberian Dawn DLLs under is incompatible with the game? They released the DLLs under the GNU General Public License, which doesn't allow using as a loadable library with a proprietary process, i.e. this game on Steam.

Instead, if a DLL is intended to be loaded by proprietary programs, it should instead be licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, which does allow linking with a proprietary program as a loadable library like a DLL.

[Eclipse]

If I get to keep and play my game, does any of this really matter to me, the average gamer? lol

[Frolgath]

The GPL explicitly grants the modders the right to modify the code and to distribute it. Provided they don't also try to distribute the non-free game executable along with their mods they are doing nothing wrong.

I doubt the choice was between GPL and BSD-style licenses. A BSD-style license would allow other commercial games to use the code, and EA have no interest in that. The choice was between GPL and no release at all, or perhaps release under some "look but dont touch, we own everything, shared source" license. I for one am very glad they went with GPL.

[Aris]

which doesn't allow using as a loadable library with a proprietary process, i.e. this game on Steam.

That's not true. You can have a GPL DLL be loaded by a proprietary software. What you can't do is distributing the proprietary software and the GPL DLL as a single package, since in that case the proprietary software would be considered a derivative work and would need to be GPL.

This means: EA are the only ones that can distribute C&C propietary software + DLL since they're the copyright holders (remember GPL is a license to grant distribution rights to 3rd parties. As a copyright holder you don't have to adhere to it, you can do whatever you want).

Everyone else can only distribute the DLL + sources (remember: as per the GPL, you must always distribute the sources along side the binaries). No one other than EA can use these DLL in non GPL software (something that would be possible if EA distributed the sources under the LGPL, this is why they don't, and it's the big difference between GPL and LGPL).

[CobraA1]

Crashed の投稿を引用：

Is EA aware that the license they released the Red Alert and Tiberian Dawn DLLs under is incompatible with the game? They released the DLLs under the GNU General Public License, which doesn't allow using as a loadable library with a proprietary process, i.e. this game on Steam.

Instead, if a DLL is intended to be loaded by proprietary programs, it should instead be licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, which does allow linking with a proprietary program as a loadable library like a DLL.

My thoughts:

• Ultimately, EA owns the copyright. That means they have the ultimate right to do whatever they want with the material. Copyright infringement is when somebody who is not the owner makes copies.
  
• Remember the DLLs were originally proprietary. The addition of the GPL is likely only to the source code they made public - they still have a private copy of the code still under the original proprietary license. As far as we know, the compiled DLLs that come with the game are still under the proprietary license.
  
• Ultimately, this may end up restricting modders more than it restricts EA. You can't take the source code and use it in your own stuff unless you put the GPL on your own stuff.

As a personal aside: The "viral nature" of the GPL licenses does annoy me. I much prefer licenses like the MIT license, but I can understand EA not wanting to allow usage of the code in other proprietary products. This does actually work to their advantage as it means other games (which are usually proprietary) can't use it in their code, and I can see EA enforcing it if they think somebody is copying their code.

[Owlet VII]

Also my previous statements are not endorsements of permissive licenses, I'm glad it was released under a copyleft license.

[Crashed]

Owlet VII の投稿を引用：

Also my previous statements are not endorsements of permissive licenses, I'm glad it was released under a copyleft license.

LGPL is also a copyleft license. I never suggested a permissive license like BSD.

[Owlet VII]

Ultimately I don't think there's an issue here. Since EA is the copyright holder for both the C&C Remastered program, and the TiberianDawn.dll and RedAlert.dll libraries which it released under the GPL, C&C Remastered is not a derivative work and it can link to them. Am I missing something?

[EternalNooblet]

If you link to a GPL library AND include it with your distribution, then it applies the GPL to everything you have.

[Owlet VII]

No, you can't link to a GPL library in a non-GPL compatible program, distribution of the GPL library has nothing to do with it.

[Owlet VII]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPluginsInNF
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPlugins

Free Software Foundation の投稿を引用：

Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a nonfree program?

If they form a single combined program this means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the nonfree main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the nonfree main program.

Free Software Foundation の投稿を引用：

When is a program and its plug-ins considered a single combined program?

It depends on how the main program invokes its plug-ins. If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, and they establish intimate communication by sharing complex data structures, or shipping complex data structures back and forth, that can make them one single combined program. A main program that uses simple fork and exec to invoke plug-ins and does not establish intimate communication between them results in the plug-ins being a separate program.

If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single combined program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.

Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.

It seems to me that EA has not added such an exception to the license.

[Crashed]

Owlet VII の投稿を引用：

It seems to me that EA has not added such an exception to the license.

And thus the reason for my post. LGPL has such a linking exception built in (dynamic only), and yet is still a fully copyleft license so derivatives of the source code must still disclose their alterations.

[Owlet VII]

Maybe if one of the community council people sees this (and considers it worth their time), they could bring this up with their EA contacts. I know Nyerguds frequented here. I don't think re-licensing the code under LGPL would be much of an issue.

[Aris]

Crashed の投稿を引用：

Owlet VII の投稿を引用：

It seems to me that EA has not added such an exception to the license.

And thus the reason for my post. LGPL has such a linking exception built in (dynamic only), and yet is still a fully copyleft license so derivatives of the source code must still disclose their alterations.

The problem with using LGPL is that then anyone would be able to use those DLL's with their own proprietary software, something EA probably doesn't want.

[Owlet VII]

Aris の投稿を引用：

Crashed の投稿を引用：

And thus the reason for my post. LGPL has such a linking exception built in (dynamic only), and yet is still a fully copyleft license so derivatives of the source code must still disclose their alterations.

The problem with using LGPL is that then anyone would be able to use those DLL's with their own proprietary software, something EA probably doesn't want.

Well right now people do that anyway with the proprietary C&C Remastered and EA doesn't enforce their copyright over it like they're supposed to.

[printf("you C?");]

idk if someone wrote this before me, but:
The licencing under GPL is more or less bcs of OpenRA.
EA said that they would work together with the OpenRA Dev's (i heard that one Month ago).

Here is what EA wrote a few Days ago:
"Today we are proud to announce that alongside the launch of the Remastered Collection, Electronic Arts will be releasing the TiberianDawn.dll and RedAlert.dll and their corresponding source code under the GPL version 3.0 license. This is a key moment for Electronic Arts, the C&C community, and the gaming industry, as we believe this will be one of the first major RTS franchises to open source their source code under the GPL. It’s worth noting this initiative is the direct result of a collaboration between some of the community council members and our teams at EA. After discussing with the council members, we made the decision to go with the GPL license to ensure compatibility with projects like CnCNet and Open RA. Our goal was to deliver the source code in a way that would be truly beneficial for the community, and we hope this will enable amazing community projects for years to come."