The GPL licence applies to Bukkit, so by selling plugins, the developers are not following the licence.
"Example 5: Programmer X wishes to write a class D, that is a subclass of existing class B. Class B is subject to the terms of the GPL. If X distributes D, does it have to be licensed under the terms of the GPL?
The answer given in the GPL FAQ is short and to the point: "Subclassing is creating a derivative work." In our example, this makes D a work derived from B, and thereby makes D subject to the terms of the GPL upon distribution."
Short terms: Spigot uses Bukkit, GPL says Spigot is now a GPL because they use Bukkit code. Plugins use Spigot/Bikkit code, GPL says plugins have to follow GPL.
Wait! The GPL says I can sell my derivative work!
Yes, you can, if you provide the source code.
Along with the illegal monetization of plugins by developers, obfuscating code is also against the GPL (Most developers do this)
"This means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way."
obfuscating code is also against the GPL (Most developers do this)
What about obfuscating a mod with MCP? That is required since the names within vanilla are obfuscated and you'd have to deobfuscate the entire jar and distribute that deobfuscated jar in order to use non-deobfuscated mods with it, which is obviously against the ToS (distributing an entire working jar), although MCP doesn't obfuscate your own variable/method/class names, but my mods still modify a lot of vanilla code which is in turn obfuscated. The entire process of modding the game is technically illegal; the EULA for most software forbids you from decompiling and modifying it (even for your own use, much less distributing those changes) and Mojang does not officially support modding, though they don't condemn it either unless it is for illegal activities. I also see modders break the EULA by posting their source code online, which includes parts of Mojang's original code.
In any case, this is like those servers that still violate the EULA by selling non-cosmetic items and ranks - even after being reported to Mojang, who has not taken any action (that I know of).
Also, something else I'm wondering about; the EULA includes this line (looks like it was added the last time they updated it in October 2015):
By "Mods," we mean something original that you or someone else created that doesn't contain a substantial part of our copyrightable code or content.
So, if I modify, say, the cave generation code by editing a couple numbers does that violate the EULA because 99.9% (literally) of the class is unchanged? Sure, I could make my own class that extends it and overrides the method in question (which would still include a good amount of unaltered code) - but would also have to modify another class - again, just a very small change - in order to point to my class instead of the original; this almost sounds like a way to make only Forge mods legal (Forge itself modifies the jar but only distributes the patches required to do so) and even then I've seen many Forge mods that basically copy the vanilla code with a few changes (for example; most of the method "func_151538_a" is exactly the same as vanilla, the variables "sizeControl" and "frequencyControl" replace the numbers I mentioned above).
This applies even more to my biggest mod, TMCW, with over 100 classes edited, many with relatively small changes, such as changing a few methods in the "World" class. I've also added new trees and biomes and more by copying and modifying vanilla code, as I'm sure other modders have, in part because it gives you a framework to build on, plus you often have to use the vanilla fields and methods anyway, or make your own methods which still have to be integrated with the base code.
Are you referring to my remark about mods not being allowed to contain a "substantial" part of Mojang's unaltered code? 99.9%* sure does sounds like a "substantial" part, as is changing one or two small methods in a 142 KB class (1.6.4's World.java, of which I changed the regional difficulty calculation and added my own setBlock method for fast world generation of mesa and other biomes). In TMCW I even copied entire classes from 1.7+ and made just a few modifications (e.g. replaced Block.x with Block.x.blockID) to get stuff like mega taigas and their 2x2 trees, copied/edited some of the textures (I've seen some talk over mods illegally using Mojang's assets by slightly modifying their textures, e.g. my mod's amethyst sword is simply a recolored default texture), and so on. And no, none of my mods use Forge.
*12968 bytes for 1.8's MapGenCaves with 3 bytes edited to 4 bytes; the actual code size is smaller since MCP adds a lot of whitespace but it is still close to that.
This post is misleading there is nothing illegal about coding and selling plugins and hiding your code. If you’re buying a preexisting one. The author is the one who choose what’s it licensed on it and if you have a plugin made for you the creator of the plugin can hold the right to distribute the plugin for themselves or transfer ownership of the plugin to the buyer.
Also most of the people I know who sell plugins, create it and produce a finial versions that is a GPL, this version does not contain their true source code and was never meant to contain it. They are delivering a product that only needs the code it has to function in it, not all of the coding used to create the plugin
Technically mod developers aren't even supposed to be making players download their mods through ad.fly links because they are making money from it, but they do it anyways. They are welcome to do it for people to support them, but they are required to also share a mirror link to the direct download (although some do this, not all). It's not just server owners that don't care about the EULA. Hell, Mojang doesn't even really care. When have you heard of some server/mod being taken down for violating the EULA?
Also, I don't know where people started the "You can only sell cosmetic items" idea from. I guess they haven't read the EULA either. You can sell anything in your "donation" store as long as people who don't donate have an equal chance of getting the item as well. This means having an item that everybody will receive when monthly donation goals are met, rewards for voting or playtime, etc. The only restriction I believe (unless they changed it) is Vanilla items. But if you want to create a package of supercrate keys, GriefPrevention claim blocks, etc. you can so long as non-donating players receive those same packages via other means (voting, play time, login reward, monthly donation goal, etc.) It's also okay to sell in-game currency through your donation store as long as there's no way for that currency to be converted back into real cash.
Hi, I was told that it was not ok to sell sell in-game currency in your donation stores and that you cant sell items or keys that only effect one Individual.We recently had a discussion with our legal advisory about minecraft servers and this was the conclusion reached. It however is possible to sell in game items as an lockable bonus that any player on the server can have these bonuses can be available for a period of time then remove. Once expired the donation goal must be reached again for the items to become available for everyone.The only individual items that you can sell separately our cosmetic ones and commands that do not affect game-play.
Also there is a now a community underground movement that has begun collecting information on servers that violate the EULA. They have set up Google doc sites that allow people to submit screenshots webpages and the addresses of servers that are violating. They plan to turn this information over to mojang however their list of servers with the proper information that a violation is occurring can be used by anyone to DOS though servers or harass them so the actual list is not available to the public you can only submit the information to them. The reason being a underground movement is the fact that you are not allowed to slander/negatively portray anyone/server on most mine craft sites including this one.
Also, I don't know where people started the "You can only sell cosmetic items" idea from. I guess they haven't read the EULA either. You can sell anything in your "donation" store as long as people who don't donate have an equal chance of getting the item as well. This means having an item that everybody will receive when monthly donation goals are met, rewards for voting or playtime, etc. The only restriction I believe (unless they changed it) is Vanilla items. But if you want to create a package of supercrate keys, GriefPrevention claim blocks, etc. you can so long as non-donating players receive those same packages via other means (voting, play time, login reward, monthly donation goal, etc.) It's also okay to sell in-game currency through your donation store as long as there's no way for that currency to be converted back into real cash.
"You are allowed to sell in-game items so long as they don’t affect gameplay We don’t mind you selling items in game, but they must be purely cosmetic. Pets, hats, and particle effects are OK, but swords, invincibility potions, and man-eating pigs are not. We want all players to be presented with the same gameplay features, whether they decide to pay or not."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
The GPL licence applies to Bukkit, so by selling plugins, the developers are not following the licence.
"Example 5: Programmer X wishes to write a class D, that is a subclass of existing class B. Class B is subject to the terms of the GPL. If X distributes D, does it have to be licensed under the terms of the GPL?
The answer given in the GPL FAQ is short and to the point: "Subclassing is creating a derivative work." In our example, this makes D a work derived from B, and thereby makes D subject to the terms of the GPL upon distribution."
Short terms: Spigot uses Bukkit, GPL says Spigot is now a GPL because they use Bukkit code. Plugins use Spigot/Bikkit code, GPL says plugins have to follow GPL.
Wait! The GPL says I can sell my derivative work!
Yes, you can, if you provide the source code.
Along with the illegal monetization of plugins by developers, obfuscating code is also against the GPL (Most developers do this)
"This means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way."
Btw, most plugin developers don't obfuscate code. (I've never seen a plugin developer obfuscate code before, unless for private exclusive server plugins)
Just saying, if people created plugins for free, builders helped for good will and donations would only be based in just player donations, and not buying something, this could be a better world.
Technically mod developers aren't even supposed to be making players download their mods through ad.fly links because they are making money from it, but they do it anyways. They are welcome to do it for people to support them, but they are required to also share a mirror link to the direct download (although some do this, not all). It's not just server owners that don't care about the EULA. Hell, Mojang doesn't even really care. When have you heard of some server/mod being taken down for violating the EULA?
Also, I don't know where people started the "You can only sell cosmetic items" idea from. I guess they haven't read the EULA either. You can sell anything in your "donation" store as long as people who don't donate have an equal chance of getting the item as well. This means having an item that everybody will receive when monthly donation goals are met, rewards for voting or playtime, etc. The only restriction I believe (unless they changed it) is Vanilla items. But if you want to create a package of supercrate keys, GriefPrevention claim blocks, etc. you can so long as non-donating players receive those same packages via other means (voting, play time, login reward, monthly donation goal, etc.) It's also okay to sell in-game currency through your donation store as long as there's no way for that currency to be converted back into real cash.
The idea of "selling" anything in a "donations store" just really seems like an oxymoron to me.
The idea of "selling" anything in a "donations store" just really seems like an oxymoron to me.
It is. The servers are selling a product, but they're presenting it as you donating to receive some rewards. But it really isn't like that at all. I don't even mind the idea of selling items on servers (though I don't support it, simply because it is against the EULA), but presenting that as donating feels a lot like false advertising. If it was just donating, it would just give you a rank and some other ways to show people you're support, like a pet or a coloured name. This /kit EpicEliteMasterPVP nonsense is really not a 'donation reward', it is a product being sold.
Read for yourself below.
https://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/l...ative.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
The GPL licence applies to Bukkit, so by selling plugins, the developers are not following the licence.
"Example 5: Programmer X wishes to write a class D, that is a subclass of existing class B. Class B is subject to the terms of the GPL. If X distributes D, does it have to be licensed under the terms of the GPL?
The answer given in the GPL FAQ is short and to the point: "Subclassing is creating a derivative work." In our example, this makes D a work derived from B, and thereby makes D subject to the terms of the GPL upon distribution."
Short terms: Spigot uses Bukkit, GPL says Spigot is now a GPL because they use Bukkit code. Plugins use Spigot/Bikkit code, GPL says plugins have to follow GPL.
Wait! The GPL says I can sell my derivative work!
Yes, you can, if you provide the source code.
Along with the illegal monetization of plugins by developers, obfuscating code is also against the GPL (Most developers do this)
"This means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way."
What about obfuscating a mod with MCP? That is required since the names within vanilla are obfuscated and you'd have to deobfuscate the entire jar and distribute that deobfuscated jar in order to use non-deobfuscated mods with it, which is obviously against the ToS (distributing an entire working jar), although MCP doesn't obfuscate your own variable/method/class names, but my mods still modify a lot of vanilla code which is in turn obfuscated. The entire process of modding the game is technically illegal; the EULA for most software forbids you from decompiling and modifying it (even for your own use, much less distributing those changes) and Mojang does not officially support modding, though they don't condemn it either unless it is for illegal activities. I also see modders break the EULA by posting their source code online, which includes parts of Mojang's original code.
In any case, this is like those servers that still violate the EULA by selling non-cosmetic items and ranks - even after being reported to Mojang, who has not taken any action (that I know of).
Also, something else I'm wondering about; the EULA includes this line (looks like it was added the last time they updated it in October 2015):
So, if I modify, say, the cave generation code by editing a couple numbers does that violate the EULA because 99.9% (literally) of the class is unchanged? Sure, I could make my own class that extends it and overrides the method in question (which would still include a good amount of unaltered code) - but would also have to modify another class - again, just a very small change - in order to point to my class instead of the original; this almost sounds like a way to make only Forge mods legal (Forge itself modifies the jar but only distributes the patches required to do so) and even then I've seen many Forge mods that basically copy the vanilla code with a few changes (for example; most of the method "func_151538_a" is exactly the same as vanilla, the variables "sizeControl" and "frequencyControl" replace the numbers I mentioned above).
This applies even more to my biggest mod, TMCW, with over 100 classes edited, many with relatively small changes, such as changing a few methods in the "World" class. I've also added new trees and biomes and more by copying and modifying vanilla code, as I'm sure other modders have, in part because it gives you a framework to build on, plus you often have to use the vanilla fields and methods anyway, or make your own methods which still have to be integrated with the base code.
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Forge uses LGPL, this is about GPL...
I believe you're getting the two confused
Are you referring to my remark about mods not being allowed to contain a "substantial" part of Mojang's unaltered code? 99.9%* sure does sounds like a "substantial" part, as is changing one or two small methods in a 142 KB class (1.6.4's World.java, of which I changed the regional difficulty calculation and added my own setBlock method for fast world generation of mesa and other biomes). In TMCW I even copied entire classes from 1.7+ and made just a few modifications (e.g. replaced Block.x with Block.x.blockID) to get stuff like mega taigas and their 2x2 trees, copied/edited some of the textures (I've seen some talk over mods illegally using Mojang's assets by slightly modifying their textures, e.g. my mod's amethyst sword is simply a recolored default texture), and so on. And no, none of my mods use Forge.
*12968 bytes for 1.8's MapGenCaves with 3 bytes edited to 4 bytes; the actual code size is smaller since MCP adds a lot of whitespace but it is still close to that.
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Op, please change the title to a more respective title.
Server plugins <- is not specific. You need to be more specific with the name.
Server plugins can be created from a variety of application programming interfaces, such as:
For example, TridentSDK uses the Apache License not the GPL and Sponge uses the MIT license.
This thread is about Bukkit plugins. Not ALL Server plugins.
This post is misleading there is nothing illegal about coding and selling plugins and hiding your code. If you’re buying a preexisting one. The author is the one who choose what’s it licensed on it and if you have a plugin made for you the creator of the plugin can hold the right to distribute the plugin for themselves or transfer ownership of the plugin to the buyer.
Also most of the people I know who sell plugins, create it and produce a finial versions that is a GPL, this version does not contain their true source code and was never meant to contain it. They are delivering a product that only needs the code it has to function in it, not all of the coding used to create the plugin
DDOSing is illegal. SpigotMC has not declared officially that they are DDOSing.
Why would they DDOS illegal mirrors? Just report the mirrors to the government, so they can be DMCAed.
Technically mod developers aren't even supposed to be making players download their mods through ad.fly links because they are making money from it, but they do it anyways. They are welcome to do it for people to support them, but they are required to also share a mirror link to the direct download (although some do this, not all). It's not just server owners that don't care about the EULA. Hell, Mojang doesn't even really care. When have you heard of some server/mod being taken down for violating the EULA?
Also, I don't know where people started the "You can only sell cosmetic items" idea from. I guess they haven't read the EULA either. You can sell anything in your "donation" store as long as people who don't donate have an equal chance of getting the item as well. This means having an item that everybody will receive when monthly donation goals are met, rewards for voting or playtime, etc. The only restriction I believe (unless they changed it) is Vanilla items. But if you want to create a package of supercrate keys, GriefPrevention claim blocks, etc. you can so long as non-donating players receive those same packages via other means (voting, play time, login reward, monthly donation goal, etc.) It's also okay to sell in-game currency through your donation store as long as there's no way for that currency to be converted back into real cash.
Hi, I was told that it was not ok to sell sell in-game currency in your donation stores and that you cant sell items or keys that only effect one Individual.We recently had a discussion with our legal advisory about minecraft servers and this was the conclusion reached. It however is possible to sell in game items as an lockable bonus that any player on the server can have these bonuses can be available for a period of time then remove. Once expired the donation goal must be reached again for the items to become available for everyone.The only individual items that you can sell separately our cosmetic ones and commands that do not affect game-play.
This information was found by reviewing the documents found here: https://account.mojang.com/terms#commercial and https://mojang.com/2014/06/lets-talk-server-monetisation-the-follow-up-qa/
Also there is a now a community underground movement that has begun collecting information on servers that violate the EULA. They have set up Google doc sites that allow people to submit screenshots webpages and the addresses of servers that are violating. They plan to turn this information over to mojang however their list of servers with the proper information that a violation is occurring can be used by anyone to DOS though servers or harass them so the actual list is not available to the public you can only submit the information to them. The reason being a underground movement is the fact that you are not allowed to slander/negatively portray anyone/server on most mine craft sites including this one.
I don't stand for such censorship.
Well it part of the rules on this site as well
Very true. Sorry about that. Fixed.
Also the Minecraft EULA and Minecraft Mods have nothing to do with this. Please actually read OP post
"You are allowed to sell in-game items so long as they don’t affect gameplay
We don’t mind you selling items in game, but they must be purely cosmetic. Pets, hats, and particle effects are OK, but swords, invincibility potions, and man-eating pigs are not. We want all players to be presented with the same gameplay features, whether they decide to pay or not."
Btw, most plugin developers don't obfuscate code. (I've never seen a plugin developer obfuscate code before, unless for private exclusive server plugins)
Just saying, if people created plugins for free, builders helped for good will and donations would only be based in just player donations, and not buying something, this could be a better world.
The idea of "selling" anything in a "donations store" just really seems like an oxymoron to me.
It is. The servers are selling a product, but they're presenting it as you donating to receive some rewards. But it really isn't like that at all. I don't even mind the idea of selling items on servers (though I don't support it, simply because it is against the EULA), but presenting that as donating feels a lot like false advertising. If it was just donating, it would just give you a rank and some other ways to show people you're support, like a pet or a coloured name. This /kit EpicEliteMasterPVP nonsense is really not a 'donation reward', it is a product being sold.
When there's no cops around, anything's legal!