146 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
146 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
This modpack is the official Modpack for MineClone2 and includes things not in the main game that will enhance the gameplay experience of Mineclone 2.
|
|
|
|
This modpack may make changes to your worlds, that you may not be able to revert back to a standard Mineclone 2 world. Noted possibilities would be unknown items and unknown nodes, if you remove the pack.
|
|
|
|
Creators:
|
|
|
|
Michieal
|
|
|
|
AncientMariner
|
|
|
|
PrairieWind (beginning ideas, and hopefully a few mods too)
|
|
|
|
License:
|
|
|
|
Code: GPL3, unless otherwise stated by the author.
|
|
|
|
All other assets' license: CC-BY-SA, unless otherwise stated by the creator.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
A special note to those who misunderstand Licensing about software and artwork.
|
|
All the source code and artwork contained herein is copyrighted to their respective creators.
|
|
|
|
This, is how the law sees it:
|
|
"As an artist, you own the copyright to the work you produce. Licensing allows you
|
|
to make money from those artworks without giving up that copyright or losing control
|
|
of how other people use your work. All artwork is automatically protected by copyright
|
|
when you create it."
|
|
|
|
"CC licenses are legal tools that creators and other rights holders can use to offer certain usage rights to the public, while reserving other rights. Those who want to make their work available to the public for limited kinds of uses while preserving their copyright may want to consider using CC licenses."
|
|
|
|
The express intent of this creation is to be (and remain) free and open-sourced. You will never be
|
|
charged for this modpack by the creators. And, acquiring this software and associated media from the
|
|
Mineclone 2 organization, either through its own repositories or through its designated distributors
|
|
grants you all rights contained herein.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
A very good explanation on licensing from Stack Overflow:
|
|
|
|
Short answer:
|
|
|
|
As a copyright holder, you do not have to choose between licensing your project under the GPL, and re-licensing at a later date.
|
|
|
|
Once a piece of software is licensed under the GPL, it is always under the GPL. However, as a copyright holder, you may re-license under other licenses as well, if you so please.
|
|
|
|
Long answer:
|
|
|
|
To understand the logic behind the short answer, you need to grasp two different concepts here: copyright ownership, and licensing. For completeness, I will also explain moral rights, copyright assignment and copyleft.
|
|
|
|
Copyright ownership:
|
|
|
|
When Jill writes a piece of code from scratch, she automatically has copyright ownership over that piece of code. Copyright ownership means that non-owners must get the owner's permission before copying or distributing copies of that piece of art. Jill can now sell copies of the software at a price, and the recipients of those copies are not allowed to make more copies, as Jill still owns the copyright of the software.
|
|
|
|
(In the USA, the fair use doctrine allows people to copy creative works even without permission under certain circumstances, such as for research purposes. Other countries have similar exceptions to copyright law.)
|
|
|
|
Licensing:
|
|
|
|
Jill may want to allow people to copy and modify her software, without having to ask for her permission for every copy. In this case, she release the software with an accompanying license which grants recipients explicit permission to copy and modify the software. Examples of common open source and libre licenses are the Apache license and the GPL.
|
|
|
|
Even after licensing the software under an open source license, Jill still owns the copyright of the software. Licensing does not affect copyright ownership.
|
|
|
|
If Jack takes the software licensed under an open source license, copies it and gives it to his friends, he is acting legally, because all open source licenses explicitly allow you to do this.
|
|
|
|
If Jack takes the software and changes it, the new version of the software now has two authors: Jill and Jack. The copyright ownership of the new version is divided between Jack and Jill, and only Jill has copyright ownership of the old version.
|
|
|
|
Re-licensing:
|
|
|
|
Because Jill owns the copyright on her piece of software, she can license her software under as many different licenses as she pleases. For example, she can give a copy of her software under the GPL to person A, and she can give a copy of her software under a proprietary license to person B. This is called dual-licensing.
|
|
|
|
If a non copyright holder wants to copy the software under the terms of a different license, they must obtain permission from all the copyright holders, unless the software had already been released under a license that explicitly allows re-licensing (such as the BSD license).
|
|
|
|
Copyleft licenses:
|
|
|
|
Some open source and libre licenses require that the recipient only be allowed to distribute further copies and modifications of the software under these two conditions:
|
|
|
|
the new copies are also licensed under the same license
|
|
the source code remains available.
|
|
|
|
These licenses are called copyleft licenses. The most popular copyleft licenses for software are the GPL version 2, and the GPL version 3.
|
|
|
|
If Amira releases her software under the GPL, and Jack takes that software, modifies it and redistributes copies under a closed-source license, Jack is acting illegally. Amira could sue him for violating her copyright. Here's how the fictional court case would go:
|
|
|
|
Amira: Jack distributed a modified version of my software without permission.
|
|
|
|
Jack : But Amira's software is licensed under the GPL.
|
|
|
|
Judge: Did you license your modified version under the GPL, and did you provide the recipients with the source code?
|
|
|
|
Jack : No.
|
|
|
|
Judge: Then the GPL doesn't apply to you. Did you ask Amira's permission to do this?
|
|
|
|
Jack : No.
|
|
|
|
Judge: Then you are in violation of Amira's copyright.
|
|
|
|
As you can see, you can never violate the GPL. Rather, if you do not meet the conditions specified by the GPL, then you do not acquire the permissions granted by the GPL. If you haven't acquired permission by any other means, you are violating copyright, not the GPL. In practise, however, people frequently say "violating the GPL", when they mean "not meeting GPL's conditions, and consequently, violating copyright".
|
|
|
|
Remember, a license only ever gives the recipient of the creative work additional rights, it never takes away rights. (This is not necessarily true for a EULA, though.)
|
|
|
|
So can Amira re-license her software under another license, even if the new license is proprietary? Yes, she can, because she is the copyright holder of the software. Amira does not need to meet the conditions of the GPL because she doesn't need the rights granted by the GPL. As copyright holder of the piece of software, she already has the right to release the software under any license she pleases.
|
|
|
|
Amira does not, however, have the right to revoke the GPL. If she wants the distribution of her software to cease, she must somehow convince all the previous recipients of her software never to exercise their right to copy the software ever again. On the Internet, this is an impossible task.
|
|
|
|
Enforcement of copyright:
|
|
|
|
If someone copies a creative work without permission from the copyright holders, they are acting illegally. However, only the copyright holder is allowed to sue them for their infringement.
|
|
|
|
For example, if Corel obtains proof that Raj is violating Adobe's copyright by pirating Photoshop, they cannot sue Raj. Only Adobe can sue Raj, because only Adobe owns the copyright of Photoshop. This is true even though Corel would potentially stand to benefit from elimination of the piracy of Photoshop, as they offer a cheaper competing product.
|
|
|
|
Copyright assignment:
|
|
|
|
Under copyright law, it is possible to transfer your copyright rights to another party. This is called copyright assignment.
|
|
|
|
Most employees have a clause in their contract specifying that the copyright of all creative works made by the employees as part of their employment shall automatically be assigned to the company. Most free software or open source software advocates find this is perfectly normal and acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Amira may sell her copyright ownership of her software to Jack if they both so wish. The fact that she had previously released the software under the GPL does not hinder her from doing this, as she still is the copyright holder. Of course, Jack, can never revoke the GPL on that version of the software, even after buying the copyright ownership.
|
|
|
|
Many open source projects, such as the Linux kernel, attract a large number of contributors. Every contributor to the Linux kernel retains their copyright ownership of their particular contribution. If Linus Torvalds wanted to re-license Linux, he would have to obtain permission from every single one of the copyright holders, numbering in the hundreds. If one copyright holder refuses to grant permission, Linus could offer to buy their copyright ownership for a fee, or could remove their particular contribution from the Linux source code. Otherwise, Linus does not have the right to relicense all of the Linux kernel, because he is only copyright holder to a portion of the Linux kernel.
|
|
|
|
To avoid this problem, many libre and open source projects require contributors to transfer their copyright rights to a parent organisation. Another benefit of assigning copyright to one organisation is that the organisation is in a stronger position to sue violators of the copyright of the project.
|
|
|
|
Contributor license agreements:
|
|
|
|
Instead of transferring copyright rights to a third party, Amira can grant Jack full rights to her software, with a statement like this one:
|
|
|
|
Amira grants Jack a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute [the] Contributions and such derivative works.
|
|
|
|
Now both Amira and Jack have the right to relicense the software, or to sue infringers of the copyright.
|
|
|
|
For open source and libre projects, both copyright assignment and contributor license agreements are controversial topics. Contributors do not want to lose their copyright or to share their copyright with an organisation they may not trust.
|
|
|
|
Moral rights:
|
|
|
|
In the USA, copyright rights and moral rights are distinct. Moral rights include:
|
|
|
|
the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.
|
|
|
|
Even when you transfer copyright to another party., you still retain moral rights. Your moral rights protect you from plagiarism, and to a certain extent, from defamation using your creative works.
|
|
|
|
I hope this clears things up for you. If you have any questions, let me know.
|
|
--Flimm
|
|
|
|
Source: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-licensed#11455485
|
|
|
|
In The case of Jack and Jill's shared copyright, Jack only owns the copyright to his contribution. |