isledecomp
Create LICENSE
While a decompilation like this already exists in a legal grey area, there is still "work" in this repository and some have asked exactly where it stands. After some internal discussion, we are proposing implementing LGPLv3.
In the interests of "doing it properly", we are asking all prior contributors (whose contributions haven't been reverted or replaced) to voice their agreement (or disagreement) on this matter before applying it. Thank you for your time.
~~@foxtacles~~ ~~@Ramen2X~~ ~~@disinvite~~ ~~@MishaProductions~~ ~~@ItzSwirlz~~ ~~@jonschz~~ @tahg ~~@madebr~~ ~~@AJenbo~~ ~~@floriandotorg~~ ~~@stravant~~ ~~@BranDougherty~~ ~~@DimaLeon2000~~ ~~@WamWooWam~~ ~~@mosswg~~ ~~@ktkaufman03~~ ~~@danielhejduk~~ @vMidz ~~@Andoryuuta~~ @AngelTomkins @crtdll ~~@cuckydev~~ ~~@ecumber~~ @Cydra ~~@theR4K~~ ~~@coremaze~~ @tntexplosivesltd @VirtualDisk ~~@Margen67~~ ~~@stonedDiscord~~
I am perfectly happy with LGPLv3. Incase that doesn't end up working out I am also happy with any other GPL or MIT license. Thanks for checking with everyone :)
I think the MIT License is a more appropriate choice for a license than LGPL, but... whatever.
I think it should be made clear what code the license applies to. It cannot apply to any of the decompiled code, since we cannot license it, it's up to Lego or whoever owns the original code whether the decompilation or any uses of it stay up, and we can't make any guarantees whether stuff will or won't be DMCA'd in accordance to whatever license we pick. That leaves it just to the decompilation tools. Some tools such as reccmp are already licensed under separate repositories under the isledecomp organization, reccmp is AGPL3 for example. There are some tools here though that are unique to Lego Island but might be useful for other Win32 decompilations, and I'm assuming the license will apply to those. It should be clarified in both the license and README what parts of the code are licensed and which have no guarantees.
In any case, I'm fine with whatever license, although I only contributed to the decompiled code.
I think it should be made clear what code the license applies to. It cannot apply to any of the decompiled code, since we cannot license it
My understanding is this isn't exactly true. Even if a court were to decide this repository contained significant copyright infringement, that doesn't necessarily mean we retain no ownership of it. If you take a photo of a movie poster (or even the movie itself), you still own that photo even if it largely contains another copyrighted work. The movie company could prevent you from redistributing it, but that doesn't mean they have a free license to use your photo for anything else. Their usage of it would be subject to your licensing requirements.
Whether the repository is DMCA'd or we have the rights to distribute it is, to my knowledge, irrelevant to the license that we place over the work itself. So to be clear: this is a license for the decompiled code.
I only made very minor changes to some of the code, so whatever changes you are making are fine with me.
With that said: In my personal opinion, I think trying to "do the right thing legally" will unfortunately have more negatives than positives for these types of projects.
Given the two following scenarios:
- A passion project to reverse engineer / decompile a 27-year-old game, acknowledging that the code is in a legal grey-area, no license file.
- A passion project to reverse engineer / decompile a 27-year-old game, acknowledging that the code is in a legal grey-area, LGPLv3 license added after discussions claiming some sort of ownership of the code even if it violates the copyright of the original.
The first one seems like something that could be blissfully ignored by all parties, but the second one seems like a call to action for all relevant legal parties to determine how/if it effects them and what actions they need to take.
The first one seems like something that could be blissfully ignored by all parties, but the second one seems like a call to action for all relevant legal parties to determine how/if it effects them and what actions they need to take.
I do hear you, this was in fact the primary reason we left it unlicensed to this point: it seems a little hypocritical to be vigilant about our own copyrights on a project that's already legally grey. To be honest, I'm personally neutral about the addition of a license to this repository, but some contributors have voiced concerns about the usage rights of their contributions, which I also understand, hence the proposal.
That being said, it is not uncommon for decompilations to have some kind of license (though admittedly they're usually not as restrictive as LGPL), and I would be very surprised if any parties involved did take any serious action with this change.
I agree.
If you intend this to be a "do whatever you want" license I personally think that MIT is a better choice to avoid confusion against other GPL licenses which are not that.
I'm fine with LGPL but would prefer a slightly more permissive license if had a choice. but a more copyleft license fits this project more as it keeps it so the code accessible to everybody.
Also shouldn't this be applied to isle-portable as well
Note: I've only really contributed to the portable repo
We will be going ahead with implementing this license. Folks who have not responded to our query within the past month, if they have an issue with this license change, can contact us at a later point in time. If they don't we assume they approve.