@bybe, I'm sorry I cannot find the Stack Exchange's Licensing Consultancy site, and I only ask questions to Stack Exchange users or to god... and god never responds. — MikODec 11 '14 at 16:49
room topic changed to Charcoal HQ: Where diamonds are made, smoke is detected, and we break things by developing on production. 54,000 true positives and counting. [Recursive] oneboxes are awesome. Handy links: charcoal-se.org, github.com/Charcoal-SE, charcoal-se.org/blaze [best-bad-practices] [dev-on-prod] [panic-driven-development] [plastic-knives]
This is the second time that you've linked to your website in a signature. Linking to your own website excessively, especially when it is unrelated, is considered spam. Please stop posting signatures with your website in it. — angussidney13 secs ago
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, pattern-matching website in body, +1 more: Safety of Skin Novela by Ashley Nicholas on superuser.com
@Magisch There is a difference between forcing a license on "derivative works" and licensing the data that the project generates. The discussion is getting those confused/intermingled. There is also an argument about what "derivative works" means. Do graphs that we generate really constitute "derivative"? Or is does it mean combining MS data with other data sources?
I think "derivative" is not the right word then. I also don't think an officially released graph on charcoal-se would need the data license. It would fall under whatever license the site is under
@ArtOfCode I agree with that. The data itself needs to be licensed somehow. However, the discussions that are occurring keep bringing up derivative works (and my stuff is mentioned in that). 1.) Is my work truly derivative if it's only using MS data? Why isn't it considered part of the entire project if it's only using data we generate?
2.) Undo mentioned combining MS with SE data for the mods...that is derivative. What we pick for a license matters, because he may not be able to release it and still abide by the terms SE has placed on him as a mod.
I wrote some software (a plugin) for a MC server years ago. Didn't give it any license. As of a few months ago, someone else (another former admin) is making stink claiming the server violated licensing, and is using some of my work as fodder for claiming that
Is there any way I can retroactively absolve the server owner from any infringement they comitted because I didn't think of licensing my work to them
but I obviously don't want to go after them and I think it's ridiculous. I'm thinking there must be a way I can make this go away since I'm the copyright holder
literally all it needs is a statement, written or otherwise, that you do not have any issue with the server using it - and that's only if this other guy has a case at all
I have less then zero knowledge of law which is why I'm asking
other guy is trying to get back at the server owner desperately and the server owner contacted me because the other guy threatened legal action over my software
So I can tell him he can tell the other guy to pound sand
If you want to avoid this in the future, send your friend the server owner an email that says "I, (full name), grant the present and future owners of (server name) a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, run, modify, and distribute (software name)". Preferably sign said email with your private key to prove it's from you.
@Magisch As a server owner that's gotten that complaint? Told them to pound sand. Until I get a letter from a lawyer, some kid threatening me on the internet isn't going to worry me a bit
I've also been in the exact situation your friend is in too. A plugin written by a former admin was being used. Admin left on good terms. We kept using it. Someone got mad that we didn't share it and started a big stink that we weren't complying with other guy's copyright. They left after we explained they weren't the copyright holder so couldn't do anything about it.
