23 Nov, 2007, Asylumius wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
We've made some changes to the upload policy. There is a thread by Samson with the original rules in it here: http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=topi...

I've taken what that basically says and put it on the actual Upload page (example) so that it is visible to anyone uploading files.

If anyone has concerns or questions, please feel free to [politely] address them here.
23 Nov, 2007, Kayle wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
5. By submitting file(s) to our repository, you give MudBytes to irrevocable permission to host and redistribute these file(s). The copyright holder (or author) may request works be removed, however MudBytes shall not be obligated to comply.


IIRC, Is this not in direct violation of Copyright Law? If the copyright holder tells you to remove something they created, are you not obligated by Law to remove said content? If I'm mistaken, please, by all means point me to any information to the contrary.

Also, this vaguely reminds of something Kyndig would have done on MudMagic.
23 Nov, 2007, bbailey wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
Quote
5. By submitting file(s) to our repository, you give MudBytes to irrevocable permission to host and redistribute these file(s). The copyright holder (or author) may request works be removed, however MudBytes shall not be obligated to comply.


IIRC, Is this not in direct violation of Copyright Law? If the copyright holder tells you to remove something they created, are you not obligated by Law to remove said content? If I'm mistaken, please, by all means point me to any information to the contrary.


Aye, this highly questionable in terms of legality, but even moreso in its implications – you can require whatever terms you like for submissions, but it would make a large array of the common derivative code unfit for inclusion. I don't, for example, have the authority to submit snippets (even that I authored) that are derived from Diku under an irrevocable license, as it would be covered by Diku's license as well and I certainly don't have the authority to change or disregard those licensing terms and those terms are not irrevocable. It's not that big a deal all around, but it does mean I wouldn't in good conscience be able to submit that sort of code that was licensed in such a way.

I do understand the desire to only include content that you can maintain and distribute indefinitely, but I don't think a "[we] shall not be obligated to comply" line in click-thru submission terms is the way to ensure that.
23 Nov, 2007, Kayle wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I had completely forgotten about the GPL, Diku, and other such licenses that a lot of the code already in the repository falls under. I had merely caught on the legal implications of the statement, and failed to recognize all the other implications behind the rule in question.

So I guess it stands to reason, if these rules are to stand, what happens to all the code contained within which now would technically violate the Diku License because of the conditions for submission to the repository?
23 Nov, 2007, bbailey wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
I had completely forgotten about the GPL, Diku, and other such licenses that a lot of the code already in the repository falls under. I had merely caught on the legal implications of the statement, and failed to recognize all the other implications behind the rule in question.

So I guess it stands to reason, if these rules are to stand, what happens to all the code contained within which now would technically violate the Diku License because of the conditions for submission to the repository?


A clarification – MudBytes would not be violating the Diku license in any way, or any other common mud license that I'm aware of, and the would certainly be able to retain the current contents of the file repository and continue distributing them.

The new submission terms would, I believe, make a lot of common types of code unfit to be added into the repository under those terms.
23 Nov, 2007, Kayle wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Ah, Thanks for the clarification, it makes things a bit more clear now. But it still raises doubt in my mind as to whether the Administration can legally say that they don't have to remove content from the repository if they don't want to, even if the copyright holder asks for the removal. Seems I had my files pulled just in time, as it seems that if I hadn't I'd certainly have the possibility of not being able to have them pulled. I for one am not fond of giving anyone an irrevocable license to distribute my works.
24 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
I think it is fair to ask for an eternal license to use. You're not taking copyright away from somebody. In fact, I know of cases where just such an agreement has been made; you do not transfer copyright, but you bestow an irrevocable right to use under given conditions. It's a safety feature, if you will; I make this agreement with you to use your stuff, but I don't want you turning around in five years and for no apparent reason taking away that right.

bbailey said:
I don't, for example, have the authority to submit snippets (even that I authored) that are derived from Diku under an irrevocable license, as it would be covered by Diku's license as well and I certainly don't have the authority to change or disregard those licensing terms and those terms are not irrevocable.

I'm not sure this is that much of a problem when you submit your own work. It's just adding a license for MudBytes use on top of something, not modifying an existing one. The problem is submitting something somebody else did; you don't exactly have the right to grant rights to somebody else's work…

That said, this might have other problems in non-US law… various European countries have or are passing much stronger online privacy laws, some of which say things along the lines of "you must remove somebody's information if they ask you". So, depending on how exactly "somebody's information" is construed, it could be in violation of those laws to refuse to remove the material, or at least certain kinds of material.
24 Nov, 2007, bbailey wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
bbailey said:
I don't, for example, have the authority to submit snippets (even that I authored) that are derived from Diku under an irrevocable license, as it would be covered by Diku's license as well and I certainly don't have the authority to change or disregard those licensing terms and those terms are not irrevocable.

I'm not sure this is that much of a problem when you submit your own work. It's just adding a license for MudBytes use on top of something, not modifying an existing one. The problem is submitting something somebody else did; you don't exactly have the right to grant rights to somebody else's work…


The problem arises with derived works. If I submit a snippet I authored that is derived from Diku, then MudBytes is obligated to distribute that snippet under the terms of both the Diku license and my own terms. I certainly can license my own portion of the work under whatever additional terms I wish, but as it is a derived work, my own terms aren't the only consideration. The Diku license does not contain any terms which grant perpetual, irrevocable use of their code – they can revoke the license from anyone they wish for any reason. I have no right to use it perpetually, so I can't pass on that right to MudBytes. I do not have the authority to modify Diku's license or negotiate terms on their behalf. So if the work is derived from Diku and bound by its license, and MudBytes requires an irrevocable license to distribute the work, then quite simply I don't see how they can accept the work into the repository. This holds true when dealing with any derivative work that is governed by a non-perpetual license.

If you mean that only 100% original works, or derivative works that -are- available under a perpetual license should be submitted, then that does create less of an issue. It also severely limits the growth potential of the repository, since even the majority of the code already in the repository could not be downloaded by a user, modified by that user, and then the modifications submitted back to the repository because it would fail the requirement of needing an irrevocable license.
24 Nov, 2007, Asylumius wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I'm not sure this is that much of a problem when you submit your own work. It's just adding a license for MudBytes use on top of something, not modifying an existing one. The problem is submitting something somebody else did; you don't exactly have the right to grant rights to somebody else's work…


If a work is submitted by the copyright holder and/or author, they can simply agree to forfeit the right to request removal. If it is submitted by someone else, we ask that they not upload it unless the copyright holder agrees to our terms. If it turns out the copyright holder did not, then that agreement would be void.

That said, this might have other problems in non-US law… various European countries have or are passing much stronger online privacy laws, some of which say things along the lines of "you must remove somebody's information if they ask you". So, depending on how exactly "somebody's information" is construed, it could be in violation of those laws to refuse to remove the material, or at least certain kinds of material.

Being a site hosted in the US, I don't imagine that we'd be subject to such laws, though I could be wrong.

The purpose of these changes is basically to stop people from requesting their contributions (to the community, not me personally, or Davion, or Samson, or anyone else) be removed because they disagree with a decision we make or some other arbitrary reason. Although we appreciate it when people upload files, we don't want to be held hostage by the whim of every single person who has contributed. Although sometimes users have a legitimate reason to request removal, sometimes the reasons are simply personal or petty, sometimes to the point where we just don't care what that person thinks.

If these changes are either a) actually illegal (I'm not a lawyer, after all) or b) going to result in too many people deciding they just wont upload, then maybe we'll change it. We want to see our members content with our policy and also see people contributing, but we also want to protect the value of our repository.

EDIT: We appreciate that many of you have opinions and speculations regarding this proposal. That said, just like I'm not a lawyer, I'd imagine most of you aren't either. Although again, we appreciate your input, if you wish to cite legal grounds for a particular point, please include a source. People have a way of stating things as fact when in reality it's more of a "best guess," and that won't help solve anything. If this proposal isn't up to code so to speak, we're interested in changing it, given we have the correct rule book in front of us.
24 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
bbailey said:
If you mean that only 100% original works

Yes, I was referring to original work when I said "your own work"; I should have made that clearer, sorry.

Asylumius said:
Being a site hosted in the US, I don't imagine that we'd be subject to such laws, though I could be wrong.

You'd be making the site illegal in other countries, which could potentially have repercussions on your status there and somebody's ability to legally use the site there. The US does this: it doesn't matter if something is legal in a country; if it's illegal in the US, it's illegal to access the foreign website. Besides, there are often international treaties governing this kind of stuff; copyright law being a good example.

Asylumius, this isn't just a question of legal speculation. By adding such a clause you will probably be scaring people away. If I were to sign a clause, what exactly is MudBytes allowed to do? What exactly are you being given a license to do? Is MudBytes being given a license to permanently hold on to and redistribute my work? Does that mean that, by giving MudBytes this permanent license, I am giving everybody a license to use it, because anybody can download it from MudBytes? If MudBytes is allowed to redistribute it, but nobody is allowed to use it, what difference does it make that MudBytes can redistribute it?

Basically, if you are going to add this clause, you have to formalize it in a license agreement between the contributor and the site. You can't just give yourself (you = the site) the right to use the material without making it extremely clear what exactly you are doing. If I am to contribute work to the site, I want to know on what terms I am doing so, and what those terms mean for the people downloading my files. Otherwise I might choose to host it elsewhere. Note that I am not objecting to the idea of MudBytes not removing it: I am objecting to the idea of not being clear on the license.
24 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Here's an example:

1) I upload something, giving MudBytes permanent right to distribute it.
Now, I cannot revoke that license to distribute it, due to the terms.
2) I mass-revoke the license attached to my work, saying that you may not use it unless you got it elsewhere than MudBytes.

So now we have a problem of sorts: sure, MudBytes can distribute it, but nobody can legally use it. I haven't changed my redistribution license with MudBytes (because I cannot revoke it) but it was never specified that I cannot also revoke the license attached to my work in the first place.

Basically, the extra item in the upload terms hasn't really done anything as stated; if you actually made it do what you want it to do (let people to continue downloading it) you'd have to do something more draconian, namely prevent people from changing the license associated with the work for the general public; but that is probably really not what you want to do as it runs the risk of turning people off from uploading stuff in the first place.
24 Nov, 2007, Asylumius wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
It would appear that there is no elegant way of reshaping our upload policy that both suits our desires as an Administration and isn't too difficult to use and understand. The existing policy stands. We will honor removal request from the original copyright holder only.

Thread locked to avoid confusion to new users and/or people who haven't kept up with this topic.
0.0/12