PDA

View Full Version : GPL license: how does it cover the output of a program?



psychopath
05-22-2006, 10:56 AM
In a game project i've been working on, Quake3 BSP files are being imported into the engine for further editing These BSP files have been generated by Q3Radiant, which, as I understand, is available under the GPL license.

The GPL license reads:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

What i'm trying to figure out, is if I'm able to use these BSP files, which are the output of Q3Radiant, as a part of a commercial project?

SniperSAS
05-22-2006, 11:12 AM
use em anyway and stick it to the man, son

laserlight
05-22-2006, 11:34 AM
My guess is that the BSP files do not contain some version of Q3Radiant, so they would not have to be licensed under the GPL.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice/opinion.

Perspective
05-22-2006, 04:52 PM
>the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program

This sounds to me like they would be GPL, IANAL though, post to the mailing list of the project.

Sang-drax
05-22-2006, 05:16 PM
Of course they aren't GPL. If I write a book using OpenOffice it certainly does not have to be released as GPL.

Perspective
05-22-2006, 08:02 PM
>If I write a book using OpenOffice it certainly does not have to be released as GPL.

Thats different, your book isnt a "work based on the program". A bsp generated by a bsp generating program seems like it might be. I dunno though,

laserlight
05-22-2006, 09:20 PM
A bsp generated by a bsp generating program seems like it might be.
As far as I can tell (with respect to my disclaimer), it isnt, unless the BSP file generated is itself some modified version of the BSP file generator.

Perspective
05-23-2006, 10:14 AM
If the program uses templates to generate the BSP, then those templates are GPL. And anything derived from the template is a derivative of a GPL file AFAIK, a "work based on the program".

my disclaimer still stands too though ;)

laserlight
05-23-2006, 10:20 AM
If the program uses templates to generate the BSP, then those templates are GPL. And anything derived from the template is a derivative of a GPL file AFAIK, a "work based on the program".
I agree, if those templates can be considered part of Q3Radiant, assuming Q3Radiant actually does this.

Sang-drax
05-23-2006, 04:34 PM
If the program uses templates to generate the BSP, then those templates are GPL.
OpenOffice also uses templates. I see no legal difference here.

Perspective
05-23-2006, 09:57 PM
OpenOffice also uses templates. I see no legal difference here.

Thats true, looks like your gonna have to open source that book after all ;)

Quantum1024
05-23-2006, 10:13 PM
The GPL usually covers the source code of an application and not the data it uses which is not considered a part of the application. So even if Q3Radiant uses templates to create BSPs then those templates probably weren't considered part of the application at least not as far as the GPL is concerned.

An example of output being under the GPL would be a compiler or other application generation software which includes GPL'd libraries in the output.

Perspective
05-24-2006, 02:22 PM
>The GPL usually covers the source code of an application and not the data it uses

Actaully the GPL covers many other things that are not source code, like output, buildfiles and other tools used in the release and production of the packages. (for example, the rpm and rpmbuild tools need to be GPL in order for them to be used to build and release GPL apps).

You really need to ask the Q3Radiant people, and post the answer back here to satisfy our curiosity.

Jaqui
05-24-2006, 03:38 PM
Another analogy for the question.
use Open Office Writer to create a letter, print the letter and mail it to a friend, the output is not a GNU-GPL document.

output, unless it includes 100% gnu-gpl content, is not automatically forced to be under the gnu-gpl. I can use any gnu-gpl program and create or modify any valid content for the program, and use it under ANY license I choose. I can even write an application, linked to glibc, and release it under a commercial license. the only part of the application that falls under the gnu=gpl is the base libs, and they are actually licensed under the lgpl to allow for commercial use of them.

so to answer the question, output is not forced to be under the gnu-gpl, unless it includes 100% gnu-gpl licenced data to begin with. if the BSP is under a commercial license at the beginning, then the edited file is still under the same license.


The above is accurate, for version 2 of the gnu-gpl. I did extensive research into the gnu-gpl for exactly this type of usage a few years back. I have not done an in-depth examination of version 3 of the gnu-gpl. From my understanding of it, the anti proprietary / anti drm section is focussed on excluding drm / proprietary code in gnu-gpl software, not on making output fall under the gnu-gpl.

Perspective
05-24-2006, 08:33 PM
>I can use any gnu-gpl program and create or modify any valid content for the program, and use it under ANY license I choose.

By "content" I hope you don't mean source code, because modifying GPL source is certainly considered "derivative work" and is definately covered by the GPL.

laserlight
05-24-2006, 09:16 PM
From my understanding of it, the anti proprietary / anti drm section is focussed on excluding drm / proprietary code in gnu-gpl software, not on making output fall under the gnu-gpl.
Yes, so the section that psychopath quoted has to do with cases when part of the program itself forms the output generated. I think none of us here are familiar enough with Q3Radiant and Quake3 BSP files to say something conclusive about this.

I suspect that if templates are used here, they are just input data for Q3Radiant, so the output would not need to be licensed under the GPL.

Jaqui
05-25-2006, 01:37 AM
Yes, so the section that psychopath quoted has to do with cases when part of the program itself forms the output generated. I think none of us here are familiar enough with Q3Radiant and Quake3 BSP files to say something conclusive about this.

I suspect that if templates are used here, they are just input data for Q3Radiant, so the output would not need to be licensed under the GPL.

yup, the gnu-gpl is designed to keep the software open source, not interfere with business use of the software. output, unless it includes the sources, [ not templates ] is not forced into any license. Templated output is not concidered as including the source code, since a template is only a format specification, not a required part of the software and generally is not licensed under then gnu-gpl, but is licensed under the lgpl. [ documentation license, allows for commercial use ]