Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Web version of freeciv. Please mention the site you're using, if speaking things other than general freeciv-web codebase.
louis94
Hardened
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:17 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by louis94 »

cazfi wrote:
louis94 wrote:The "Pull Request" part is still as bad as before for the rights of potential contributors, but nothing prevents them from requiring whatever they want to include contributions.
I were been put back by that sentence, but thought that it's their own decision if they want to discourage contributions. Now it occurred to me to check a bunch of source files, and now I see why that part is needed. While it's unusual statement for an open source project, it goes together with another unusual property - they don't have copyright notice in the files, stating the license for each one. Usually projects rely on that any contribution is a change to a) a repository that has a certain license, and also b) to a source file that states the license that changes are made under.
AFAIK there is an implicit understanding that everything is licensed under the AGPL, except the freeciv/freeciv subdir which is under GPLv2+ and maybe some libraries like Three.js (if it's still there) that have their own license. This is documented by the LICENSE file at the top of the respective folder hierarchies. Attribution can very well be handled through commit messages. (Unfortunately attribution is lost for most of the freeciv/freeciv code, because they just copied the code without history and some commits were copied without using Co-Authored-By. Same could be claimed for Freeciv tarballs however.)

If Lexxie wanted to make this crystal clear, she could just write a simple table of which folders are under which license and a simple sentence like "by proposing changes to FCW, you agree to release them under the license(s) for the corresponding folder(s)." This would probably be much easier to understand than the current CLA (and hence would stand more easily in court).
louis94
Hardened
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:17 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by louis94 »

Lexxie wrote: if after looking up words you don't know, you still don't know what it means, you can ask.
Sure. Let me start with the simple things:
  • What are the "Terms of Service"?
  • What is the "Repository Policy"?
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 3077
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by cazfi »

louis94 wrote:Unfortunately attribution is lost for most of the freeciv/freeciv code
Like with freeciv tarballs you mentioned, the attributions are in ChangeLog. They don't have it up-to-date at the release time, though. For upstream freeciv/freeciv, ChangeLog is updated for the releases, and in master for milestones like branching a new stable branch. As FCW does not use (master) code from a branching point, the ChangeLog is outdated. Back when I contributed to FCW, I considered just referring to freeciv/freeciv repo for details like attribution in some README.
louis94
Hardened
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:17 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by louis94 »

cazfi wrote:Like with freeciv tarballs you mentioned, the attributions are in ChangeLog.
Right, I had missed the ChangeLog.

Looks like Terms of Service appeared on the website before I posted my questions to Lexxie. Didn't have time to go through them yet.
User avatar
Canik
Veteran
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:26 am

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by Canik »

Lexxie acts as if such malicious things were done to her because;

1. TnT, a site just starting out, which hadn't even had much new development, temporarily had it's code down. Maybe, you know, we were just trying to figure out how to set it up properly? Maybe the site was having growing pains just starting? Maybe Game 1 had to even be scrapped due to these issues?

And it's ironic, she says "if anyone doesn't understand, just ask!" yet instead of asking TnT why it's code was down or request the code nothing was said to my recollection. I was very available and would never have deleted such a request. If I was not AGPL compliant the correct response is to SAY SOMETHING not remove your own code making YOU AGPL non-compliant as well.

This is like if you saw someone murdering someone.. and instead of saying stop, or reporting it, you instead also start murdering someone. That is NOT a proper response to the situation.

2. I do much of my development on the site IN PUBLIC in TnT's discord: https://discord.gg/BrpzgpgMAF

Lexxie or one of her spies must've been there seeing it as they took my idea to add extra terrain overlays and even took some of the graphics I made for it. That's fine but I suspected Lexxie was not releasing her source code for some time and when I saw my graphics added and actively used on her site without a github update I knew she wasn't. This of course annoyed me so I said something about it. Yes, I should have been AGPL compliant as well and when this happened it reminded me and I moved to restore compliance uploading my source IMMEDIATELY and then got it up properly on github just a few days later.

Because this incident brought attention to Lexxie's AGPL violations people got, I think rightfully, upset. Her response? Blame everyone else, play the victim, take almost a month to get her code up (which I'm still not sure if it's all of it.) and add a bunch of additional restrictions..

Lexxie is a great player and a great developer but a mediocre policy maker and poor public relations manager.

Lexxie, you want to protect yourself just stop with the machiavellian tactics. You knew what you were doing. You could've had me contacted a hundred ways. Most of us know what you're doing too. We're not as stupid as you think. Do right, play nice and all will be fine.
qrtv10
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:38 pm

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by qrtv10 »

We see that our terms of service and repository policy has caused controversy whether they are in compliance with AGPL or not. We think they are, others state that they are not. When we asked that it be pointed out exactly how they do, we have not received any valid response. We are not interested in battles over who is right.

The allegations claimed against us were that the source code is not available to users of freeciv-web on freeciweb.org, and that the content of our readme file violated the AGPL. That file contained a repository policy for the conditions under which we accept source code, and statements about our website's terms of service.

All FCW source code is available on our public github respository, and we suspended the readme file in question (under protest this demand has breached our licensing rights to post such material.) As a result of both of these matters being how they now are, the grounds for all past complaints have been nullified and resolved. There can be no doubt or sophistry now to contradict that we are fully AGPL-compliant. We regard the matter as closed.

Afternote: There is nothing in the AGPL-license that stops an AGPL-licensee to have terms for use of their service, or a repository policy.
User avatar
Canik
Veteran
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:26 am

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by Canik »

I disagree there have not been valid responses. I made a response quoting the text of the licenses and citing sources for definitions. I am not a lawyer and might be wrong as far as legality but I guess the issue is FCW did not define certain terms, what they meant, their purpose. Such as when it claimed to be a private server/community. Nor has it given any serious counter-arguments citing any sources.

I've been told to 'look at other AGPL' sites but this is a vague and time-consuming task. I've already done hours researching and I released my research. Want us to understand and believe you? You could explain it with tact and cite sources as proof but removing the additional terms also works. Thank you for removing it, even temporarily, it shows some respect and desire for good relations with the community as a whole.

I've been assured that despite suspicions due to a way the additional terms can be interpreted that FCW will continue to keep it's source code up-to-date and available to the public. This is good too. I think we'd feel all more assured of that if the terms were better written to make it more clear it was a simple ToS that in no way would alter FCW's availability of it's source to the public ever.

We aren't against you having a ToS. We just are wary of potential exploits in this new licensing and building trust takes time.

So while I may sound harsh, and certainly I am wary, we have not had good relations in a long while.. I do applaud this show of concern for community relations by FCW. Along with some other attempts at community unification by FCW staff. Fuzzy in particular but to the others involved as well. I hope we can build on it.
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 3077
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by cazfi »

qrtv10 wrote:We see that our terms of service and repository policy has caused controversy whether they are in compliance with AGPL or not. We think they are, others state that they are not. When we asked that it be pointed out exactly how they do, we have not received any valid response. We are not interested in battles over who is right.
It took you 29 days to ask those clarifications. Now you are saying that you haven't received valid responses within a day.

I know you have made corrections. I'll check the current situation later.
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 3077
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by cazfi »

cazfi wrote:I know you have made corrections. I'll check the current situation later.
Well, the current situation is that you don't allow one to review it at the moment. "FCW has suspended its Repository Policy pending resolution of the licensing infractions against us."
That sounds like you are going to reinstate it after people have agreed that current situation without it anywhere to be seen is acceptable. However, at least now you clearly state that it's a "Repository Policy" and not a (general) policy of FCW. Having it clearly labeled that way also when you reinstate it, would go a long way to making it compliant.

--

Unrelated to AGPL matter, I noticed that this README.md is a bit outdated, at least in that it still describes freeciv/freeciv as being a patched checkout of freeciv/freeciv repository like it's in freeciv-web upstream.
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 3077
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Source code for Freeciv-web running on Freecivweb.org

Post by cazfi »

cazfi wrote:That sounds like you are going to reinstate it after people have agreed that current situation without it anywhere to be seen is acceptable.
But yeah, I guess that resolves the matter for this moment, and you're compliant now. Reinstating the policy in an unacceptable form would count as a new AGPL breach. If that happens, there's no 30 day periods any more.
From AGPL Termination clause (bolding mine):
Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
Post Reply