Aeva Media or Something Else?

[roomeat]

Not sure if I am posting this to the right section so please move this if needed.

Is Avea Media Dead? I see the mod author has moved on?
What media package is everyone using?

[TheListener]

The mods author may not be around anymore but this is no reason as to abandon the mod on the forum.

IMHO it is still the best gallery/video embedder on smf.

[roomeat]

Yes it may be.. but is anyone supporting it and updating it?

[TheListener]

Supporting yes.

The author has not given permission for the mod to be updated by anyone else.

[roomeat]

And he never will.. seeing as it's now used exclusively for a SMF fork

[Akyhne]

The author has not given permission for the mod to be updated by anyone else.

He can't prevent people from releasing modifications to the mod.

[Illori]

but the team would not approve them if they were submitted to the mod site, it has a closed license so people cant build upon it.

[Akyhne]

I'm not sure that's correct.

[Illori]

yes it is correct, the team will not approve mods that build upon others that are under a close license

[Akyhne]

So people making modifications to SMF in the past were doing something they were not allowed to?!

If I make a modification to Windows, I'm quite sure Microsoft ain't comming after me.

[Illori]

that is not what i said, people making mods that rely on other mods that have a closed license is not allowed due to the closed license.

[Akyhne]

I know you didn't say that, but it's all the same. People could not fork SMF before, but they could mod it as they liked.

[青山 素子]

So people making modifications to SMF in the past were doing something they were not allowed to?!

SMF quite explicitly approved modification packages. The AEVA Media modification does not allow that at all, among other things.

[Norv]

Whether and what a license allows, depends on the license. For custom written licenses, it is not easy to interpret them as to answering all questions related to anything - usage, distribution, restrictions, for all kinds of cases.

Aeva Media license disallows distributing modified versions of the package. Mods modifying it are not mentioned, neither is distribution of the unmodified package. That leaves it open to interpretations. It may mean, as far as we can interpret a custom license (as a side note, doing so is always prone to issues), that mods modifying it are not an issue, or it may mean they are. It is up to the author to clarify further.
On the other hand, the license on Aeva site is different from the one included in the readme of the package hosted by sm.org. For the package one downloads, however, it's the license in the package that applies (and clarifications eventually, can be looked up on author's site). The license on the Aeva site states in its 4th clause that distribution of modifications is allowed.

I'd note also that a few lines of code are, to my knowledge, non-copyrightable under US law. It is unclear to me if using only a few lines (or a few lines at the time) in a mod extending Aeva makes it fall under the incidence of any restriction related to copyright/licensing issues.

In the case of the old SMF license, also a custom-written closed license, the terms outline the definitions of modified package and modifications to the package, and accepts the second, while disallowing the first.
I'd note that while that clarifies the position SMF project had in the past, on forks vs modification packages (and SMF project has clarified it further by its actions and statements, in the same direction in the past), it has been more than once argued that it's a contradictory position of sorts, since any "modified package" can then be, at least theoretically, written as a patch of the standard distribution. Of course it can, and the result is a (big or small) modification. As long as they don't distribute entire files, still, modifications as patches have been explicitly accepted under the old license.


I'm not sure if SMF project has clarified the status of modifications built on any closed/custom/proprietary licensed modification, at this time - and I'm positive nothing has been published yet.
As far as I can tell, SMF team tries to accept almost any mods on the 3rd party customization site we host, as far as licensing is concerned, at this time, except when they would clearly be in breach of copyright or other licenses. (and non-commercial). To our knowledge, of course. If you find a mod in breach on the customizations site hosted by simplemachines.org, please report it, so we can take a look at it.

I have to say I hope we will not, as much as possible, enter this can of worms even further (namely mods extending other mods under a closed/proprietary/custom license, of which afaik we don't have a [new] case yet anyway). Because then, we would have to analyze and try to understand custom licenses, and the legal implications of every clause, on extensions for it, when we simply can't, cases can become quickly complicated and interpretable, and we can't actually guarantee our users even that our understanding of the permissions granted by the mod is correct. Please do note that this is my personal opinion.


Do note also that I am not a lawyer, and while I have been spending a fair amount of time on licensing issues investigation at times, the above is not to be taken as legal advice.

[青山 素子]

Aeva Media license disallows distributing modified versions of the package. Mods modifying it are not mentioned, neither is distribution of the unmodified package. That leaves it open to interpretations.

In the US at least, all rights are explicitly reserved unless otherwise mentioned. This means there is no need for interpretations: it doesn't explicitly allow modifications, so therefore it's not allowed. I'm not sure how that is in other countries, but assuming it's disallowed by default is the safest option.

On the other hand, the license on Aeva site is different from the one included in the readme of the package hosted by sm.org. For the package one downloads, however, it's the license in the package that applies (and clarifications eventually, can be looked up on author's site). The license on the Aeva site states in its 4th clause that distribution of modifications is allowed.

Agreed there. Unless the license in the package states that updated versions posted on that site apply, you can only rely on the license that was provided initially.

I'd note also that a few lines of code are, to my knowledge, non-copyrightable under US law. It is unclear to me if using only a few lines (or a few lines at the time) in a mod extending Aeva makes it fall under the incidence of any restriction related to copyright/licensing issues.

It's a question of originality. The general thought has been that a few non-functional lines of code are not original and not protected by copyright. How that would interact when being added into a body of work that is under copyright protection is outside my knowledge. I'm guessing it would still be infringement as no modification is explicitly allowed.

I'm not sure if SMF project has clarified the status of modifications built on any closed/custom/proprietary licensed modification, at this time - and I'm positive nothing has been published yet.

If the license of that other modification does not explicitly allow it and the author didn't get permission from the original author, it's not allowed. Period. This assumes you'd want to go by US copyright law, which, considering where you're incorporated, is a smart move.

Do note also that I am not a lawyer, and while I have been spending a fair amount of time on licensing issues investigation at times, the above is not to be taken as legal advice.

Likewise. IANAL. If you want a legal opinion, please consult an experienced legal professional.

[live627]

The author has not given permission for the mod to be updated by anyone else.

He can't prevent people from releasing modifications to the mod.

Do you want me to show him that?

[Akyhne]

Why would you? I'm not writing here because it's nao's mod, but because the licencing is unclear to me.

[青山 素子]

Why would you? I'm not writing here because it's nao's mod, but because the licencing is unclear to me.

If the license doesn't explicitly grant something, it's prohibited. So, go read the license document. Think of what you want to do. If it hasn't been allowed in the license, you can't (legally) do it. If the license says you can redistribute unmodified copies, then you can do that but you can't distribute modified copies.

Note that, in general, any penalties really only apply if distributed. This is why it's called copyright. If the license says you can't modify it at all and you modify it only for your own use and never give anyone the modified version, it's not really infringing.

Things get a little cloudy when you get other kinds of arrangements or things that fall under various legal statutes (ban on decryption under the DMCA, for example - which applies when information on decrypting is shared), but let's not complicate things for a simple matter.