Continuing the discussion from "Ascension mod" or: "Winning DDA: the mod":
Tl;Dr you never need permission to fork anything that originated in the dda codebase.
DDA is under a permissive, share-alike license for this specific reason. You don’t need permission to fork dda, and you also don’t need permission to fork anything forked from dda. This includes mods, pull requests, issues, forum posts with code, emails with json, anything.
If you tell someone to ask for permission, you are wrong.
Oh, you mean that thing with the dude?
Yeah it’s cool, no biggie.
Wait did I get that right? That really includes outside mods themselves? It doesn’t really matter to me since I don’t know enough to code anyway, but that is kinda crazy. All your mod are belong to everyone.
Begin tree making operations.
You understand correctly, this is why the copyleft concept (called ShareAlike by Creative Commons) is called “viral”, once the license is applied, it keeps applying no matter what you do to the source material, and on some circumstances it can spread to new works.
“Viral” was a term invented by Microsoft’s old “get the facts” campaign, wasn’t it? A way of taking “you used someone’s copyrighted code in your work and don’t want to obey the GPL or compensate them in any way” and spin it as “your killer app got contaminated with filthy GPL code and now the hippies are going to take your IP away!” as if the code just inserted itself when you weren’t looking, or that this was somehow different from inserting any other copyrighted code that you don’t own.
I hardly understood anything you said…
The wordies no speaked well.
That was an overly complicated sentence, wasn’t it?
Basically “viral license” was a scare word Microsoft used in a campaign about 15-20 years ago to frighten people away from Linux and open source stuff.
The idea was to imply that the GPL was dangerous and would somehow “infect” your software, taking it away from you and making it free, so you couldn’t make money anymore.
The truth is that if you’re putting somebody else’s copyrighted code into your commercial product, without gaining their permission, you’re in trouble regardless. It’s against the law and opens you up to a lawsuit. The GPL just gives you a way to get out of it by saying “release your derivative code under this license and we won’t sue.” If you’re not okay with it, just don’t insert GPL code into your product, dummy.
-Ah, I understand what you are saying. Thank you for elaborating. Although now I have a new question, who exactly are you calling dummy in this particular case? Or is it just that you mean someone is a dummy if they add GPL code if they aren’t not okay with it in the first place?
-Side mention. While copyright is a very useful thing and it makes a lot of sense to exist, it’s annoying when you are trying to come up with something unique but find it is already taken by someone else. All I want to do is come up with a name for a book I’m making, and it took (literally) over ten tries to find something not already taken.
Book names aren’t usually subject to copyright. For instance, there are dozens of books and movies titled “Legacy”, but since that’s a single word, copyright doesn’t apply.
You may want a unique title for your work for branding purposes and to distinguish yourself from other books, but copyright shouldn’t be an issue.
see
and other similar sources.
In this case, the “dummy” would be the company that’s “”“accidentally”"" adding other people’s copyrighted code (whether it’s GPLed or not) into their commercial product when they don’t have permission to do so, and are therefore violating the law. I put “accidentally” in quotes, because that’s what they usually claim when they go to court, not that it holds up. As if they found some code lying around the parking lot outside and decided it must be free to a good home or something.