List of "Public Ninjam Server" posts

On the subject of servers I was speaking recently with someone and they mentioned a server someone may open and try charge for, so I pointed them to the Licenses for which the Server and Client software runs under.

Now as it specifies in the license that any server should be open, public and free for use, and only distribution costs can be charged.
There are a lot of servers about that are hidden and private, this sorta breaks the copyright.

Here's the License Text.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4755397/license.txt

In a way it sorta contradicts itself where it has ability to lock up server and make it password only.
but basically if someone runs a server it must be made public and open to all and free.
So using a server for private use sorta is infringing copyright, as strange as that seems.

I'm not saying everyone should make there private servers no longer private.

The Connection License everyone agreee's too makes them liable for anything copyrighted they play in a server. So if you play copyrighted material that you have no license to play publicly then your breaking copyright laws. You must own or have created, or have the license to play what sound you make in a server.

But I'm not saying people shouldn't or should, I'm just saying what the terms say that are agreed too soon as you click accept to connect.

So when you connect to a server and this agreement is in place and you click agree then accept then anything you play someone else can use, edit, mix you name it and put it back out, but then there work which contains this is then under the same agreement and others can do the same again too it.
So permission is not needed, but I guess the agreement does say all info should be passed on of originals so credits should be given to any parts used.
I guess if someone posts something, a jam say, and doesn't give credit, mention it's a NINJAM and so on then there post is in breach of copyright and someone could complain and have it removed. So it's worth noting all names from the file names if a jam is downloaded then renamed.

This can be hard sometimes.

I was really surprised to hear you say that the Cockos license covered the running of the server as well. Is it the same as the link you posted? In that doc I read:
"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..." (Section 1)

Yes there is a list....
http://ninbot.com/pubservers

About the license agreements, thats just a GNU GPL software license.
It only covers copying and distribution of the software.
Not use at all. So if you want to run it in your garage
without a net connection and have ninjam lan parties thats
total fair use and awsome.

Cheer tom! :)

Yeah sorry about the running, only the agreement on connecting would be elligable, I was reading this part before the terms are spelt out.

I read this:
[i]To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.[/i]

then this:
[i]To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.[/i]

and yeah this relates to supply and copying.

Would you think charging and locking server access only to them who paid is unlawful to this agreement?

Someone mentioned on Ninjamers FB Group that the GNU is forward compatible so 2.5 I think they meant is whatever version the GNU is now. I not looked at that one, is there major changes?

I read the agreement a long time ago so just rushed through the first bit and missed completely just for redistribution. I see the bit above is when patented but I whipped though that a little quick.
However the modifying, what does that cover, does it cover script files contains in the original zips?
So then if it's modified would it then have to be free and accessible?
But I guess Anonymouse's quote partially covers that question.

Anyway I'm just rambling, making conversation, making holes, finding lines.

I had always assumed that the license terms (when logging into the server) were set at the discretion of the server owner, that if they wanted to use CC-BY (attribution only, commercial reuse is OK) it was fine (and if a jammer didn't like it they just wouldn't accept the license and couldn't jam there). Is that the case?

Yeah I suppose, but if no license was specified then a server owner could be liable for any wrong doings. I guess the connection license that's default with the server puts the liability in the users hands. But I guess if an admin wasn't actively dealing with infringement type things then they could be seen as part cause.