@CosmoConsole got me thinking, will it be ilegal to use plugins that are licensed GPL in a server softwere licensed MIT?“Pore” will be licensed MIT since it is a Sponge plugin but since Bukkit plugins are GPL maybe it would be ilegal?
Edit:I made a discussion about this here Are Bukkit plugins illegal in Sponge?
Technically, GPL is more restrictive. it wouldn’t be a problem the other way around as MIT is GPL compatible.
Disclaimer: IANAL
MIT is compatible with the GPL, but if you redistribute the combination then the GPL’s virality overrides the MIT license. As long as the Sponge code doesn’t know about Pore/Bukkit you should be fine. That said, it’s still illegal to distribute a combination of GPL code and proprietary Mojang code, so that point is moot.
Although this is amazing and I’m glad you’re working on that, I don’t think this is going to be a long-term solution. Think about a plugin having critical bugs or just needed to be updated due to new functionality. How are the developers supposed to update an old Bukkit plugin to work with some new Sponge stuff?
There is nothing preventing updating plugins that are still using Pore while still keeping the Pore dependency, and it’s far less work than effectively rewriting it for Sponge.
I have some bad news for this arm of the Sponge project.
The Bukkit API is under GPL, so why should it be illegal to create a new Plugin that contains the Bukkit API, if the Plugin is also GPL?!
The only problem is that Pore cannot be included in the Sponge download.
If a plugin like this was illegal, why is Nvidia legally making proprietary drivers for the GPL’d linux kernel?! It’s basically the same thing…
You forget about Mojang’s code, as if Nvidia modded some other company’s code, which is NOT GPL, for their driver.
I don’t see why not?
The Bukkit API is GPL and doesn’t require mojang code to load plugins.
As long as Pore doesn’t violate the GPL by including Mojang code it can’t be issued a DMCA, and as long as spongeAPI is MIT, it should be possible to build a plugin that bridges the API, otherwise stuff like GlowKit wouldn’t be allowed either.
I’ll summarize what I said in the thread that @Mr0Redmen created:
I believe Pore is legal because in this case, it serves as the plugin loader, and is released under an MIT (GPL-compatible) license. Sponge’s legal status is irrelevant becuase it never directly loads or interfaces with the Bukkit plugins. The only situation that would cause an issue is if a non-free plugin were loaded with Pore, in which case I’m not entirely sure who the blame would fall upon.
GPL compatibility means that GPL code may interact with compatible code, but not in the other direction.
Could you tell me where Bukkit (NOT CraftBukkit) uses Mojang code? Bukkit itself is valid GPL and that’s why you can still download it from the official site… 
Look again at the Bukkit repo, and you’ll see that the last commit is from some time in 2013. Presumably that is the last commit before Wolvereness started contributing.
bendude56 authored on 8 Jul 2013
However, it seems like I was wrong and those are just a bunch of commits that were recently cherry-picked on top of the repo.
The concern is the Bukkit API, not the implementation, but all the implementations break the GPL. Technically, if there was an implementation of Bukkit API without Mojang code (a.k.a. coded from scratch) it wouldn’t break the GPL as set by Wolvereness.
Didn’t Wolvereness create the working plugin loading system…?
If so then surely he had something to do with the creation of the Plugin class Bukkit uses meaning if somebody took advantage of the existing Plugin class then logically their work is also susceptible to the DMCA treatment?
No, because both the Bukkit API and Pore are released under free licenses. The reason for the DMCA was that GPL code was packaged with non-free code.
Ah I see.
What would the effect of using Bukkit’s code to emulate the server have though given it would require the NMS code? From what I gather the OP has a cloned Bukkit repo which immediately rings alarm bells to me.