Slashdot Mirror
John Carmack Enforcing the GPL on Quake Source
GuavaBerry writes, "John Carmack's latest .plan update is really really interesting. Apparently a modmaker is trying to derive work from the newly GPL'ed Quake source without releasing source to his binaries, and Carmack isn't happy about it. The debate is chilling, but we must appreciate Carmack's no-nonsense approach to enforcing his rights under the GPL. "
He HAS to vigorously defend the GPL. To not do so would not only be unfair to his work, the liscence, and the community in general, but who would want to be the first person to weaken the integrity of the GPL by allowing a high-profile violation like this? Sounds about as well-advised as this dern train jump thing on fox right about now. Egads.
Read the emails here.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
You know what I hope? I hope that the guy releasing the binaries keeps it up. That way, we can see what the GPL is legally made of if John takes him to court. That'd be cool, especially if the GPL prevailed... I've always been a little skeptical about the power of the GPL, and I think a good litmus test would do it wonders.
As a avid quake player, the source code release of Quake has almost destroyed the community. Through extensive monitoring of servers (which should exist anyways) most popular servers have a no cheating policy that includes instant bannishment. I respect the QuakeLives project, and its programmer, but I feel that Slade is destroying the community further. Mega TF, arguably the best quake mod out, is beginning to move towards QuakeLives only, a dependance that could kill both Mega TF, or regular Quake. The QuakeLives project is attempting to create a server that only THEIR client can connect to and monopolize the community. Slade has attempted to swindle his way around this multiple times, consitering making difs, or other such ideas, including this "click through" of giving up your rights. I wish slade would realize that there ARE ways to get past cheating, and they CAN include not breaking the law. I applaud Carmack for his protection of the community. Slade attacks the fact that no one is attempting to fix bugs, or make Quake better. I ask you, what has Slade done to fix bugs and make Quake better? He himself has closed the source of his tree, and isn't obiding by the wording, or the intent of the GPL.
My 2 cents.
SB.
This guy(the one that is trying to derive a closed source project from a project that is under the GPL) is a disgrace to the open source community. Burn him at the stake!
Now we have someone who can enforce his GPLed code with a BFG :)
....
Slade's point is that everyone who is asking for source is just asking for it just for the sake of it and that no one really intends to make the code better.
Mr. Slade, the people who are asking for it and asking for it just for the sake of seeing if you would give it out, is the actual GPL enforcers IMHO. They are testing you, making sure (this is the double checking we have in our system) that you and anyone else who violate the GPL are at all times checked.
This checking is important.. not only for popular GPLed code, but also for those tiny little applets that are under GPL. By having ppl bicker about source releases and demand them, we are fostering a way of making sure even those tiny pieces of sotware are protected as well.
Good luck (wouldnt want to be in front of carmack when he fires that BFG10k).
...blessed by Ford Perfect
--
ummm sure....how off topic can one get? From Quake to comunist cuba. Any insightful comments on this? As far as Im concenred, it seems that Carmac has the right to do what hes doing, so go with it, whatever.
-- "It is my sacred and holy duty to see those guys suffer."
What do you mean, chilling? Whoop ass, John!
Carmack's got it right about this guy. He's basically trying to rewrite the law because it was inconvienent for him. Too bad, that's the price you pay for using the GPL (why not just post the source on the site and let people download it without having to ask HIM for it). He says he doesn't want to obfuscate the code because that's against the spirit of the GPL, but then neither is denying people access to your code, so the real issue here is protecting his own ego and lashing out at the "bad people."
Unfortunatly, if he can make this hold up in court (if it gets there), then the GPL is screwed and we can all pretty much kiss the Open Source movement goodbye. I can see it now, to install RedHat you have to agree that you have no right to the code. Blah.
=I am Jack's general protection fault=
Of course he will. If the terms of a license isn't enforced then the license is meaningless.
Has this been an ongoing thing for a while? John mentioned that some other people mighta been harassing the mod author... Looks like he's handling it well, tho - being polite, giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, but standing up for his rights to the code he released under GPL...
Bow-ties are cool.
I (and it would seem everyone else) always assumed it would be a major corporation that gave us a test case on the GPL. We've kept our eyes on Red Hat, Microsoft, and Corel, and in the end a tiny one-man team who no one has ever even heard of that winds up being the first deliberate violator of the GPL. I wonder if we've just been looking at the wrong bunch...
John Carmack's reply to this blatant violation of the GPL is the only one possible if we wish the GPL to have any teeth. Thank you John. In fact, you motivated my first ever post to slashdot.
This is bad for the gaming community, since some important mods have been lost on more than one occasion when people's hard disks crashed. In addition, it means that the community can not add to other people's cool mods.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
If the link doesn't work (planetquake tends to puke under load), here's a few others:
& file=qwcl-win32/
3dshack finger server
bluesnews finger server
You could always just finger johnc@idsoftware.com, but I really don't recommend it.... I don't think the id server can take the load.
The offending page is here: http://w ww.quakelives.com/main/ql.cgi?section=dlagreement
--
By reading this you give up your right to free speech.
If I beleived what Slade is saying, the above sentence would mean something. What Slade is doing cannot be legal. If so, then how about this:
By reading this, you agree not to hold me responsible for the pirated software you are about to download from me.
Pheh, right...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Come on, "first post"? You weren't even close! I got in before you, and while I was trying to figure out what to write at least 10 other people got in before me. :) Get a grip.
Oh, and settle down. Looks like Carmack's got a firm grip on the situation.
Bow-ties are cool.
[00:11] i made diffs(esentially :( ;) :( ;) :) :)
:-)
[00:11] <Slade> let me show you
[00:11] <Palisade> right
[00:12] <Slade> lets pretend that this is the quake source code
[00:12] <Palisade> that means there is GPL'd code in there as well
[00:12] <Slade> 12345
[00:12] <Slade> and thats the code needed to make quake run(its oversimplicfication i know)
[00:12] <Slade> now iD owns the license on all that right?
[00:13] <Slade> and the license they've granted is the GPL
[00:13] <Palisade> ok
[00:13] <Slade> with me so far?
[00:13] <Slade> ok
[00:13] <Slade> now.. if i make code thats 123945
[00:13] <Palisade> so you link in some modifications
[00:13] <Slade> who owns the copywrite on the 9
[00:14] <Slade> i do right?
[00:14] <Palisade> ok 9 is your modification, but by linking it it becomes a part of the whole
[00:14] <Palisade> you own the copyright, but for you to be able to link it it must be GPL compatible license
[00:14] <Slade> hang on
[00:14] <Slade> you're jumping the gun
[00:14] <Slade> keep with me
[00:14] <Slade> ok
[00:15] <Slade> so technically
[00:15] <Slade> its ok for me to have that binary on my system right?
[00:15] <Palisade> slade, you can make as many binaries as you want
[00:15] <Slade> even if i say this code is everything against the principles of the GPL(hypathetically)
[00:16] <Palisade> if you distribute that binary though you must provide the source code
[00:16] <Slade> correct
[00:16] <Palisade> and so you're saying you're just providing a patch and not the "actual" binary
[00:16] <Palisade> right?
[00:16] <Slade> i'm providing the
[00:16] <Slade> diffrences between my code and the GPL code
[00:17] <Palisade> literally you are the one who linked it, not the end user who applies the patch...
[00:17] <Slade> who did i link it?
[00:17] <Slade> err
[00:17] <Slade> how
[00:17] <Palisade> you had to compile the binary which you made a patch available for
[00:18] <Palisade> therefore you had to link in your non-GPL'd code
[00:18] <Slade> thats one way
[00:18] <Slade> but i didnt distribute that binary
[00:18] <Palisade> you distributed the binary in essence
[00:19] <Palisade> just because a method was used that cut down it's size doesn't mean you didn't distribute it
[00:19] <Slade> ok. lets go back to the code issue
[00:19] <Slade> 123945
[00:19] <Slade> 12345
[00:19] <Palisade> otherwise people could use encryption or compression as an excuse to pirate... "well the binary isn't *exactly* the same"
[00:19] <Slade> the dif is '9' right?
[00:19] <Palisade> well the diff would be:
[00:20] <Palisade> 123
[00:20] <Palisade> +9
[00:20] <Slade> byte[4]9 shift 1
[00:20] <Palisade> 45
[00:20] <Slade> yeah
[00:20] <Slade> now i own the 9
[00:20] <Palisade> diff cuts code and places it in front of and behind the code you changed
[00:20] <Palisade> or in this case the binary
[00:21] <Slade> not the method i use
[00:21] <Slade> if does it like this
[00:21] <Slade> byte[4]9 shift 1
[00:21] <Palisade> is that how your patch was really made?
[00:21] <Slade> in kindergarden basics, yes
[00:21] <Palisade> so you didn't use diff?
[00:21] <Slade> diff is gpl'd code
[00:22] <Slade> and i cant find a good diff for win32
[00:22] <Palisade> diff is a program
[00:22] <Palisade> oh you're against using GPL'd programs?
[00:22] <Slade> no
[00:22] <Palisade> there is a commandline diff program available, i should find out the url for it
[00:22] <Slade> but that would make part of my patch GPL
[00:22] <Palisade> oh you were making it so the end user can just run a program that patches it, ok
[00:22] <Slade> yeah windiff. but its buggy
[00:22] <Slade> right
[00:23] <Slade> point and click, win32 style
[00:23] <Palisade> ok and no GPL'd code from the Quake 1 engine slipped into the patch at all?
[00:23] <Palisade> just location jumps
[00:23] <Slade> how could it have?
[00:23] <Slade> if you notice
[00:23] <Palisade> that reminds me i should write a nifty front-end to patch
[00:23] <Slade> i released the source to 2.52
[00:23] <Slade> so 2.52 is perfectly legit
[00:24] <Slade> under the GPL
[00:24] <Palisade> did you write the patch program?
[00:24] <Slade> nope. its shareware. under the general license 'you can use it all you want for as much as you want any way you want so long as you dont use it for commercial purposes'
[00:24] <Palisade> slade, ok so we aren't really sure how it patches
[00:25] <Slade> on their site
[00:25] <Slade> they explained the method
[00:25] <Palisade> slade, which means some GPL'd code from the q1 engine could be in there (or rather object code of that code)
[00:25] <Palisade> ah
[00:25] <Slade> i think its nasty compared to diffs
[00:25] <Slade> but it works
[00:26] <Palisade> mm
[00:26] <Palisade> well it certainly must work well on binaries
[00:26] <Slade> which is part of the reason i picked it
[00:26] <Slade> no it doesnt
[00:26] <Slade> it wouldnt even patch the GL server
[00:26] <Slade> err client
[00:26] <Slade> it failed its compare
[00:27] <Slade> but that method is much cooler for binaries then diff
[00:27] <Palisade> ah
[00:27] <Slade> if they wrote the code right
[00:27] <Palisade> ok so anyways, so assuming it doesn't insert any of the original code, just your modification and locations
[00:27] * Slade nods.
[00:28] <Palisade> in order to create the patch you had to link it... so literally you were the one who linked, not the end user who applies the patch
[00:28] <Slade> i linked it, which is legal, so long as i dont distribute the GPL code
[00:28] <Palisade> no
[00:29] <Palisade> that's false logic...
[00:29] <Slade> how so?
[00:29] <Palisade> you see in order to actually provide the patch, you had to link the proprietary code with the GPL'd code
[00:29] <Slade> correct
[00:29] <Palisade> it doesn't matter what you do to it afterwards, compress it, encrypt it, rearrange it, diff it
[00:30] <Palisade> in order to get it to the end user
[00:30] <Palisade> you still had to link the incompatible licensed code together to create it
[00:30] <Slade> correct
[00:30] <Palisade> which is illegal
[00:30] <Slade> not that i see
[00:30] <Palisade> the license doesn't allow that
[00:31] <Slade> what i see is its only illegal if the binary is distributed
[00:31] <Palisade> as i said it doesn't matter how you want to obfuscate the resulting binary
[00:31] <Slade> so you're saying that the patch is under the GPL
[00:32] <Palisade> the fact that exact locations were calculated is exactly as if you had distributed the full executable
[00:32] <Palisade> no i'm saying the patch violates the GPL
[00:32] <Slade> how so?
[00:32] <Slade> well let me ask you this
[00:33] <Palisade> since it is proprietary code linked with GPL'd code
[00:33] <Slade> are we both in agreement that the binary does not violate the GPL so long as its sitting on my own machine
[00:33] <Palisade> slade, i'm not sure about that
[00:33] <Slade> or is this the point we are arguing right now?
[00:34] <Slade> from talking with Carmack, he said that was the hazy part
[00:34] <Palisade> it is a pretty hazy part
[00:34] <Slade> after i explained it
[00:34] <Palisade> btw have you talked to gnu@gnu.org yet?
[00:34] <Slade> and linux people cant really say anything about it without being hypocritical
[00:34] <Palisade> slade, JC is under the misconception that you're going to release the source code later
[00:35] <Slade> Palisade: i cleared that up and told him i wasnt
[00:35] <Palisade> slade, ah what did he say?
[00:37] <Slade> Palisade: Well I had told him that if he says the word I'll do it just as he says it. and he said it was kind of hazy so I removed the patches from the site until we could figure out more. I told him I had done that, he basically said ok. and we continued our conversation on other ways to make a more secure client
[00:37] <Palisade> slade, ok, so you're waiting to hear back about that until you do anything further
[00:38] <Slade> um. its not that. its basically we've gone on
[00:38] <Slade> he wasnt to concerned about if it was a violation of the GPL or not. more that it didnt really matter because the situation was remided to his satisfaction
[00:38] <Palisade> slade, i see where some people are getting upset of course, if we assume that you're wrong then of course that's why many are demanding the source...
[00:39] <Palisade> slade, the problem seems to be that everyone is confused as to the details, on both sides...
[00:39] <Slade> I'm not confused.
[00:39] <Palisade> slade, you've gone on?
[00:39] <Slade> yes. we're moving on to ql 2.54
[00:40] <Palisade> ok
[00:40] <Palisade> so what's all the fuss about?
[00:41] <Slade> people still want the source
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, ah
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, well... here's how i see it
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, you made a mistake (or rather, decided not to bother with the proprietary patch and moved on, whichever way you want to look at it)
[00:42] <Slade> the way i look at it is the copywrite holder was made happy by it being brought down for review
[00:42] <Palisade> slade, and you stopped distributing the patch
[00:42] <Palisade> slade, now since code 9 was yours
[00:42] * Slade listens
[00:43] <Palisade> slade, and you reversed your decision
[00:44] <Palisade> slade, then the code is yours, the code is under a proprietary license, and you are no longer distributing it linked to the GPL code, then you have the right not to provide that code
[00:44] * Slade nods.
[00:46] <Slade> then whats the problem again?
[00:46] <Palisade> no idea
[00:46] * Slade chuckles.
[00:46] <Palisade> well i think i have an idea
[00:46] <Palisade> you see you pissed off a lot of people who really like the GPL
[00:47] <Palisade> and so basically they've decided to hassle you about it and see if they can get you to release the code so they feel that they've won somehow
[00:47] <Slade> thats the way i see it
Email me for the complete log if you really want it
SB.
Carmack gets to release older engines and such things under the GPL, _knowing_ that nobody can take his work and build it into a competing closed source project. Granted, he can't cherry-pick ideas from the GPL stuff he seeded and use them in his closed stuff, but he doesn't need to, he has plenty of ideas of his own to use. The point is, Carmack does not want people to be 'free' to take the stuff he's giving to the opensource hackers, and turn it into a rival engine. He wants it to stay in the domain of the hackers, stay visible and accessible to all. If his GPLed works end up becoming terrific enough to compete with him (the recent GPLing of Bungie's Marathon 2 source resulted in the fixing of all the engine bugs, and a flurry of new mapmaking!), he'll make the effort to remain competitive, but that's still a very different thing from allowing his old code to go out there under a license that lets other companies take it, do proprietary mods on it, and then start selling that.
It's immensely gratifying to see that the GPL suits Carmack's purpose so well, what with the constant bashing it gets. Fact is, the only reason to bash the GPL is if you want to rip somebody off. If you are a creator and want to share, it's the single most effective way to ensure that sharing will happen _and_ that any resulting projects won't get in the way of any separate, proprietary projects you're depending on. I wish John Carmack the best in working out this little problem of his, and totally support his hard line. GPL means GPL. People choose it for a reason.
nt
The Quake Lives author Slade baked up a half-assed excuse.
Nice to see Carmack thinks it is a load of crap, and from his update:
"If necessary, I will pay whatever lawyer the Free Software Foundation reccomends to pursue this."
not as big of a joke as your spelling
Why? Because I'd really like to see the GPL tested in court. Having never had a serious test, the GPL current is just a bunch of words, nobody knows how big the legal bite is. And it would be better to set a precedent against a Quake mod author than a large big-money, lotsa-lawyers megacorp.
It's about time that something like this came to a head. The GPL has been argued about for years; now I hope it goes all the way.
To date, all the discussion, flamewars, and hype over this issue have been theoretical and/or opinion, only.
Now we have the opportunity to see whether the GPL will stand, and maybe have a chance to strenghten any weak spots before someone else tries this.
The only opinion that matters now, (I hope), is a judges opinion.
Paul
Yeah, we fucking noticed it, heh. Good thing I had already visited the page, and only appeared black. You know, the 'Preview' button is there for a reason - to prevent you from looking stupid. You have just hit yourself with a double whammy.
The Quakelives guys hang out in #console on gamesnet a lot...
irc.gamesnet.net (for a random server)
west.gamesnet.net
il.gamesnet.net
...
--
I was refering to MY first post dumbass! Looks like someone needs some prozac.
_________________
rooooar
Now, I don't think it's fair to ask for the source if you're not going to do anything with it, (at least, look at it for learning purposes) but it's still legal.
I think it's great that JC is willing to cough up his own $$$ for this, though. We need more stand up people like that.
The above comment is CopyWrong (K) Erisian Entertainment. All Rights Reversed. Ewige Blumenkraft!
Almost like they set this up on purpose to create a legal precedent, isn't it?
As a member of the QuakeForge project, I'm almost glad to see this on slashdot, though I'm also saddened to see that it has had to go this far. We (QuakeForge, and the other groups like QuakeWorld Forever) have been struggling to get the word out of what "Slade" has been pulling for the past month.
QuakeLives in general, and Slade in particular, have been trying to violate the intent and letter of the GPL any way they can. It's a great insult to work diligently on improving the Quake source, doing all our damn-good merge work, only to see somebody try to do an end-run around the community process by keeping their source secret and making alliances to ensure that their secret source version becomes the de facto standard.
I think I submitted my first request under the GPL for source code to the quakelives project in mid January...
--
[as of 17:32pst]
I've been around and working with software under the GPL license for almost 10 years now. I've seen
some very good things come out of it, and in the past I have been a strong supporter of the GPL, I still am to a great extent, well the spirit of the GPL at any rate. For without this great license, it is very doubtful that Id would have made their (in)famous release of the code that most of our work is based upon. In the past months I've had a great deal of problems with the GPL people regarding the QuakeLives project. I am very sad to say that my experiences with these people show that the GPL community as a whole has completely forgotten what they set out to do in the first place, people coming and expecting source codes and explanations and other favors because they believe they have a right to it, not because they wish to use this code to improve it, or use it for their own works, but simply because they wanted it. Out of everyone who ever asked me for the code, everyone demanded it saying it's his or her god-given right to the code. Not a single person said they wanted it for fixing up the numerous bugs, or adding to it, or anything that the GPL is supposed to stand for. So, disappointed with what the community has become, I've decided to take a stand, not for the purpose of avoiding the GPL(most of our sensitive code is not under the GPL so this would not be important at any rate), but to improve the condition of the GPL community as well as the gaming society as a whole. People who speak to us, do it publicly and have their own public intentions and not the benefit to the public(the P in GPL is public) as a whole. And even one of the head coders of Id Software suggested obfuscating the code before releasing to aid in making it difficult to figure out. This defies the real purpose of the GPL as well. So the basic limitation here is the legal letters of the law, where obfuscating the code is 'legal' according to the letter of the law. It completely violates the purposes of the GPL. The legal issues, however, are easily overcome.
You do have a right to the source code, under the GPL. This is law. However much like the Constitutional American "Right to Bear Arms". I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right. While you can bear a concealed handgun, you are not allowed to bring it on a public bus, or many places of business. The signs usually say something like 'No firearms beyond this point'. Which is basically making people to
give up their Constitutional rights to bear arms.
The rules here will be similar.
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.
Specifically the rights regarding access to the source code. And while we are obligated to offer you the source code, for up to 3 years until we stop releasing this. To gain access to this site, you are obligated not to ask.
Please note that you have no right to access the binaries, source code or artwork ("Content") produced by QuakeLives or the content herein without specifically agreeing to this. Any other access is illegal. And being as the GPL only regulates HOW we distribute, it does not regulate WHO we distribute to, if you do not agree to this, QuakeLives does not give you permission to access the Content of this site, hence, you legally are not allowed access to these files and doing so is punishable by law.
Also note that you are still allowed to distribute the works within freely, but please be aware that software contained herein is still under the GPL and you personally will be responsible for the licensing restrictions of the GPL. So I strongly suggest that you have people you send to agree to similar terms.
For all those who really don't care about this and just want the game so they can play, I apologize for the delay this has caused.
-- Slade
-Scott scott@surrealistic.org
There we see the results of ESR's work. While it is true that his worked has allowed the Free Software Community to grow at an exponential speed in the last year. We now see the bizzare ideas that come out of this pure utilitarian base.
Free Software is NOT about making better software, is it NOT about fixing bugs and it is NOT about adding features. It is about MORAL rights and freedoms, it is about the right to study the source code just because I fell like it, about the right to use it to do whatever I want. It does not have at its base the economic idea of being more productive, but the moral idea of doing the right thing. It is about the right to use it to cheat. It is like the public domain, if I want to use Romeo & Juliet as toilet paper, I can, I can base any kind of bastardised play I want on it. It is not about control, it is about FREEDOM.
Lets hope that this guy gets flamed to Hell. He wont change his mind, but others may think twice before doing the same thing.
Bravo JC!
The beauty of the GPL is that if it is violated, it becomes entirely a matter of copyright law. Saying that the GPL is indefensible is saying that copyrights are indefensible.
Personally, I consider the GPL evil - it forever locks reusable code into a non-commercial model. I used to release reusable code under LGPL, now I use BSD.
That said, I completely agree w/ Carmack. This is his commercial work, he could release under a license stipulating that licensees were required to pour Cherry Slurpees over their head before redistributing, and he could sue anyone who chose to circumvent said clause.
If Slade doesn't like the GPL, he shouldn't have used GPL tainted code. Now he gets to pay the piper, or we get an interesting (and LONG due!) test case for the GPL's working.
please do not violate my gpl (grits pouring liscense) by failing to pour bowls of hot grits down your pants. thank you.
Okay, a quick question here... Everyone's already started screaming and everything, but... is what he's doing wrong?
... doesn't he have the right to do this? And close-source his programs if he chooses to?
The way that he's spinning it on his web page, it sounds like he's creating two entirely separate programs that simply verify that the quakeworld client hasn't been modified. Now, if this doesn't use any of the actual Quake source code, it seems to me that the GPL doesn't apply...
I say 'the way that he's spinning it,' because I really don't know if this is how his system works. But if it is,
Everybody is posting that this is a major test case for the GNU GPL to see how well it will stand up in court. This it is. This is the first major conflict over GPLed source code, and its enforceability. Granted, he's not trying to make any money off of it, which most of us thought would be the reason that the GNU GPL would be taken into court, but he's still in violation of the principles of the GPL. It's a good thing that it's John Carmack, who has enough energy, time, and money to attack this thing fully. We're guaranteed a good advocate. Give 'em whatfor, John.
The second thing that this concerns is what I'd eventually like to see: games released under the GNU GPL. The outcome of this affair, if Carmack wins, may convince some game company out there to experiment by releasing their source under the GPL and then selling the data on CD-ROM. If Carmack doesn't win and this mod maker guy does, then I'm very likely going to change the license agreement on the game I'm making (which does operate in this manner) from GPLed source code to either closed source or some license agreement which gives me more control.
It'd be interesting to see RMS's reaction to this.
disclaimer: opinions contained therein are not neccessarily those of my employer.
Looks like the PQ fingertracker choked under /. Here is a .plan update link from my webserver which can handle it.
-Steve Gibson
-Steve Gibson
shugashack.com
One of the things Ford Prefect had always found hardest to
understand about human beings was their habit of continually
stating and repeating the obvious, as in It's a nice day, or
You're very tall, or Oh dear you seem to have fallen down a
thirty-foot well, are you alright? At first Ford had formed a
theory to account for this strange behaviour. If human beings
don't keep exercising their lips, he thought, their mouths
probably seize up. After a few months' consideration and
observation he abandoned this theory in favour of a new one. If
they don't keep on exercising their lips, he thought, their
brains start working. After a while he abandoned this one as well
as being obstructively cynical and decided he quite liked human
beings after all, but he always remained desperately worried
about the terrible number of things they didn't know about.
From the statement on "quakelives":
"You do have a right to the source code, under the GPL. This is law. However much like the Constitutional American "Right to Bear Arms". I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right. While you can bear a concealed handgun, you are not allowed to bring it on a public bus, or many places of business. The signs usually say something like 'No firearms beyond this point'. Which is basically making people to give up their Constitutional rights to bear arms. The rules here will be similar."
By this logic, I can strap a sign on stating that by allowing me to enter the building, you are negating your posted sign and thus I CAN bring my firearm in!?!
I guess by this logic, all I need to do is send an email to them stating that "By recieving this, you agree that I am not legally bound to any of the restrictions displayed by, and implied by, your website." prior to entering.
"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to make one's living by it."-Einstein
...for this guys mail server.
.... (guess I'll have to get them after the /. rush crushes all servers in its path)
For those of you that want it from the horse's mouth.. click here.
If this is to be the first test of the GPL (conspiracy theorists get to work) then we have an easy go of it. A vastly popular, mulit-millionaire, with the law on his side vs. Slade "Source code is like handguns". The claims he makes are ridiculous, but it looks like he wants to test them.
If you read the above you'll see the basis of his argument.
I've seen some very good things come out of it, and in the past I have been a strong supporter of the GPL, I still am to a great extent, well the spirit of the GPL at any rate.
which is to say, "not the letter of it."
courts don't like that.
You do have a right to the source code, under the GPL. This is law. However much like the Constitutional American "Right to Bear Arms". I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right.
I think this "right" came with a box of Cheerios.
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.
his emphasis.
and finally..
For all those who really don't care about this and just want the game so they can play, I apologize for the delay this has caused.
Yea, and "for all those who really care about being able to fix bugs as they happen, instead of waiting for an official release, here's my finger, stick it up your ass."
At least that was my reading.
If anybody wants the binaries without the agreement, email me.
--
+&x
> he'll be forced to open up the source
He only has to open the source to anyone who can prove they downloaded binaries from him. He can stop distributing completely, and keep the source private.
> he'll put it on a 56k uplink on a windows box
That's not too bad - only one person has to download the source like this, then they can put it somewhere sensible (e.g. GeoCities) for everyone else.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Hey! Don't say that we run IIS... er, ok we suck on server software - but we rule in content. ;)
( This is a joking view - I'm not representing PQ as a content provider with this statement. However off the record I hate the IIS servers and MS FTP, oh god make it stop! )
The page proclaims that they have proxies, but the programs are just modified versions of the standard qwcl and qwsv that come with quakeworld, in other words built from the q1 source code with some extra modules.
This is what happens when you have as many PR + webpage people as programmers.
--
If we don't beat him down with lawyers then does it set up a bad precident for future code pilferers?
I can respect his position, I think it is bogus, but I can respect it. In one light I see this as a really good thing for free software and the GPL, Carmack and the FSF are probably on better or at least equal financial ground should it come to the courts and it's better to set the standard in a place where you can definitely win than to do it against an MS or IBM or somebody with an endless supply of money and lawyers.
Secondly, would it be possible to subpoena his other "non-GPLed" code to make sure it's clean? When put in that kind of position he may be more likely to go a long with it. We already know and he has already admitted that he's trying to make a point and he's not being fully compliant with the GPL. Probably not yet, but in a few years there will be some big boys, Redhat, SuSE, VA, who have serious cash invested in the GPL and it's purity. I could see some big legal clashes coming, a lot of businesses are scared to death of the GPL's viral properties.
A year or so ago if I told you that the potential first real test of the GPL might be some big corporation defending the GPL from a little guy, you'd have laughed at me.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I realise I'm preaching to the wrong audience here, but the release of the Quake source code was the worst thing to happen to the Quake community. This community was still alive and thriving on a piece of software developed many years ago, how many games or even software projects can say that? The quakelives project is attempting to restore the security in quake against anyone, anywhere fabricating cheats and ruining the game for everyone.
Did John Carmack intend to turn away the countless loyal members of the quake community by releasing the code? I dont think so. He probably wanted to see what other projects could come out of it, considering it to be an outdated project. So when someone attempts to create a free, secure product that would be used by many many people, they have to give up the whole point of their project by releasing the source? Shame on John. He created Quake a long time ago and it is less his now and more property of the people who work with it and play in it day after day. Mr. Carmack should try to file the source under a better agreement that would allow Slade to release a secure version of his interpretation of the quake source. Mod makers have pushed iD up to the level they are at now. Free mod makers are the last people that should come under fire for legal issues.
The issue of cheating is so great in Quake that it will make or break the community. Allow someone to release a secure, standardized version now that iD has given up that right.
Matt BooneSlade is using this tactic because I can feel a true willing to protect the cheating the game can have. Hey I know many /. readers are hackers, but let me tell you I just plainly can't stand the cheaters who are going to spoil my game.. Slade doesn't want this cheating too -- Therefore, because he truly believe that violating the GPL, by not releasing the sources, seems to help, he is using what almost anyone won't even think about, because using this behavior can put yourself against the law: civil disobedience. I admire him. He is defying the law, and publicly stating it. No one will budge him. Not even the Quake Creator Lord himself.
On the other hand, there's one thing to look at though: Slade could be entering some backdoors to cheat himself, but I do really think that unlikely. What is worse? Let Slade cheat by himself, or let a horde modify the source code so anyone can make cheats?
Ok, I could get moderated down for this post. I'm not stating that what he does is Right. But let me tell one thing: as a believer of the open-source community, I really would like to see his project respecting the GPL. As a gamer, I don't want cheating, and on this point, only the restricting of the source code seems to help - if you have another VALID solution, then by all means, e-mail Slade.
His real intention is to protect the game from cheating. Thank you.
This seems to be a common misunderstanding about the GPL. There are two distinct issues here, and it's easy to get them confused.
In licencing something under the GPL, you do not give up your own, personal right to distribute your code under some other license at a later time. As copyright holder of that code, you are free to use that code any which way you please, including in other commercial projects if you so desire.
What the GPL does specify is that code released under the GPL cannot have that license revoked. In other words, if I, as copyright holder of foo.c, release it to Sally Hacker under the GPL, I cannot ever revoke Sally Hacker's GPL license to that code. In other words, I can't suddenly force Sally Hacker to not distribute the code I gave her under the GPL at any future date.
However, assuming I'm the sole copyright holder of the code I gave Sally, I am perfectly free to reuse that code in another product that is completely closed source and commercial, if I so desire. As copyright holder on that code, I can release it multiple times under whatever license I please. That's a basic part of being the copyright holder on something, and it is not a right you give up by releasing under the GPL
Its unacceptable. I don't care how he attempts to justify it, even if he finds a loophole of some kind, or the law ends up supporting him, it is just plain wrong.
.plan, outlined a way of creating a pre-compiled security system by use of an external proxy. However I suspect this gentleman has realised what is obvious to anyone who has done reverse engineering before, the smaller the code you're trying to reverse, the easier it gets. Just finding the relevant procedures can be tough, especially if they've encrypted it somehow, and attempting to figure out the protocols used from the original quake binaries was difficult in the extreme, because it was a large binary with a lot going on in a very short space of time.
There is a reason for the GPL, people don't GPL code because they love TLAs, or because they like making other people miserable, they do it because they believe, and I believe, that Open Source software is the answer to the problem that software solves.
Yes Quake is having problems with cheats due to the source release, No close sourcing the code is not the answer. There have already been numerous articles explaining this is depth, some by very influential people, and it is annoying to see them so disregarded in this manner.
It has long been known in security circles that security through obscurity is the worst method available. Yes it is useful, but only in concert with other, heavier forms of protection. Nobody argues that giving away login names is ok, just because hiding those names is security through obscurity, but on the same token, nobody believes their system safe if the only thing between an attacker and the system is that they don't know the login names.
In this case, John has already, in a previous
Creating a closed-source patch or external server would have far less effect, it is dedicated to its purpose, and no matter how many layers of self-encryption it used, unwinding those using a debugger would be far easier when the levels that communicate with the closed-source section themselves were already know and the unknown code was known to be dedicated to its task.
There is only one real solution to this problem, and it has already been stated. Information is on a need-to-know basis. The security point is at the server, not at the client.
Unfortunately, this leads to a performance hit as the server has to take much greater account of what is visible/doable and what is not. However there have been many fine open-source-compatible suggestions that would help with the problem, including:
Conflict resolution by scoring: Doing things that are suspect, like hitting invisible targets, moving places you shouldn't, or hitting with remarkable accuracy constantly, would lose you points, other actions such as losing a game, or being on for some time would gain you trust-points. These points would then be used in conflict resolution. One client says you died, the other says you didn't, the one with the highest trust-score gets decided for.
Baiting:
In concert with the above, a variety of non-visible targets etc are left lying around, shooting one loses you trust points and is indicative of a cheat, many other concepts along these lines are possible. its an arms race, but one that does not need to progress far before there are so many limitations to cheating that it hardly becomes worth it.
Logins:
Utilising logins, the scoring method could be enhanced, allowing the trust of a given player to build up over time. Anonymous players would have extremely low trust, thus be pretty much unable to cheat, as if a logged-in client disagrees with any of their movements, they would be overruled.
These are just some of the ideas I have heard about automated cheat damping, there were lots and lots, many ingenious and clever, on the previous discussion of this on slashdot. I suggest that if you're really concerned, solve the problem right, don't rely on a method that will be almost as easily broken as the plain source itself.
You can't win a fight.
It's been a while since I've played Q1, but I've heard a lot
of ruckus about it being "ruined" by cheaters since the GPL
source release. Do I understand correctly that Slade's motivation
for not releasing his source is a desire to create a "secure"
client for playing Quake?
I've written at least one bot and/or mod for each Quake. I'm currently working on a bot that can play all three. I don't wish to GPL my AI code for the sake of interfacing with Q3A.
- --
How do you avoid the GPL?
1. Write CS bots. ( Prepare to be witch hunted. )
OR better...
2. Write a GPLed 'hook' into the Quake game code.
Then have the AI off in another program.
Use networking to pass info - this is legal.
I've worked on QuakeForge for a short time, and I got flak for doing this - however this is legal. I may want to use this code for commerial or educational use.
( i.e. sell my AI or use for my senior project )
It's perfectly legal to have a GPL'ed program work as a client to a closed source server. I want to make that clear. If you don't want to GPL your source just yet, then try this.
-----------------------------------------------
FYI, the 'quake community' pisses me off - when the eraser bot stole one of my old teammate's code and didn't credit him... the quake *community supported pirated intellectual properity because I quote: "We like the bot, leave him alone."
I'm not bitter. =)
quietly walk away and hope nobody noticed...
... which is precisely why software patents are evil..
I just read all the posts here about the story, and being in Game Creation myself, it's all very interesting. After checking out the info on the QuakeLives site, I clicked on the "I Do Not Agree..." button, and was sent to a nice "The page cannot be displayed" message.
That means that I haven't gone into the page yet, and also haven't agreed to Slade's "disclaimer" as he puts it. So.... If you can see where I am leading, that means that even under his disclaimer, I have the right to his source code considering that he is using a GPL...
Wonder if he gives it to me?
-Tomasz 'Millennium' Jachimczak
Lead Level Designer
Zen Tao Interactive
Well done! I spose your after somesort of medal, a gold? somehow I dont think so, I'll give you a big brown pooh, and you can smear it all over yourself. Try and find something more constructive to do rather then be the first one to reply to a post. I suggest you look for the meaning of life, that'll keep you occupied for a while.
use your millions to sue the little guy into submission.. that's the GPL way!
The difference with what you're saying is that you don't have the right to, say, enter the building in the first place. So without their permission, you're automatically locked out. Now, they say, "you may enter if you don't bring a gun", and allow you to enter. BUT that is not necessarily legal, any more than a "you may enter if you're white" sign. The thing is, in general, the courts have upheld restrictions to the second amendment as special cases.
So what he says about accessing his code may well hold, BUT that's something the courts would have to decide on.
The QWForever project has a similar model, except it isn't violating the GPL.
--
It's still not as big a joke as your grammar and punctuation.
When the Clintonistas spout platitudes such as "Nobody needs an AK-47 to hunt squirrels," they're employing precisely the same rhetorical device as Slade's argument ("Out of everyone who ever asked me for the code, everyone demanded it saying it's his or her god-given right to the code. Not a single person said they wanted it for fixing up the numerous bugs, or adding to it, or anything that the GPL is supposed to stand for.")
The American founders didn't justify the citizens' right to bear arms by citing their need to hunt squirrels. Likewise, Stallman didn't require GPL licensees to justify their legally-granted right to receive source code.
In both cases, we're seeing perversions of both the letter and the spirit of the law. It's a shame that JohnC will have to spend his own nickel to defend the rights of his licensees. But as others have noted, an airtight test case such as this one wouldn't necessarily be a Bad Thing for open-source licensing in general.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Guy: "To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL. Specifically the rights regarding access to the source code. And while we are obligated to offer you the source code, for up to 3 years until we stop releasing this. To gain access to this site, you are obligated not to ask." GPL: "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. YOU MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE RECIPIENTS' EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN."
"Sig free in '03!"
Imagine how many donations the FSF would get if the GPL ever did get taken to court. I know I'd be mailing my check the second I heard about it!
--
Evan Jones http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/Students/ejones/
"Computers are useless. They can only give answers." - Pablo Picasso
Evan Jones http://evanjones.ca/
A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation. A GPL violation is a GPL violation is a GPL violation.
:^)
Get the point?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
These people will use legal precedents like the one printed above to undermine the position of the GPL in court
This is correct and this is why Slade must be stopped. It really would not hurt to launch a slashdot style harass his hosting services and discurage people from using his stuff attack.. just to get warmed up for when someone with money tries it. It would also help increase mindshare for the GPL which brings me to your other point:
I just want to point out that this is why Libertarians are so hard line on the Second Amendment, even when people start talking about "reasonable" restrictions on guns. Because all those "reasonable" restrictions undermine the idea of legally or Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
This is almost correect. Without some reasonable restrictions on wepons (i.e. no tanks or bombs) then the general population starts to question their sanity. The real problem with the second ammendment is that too many people do not understand it, i.e. tight to own guns and be in a militia. It is intended as a check on the power of the millitary. Now, citizens owning guns is a perfectly reasonable part of this check on the power of the military, but it is not the *only* check that we should interpret the send ammendment to provide today. We also need the following checks:
1) No millitary involvment in dometic law inforcment. This means the millitary may not train cops and the NSA may not train internet cops.
2) No national paramilitary police forces. This means no DEA, no ATF, and the FBI must use local cops as firepower. This is essenial to preventing things like hiring the cops in Wisconsin and use them to shoot people in Utah.. or our current plague of unaccountable national cops.
The upshot of all this is the Libertarians and NRA interpret the 2nd ammendment too broadly when it somes to things like armor piercing bullets but not broadly enough when it come to the real importent issues like police conduct and control. It is this lack of an expansionist but still "politically correct" interpretation that is destroying support for the 2nd ammendment and for the NRA. (The libertarians support everything I said but they do not interpret it as following from the 2nd ammendment)
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I joined the QuakeLives project to try and make relations with the QuakeForge project a little better, and to keep QuakeLives in check, to make sure Slade understood the legal and ethical issues..
Things were a little rough, but likeable, and I thought things would work out, until the 2.53 release, which was another attempt to avoid the GPL..
I asked several people, on my word, to hold off any flames on 2.53 until I had a chance to talk to Slade, believing that it was a mistake which could be straightened out, until I talked to Slade, at which point I left the project..
At this point, he has lost all respect and trust that he may have had, and has proven that at heart he does not give a damn about the community, he is a egotistical brat who is in it for the glory, and no matter what happens he refuses to believe that he is wrong..
All I can say, is that this is about time, he has been asking for this to happen for a long time, shoveling shit at people, now, I suppose it comes back at him..
I hope he eventually grows up, and gets a clue, and as I've told him, and others, if he cleans up, and plays it straight, I'm willing to go back to the project to the same position, but I see little sign of him even admitting that he has ever been wrong, so I suppose time will tell..
Zephaniah E. Hull.
While you can bear a concealed handgun, you are not allowed to bring it on a public bus, or many places of business. The signs usually say something like 'No firearms beyond this point'. Which is basically making people to give up their Constitutional rights to bear arms. The rules here will be similar.
I'm not a lawyer, but this kind of case doesn't hold up without case law, and precedence to back it up. People were once allowed to jet around strapped, but hundreds of years of case law has shown that reserving your right to restrict such behavior is permissable. Also he's taking the letter of the law, and not the spirit of law, which does not hold up in court.
You need precedence pal to show that restricting others rights reflects your interest in upholding the spirit of the law.
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.
Isn't this exactly what UCITA promises to make binding. This is the kind of crap that's going to come up if UCITA is passed. In effect throwing away centuries of precedence, just like the DCMA has done with 'fair use' law.
Free Software is NOT about making better software, is it NOT about fixing bugs and it is NOT about adding features. It is about MORAL rights and freedoms, it is about the right to study the source code just because I fell like it, about the right to use it to do whatever I want.
If people like you claiming that they have the right to see the source code so they can cheat at Quake are the kind of people that have been emailing Slade for the source no wonder he is pissed. First of all where the fsck did this RIGHT to look at software come from? Is there some country (not the US that's for sure) where this is some unalienable right?
From the GNU site: The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
This seems to imply that the GPL is about bug fixes and adding features.
Also from the GNU page: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
This also implies that the GPL is meant to be applied to people who are actually given the software or receive it in some way. I am not certain that Slade's program is being distributed to it's users and thus qualifies to have its source viewed on request.
Finally as for the original spirit of the GPL I have always likened it to automobiles and Microsoft's Windows. Now if I buy a car and something goes wrong with it (broken tail light, leaky radiator, whatever) nothing stops me from viewing the manufacturer's specs for my car, going over to Pep Boys to buy parts and tools, and fixing my car. Now on the other hand if Windows crashes and I have a Ph.D from M.I.T. in Operating Systems and got a 4.0 all through my college career I can't do shit but reboot and pray it doesn't happen again. This is wrong. It is wrongs like this that the GPL was created to right and NOT to satisfy some unalienable right to read everybody else's code.
PS: GPL is NOT like the public domain because you have no right to ask for code or do anything you like with it if the binaries were not distributed to you. As for Romeo and Juliet, it is in public domain because Shakespare is dead and has been dead for over 70 years. Of course when he was alive YOU would not have the right to do anything with HIS work if not approved by him.
> The second amendment is the most shocking example that the founders of this country were not
> perfect. It is a bad law, and if its being weakened sets a precedent for other laws not being
> enforced, then we should set an example and repeal this bad, bad, bad law.
Unfortunately, repealing the Second Amendment will not get rid of guns. Period.
If we are disturbed by gun violence, we have to find other ways to solve the problem.
> NOBODY has the right to kill anyone else. I as everyone else have a right to self defence, upto and including killing someone if nessesary to defend myself and mine friends and family.
There's a lot at stake.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"NOBODY has the right to kill anyone else. " Not even the United States government?
You're right.
But repealing the second amendment is the first, necessary step to ridding the world of guns. As long as everyone thinks that there is a god-given (and, indeed, most people look at the founders as their gods) right to own/use a gun, gun violence will continue. We must remove all guns from the hands of everyone and melt them down into slag, then drop that hellish blob into the ocean for eternity.
> lets pretend that this is the quake
> source code
> 12345
> and thats the code needed to make quake
> run(it's oversimplicfication i know)
> now iD owns the license on all that
> right?
> and the license they've granted is the
> GPL
> now.. if i make code thats 123945
> who owns the copywrite on the 9
> i do right?
Actually.... people should re-read their copyright
law. This is clearly addressed in the US Copyright
OFfice FAQs...
The new code is a derivitive of the original, and
as such copyright is legally in the hands of the
original author....NOT the modifier.
This means that if you make a simpsons episode (to
use an example) that is not an obvious parody
(which would be exempt under fair use), then the
copyright on your episode is owned by the people
who own the copyright on the simpsons.
In THIS CASE the GPL gives him the right to modify
and redistribute (a right not normally granted).
However...if he choses to ignore the stipulations
of the GPL, then he has no right to distribute.
He either honors the GPL or never distributes
to anyone. (Or gets special licence from ID...
which obviously isn't happening)
Go check the US Copyright office web page...they
spell it all out clearly.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Try to see this guys side of it.
Think of it as you find some foster kid. He's really cute and sweet, so you take her home, feed her well. And in a few years she's really grown on you. Your so proud of what you've done. You can't think of every letting her go.
She's the best in class, smartest and prettiest, everyone loves here.
Then the foster care place comes marching a long with a bunch of angry lawyers and the real father of this child (carmack) and demands you give her back to the foster home, and they show you this think called a GPL, and how is says you could only borrow the kid, not keep her.
Sure you can visit, hell even live in the foster care, but knowing everyone and there dogs going to want a piece or your little girl, it's just not right.
-Jon
this is my sig.
I believe in "eye for an eye." So the government has the right -- nay, the duty -- to execute anyone who shows a wanton disregard for human life and kills someone else without cause.
Note that if there were no guns, there would be fewer executions, following this line of reasoning.
You can defend yourself, fine. Just don't use a gun. Most people are way more likely to kill/injure themselves (or other people, besides the attacker) with a gun when trying to defend themselves. Most people do not know how to use guns, and in a dark alley anything is possible.
See this story for a PERFECT example of why guns are evil. Here we have four TRAINED FUCKING COPS and they shot an unarmed man 41 (THATS FORTY-FUCKING-ONE) times for no reason... they claimed they thought he had a gun.
No guns and he'd still be alive.
q2 has a HUGE load of bots! the netcode can be hacked bigtime (show a high ping when you're LPB, for example). Though with q3a and their Pure Server concept, id software is real concerned with this issue, though I doubt it's 100% secure.
But he's missing the point: When he "licensed" the original Quake source, Carmack excercised his right to deny Slade the right to deny anyone else access to his code. In other words, Slade's license to use the source is based on his agreement to not require the waiver in question. He's free to restrict people, but the moment he does, his loses his right to distribute the source.
Hmmm... I don't think it's possible to express this clearly. But rest assured that Slade's trick is B.S., at least in my non-lawyer opinion.
MSK
Das ist die [worst] Deutsch dass ich habe gesehen in my entire life. Sorry for replying to a flame, but if you don't speak german and you want to flame in German, at the very least go to babelfish and have it do it for you. I know for a fact that even Babelfish isn't that bad. For instance: NOWE, WILL NUKEN DICH, and what's with all of the ISH's. I don't speak german very well but I know that this is not good german. Now feel free to moderate me down, I expect it, so don't feel bad. Just had to say it. BTW if you're gonna flame me, do it in e-mail not on /., don't bother wasting space.
--
linuxisgood:~$ man woman
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
*sigh*
You're really not too bright are you? Has anyone *ever* exercised sufficient control over a technology to simply remove it from the world? You can confiscate all the guns you want, but *I* can still make more (albeit fairly poor examples). Are you planning on making it illegal to descibe the process of constructing a gun as well? Maybe we can write OED and have 'gun' removed from the English language.
Free clue: as long as *anyone* knows who to make guns, someone will. Pass all the laws you want, but you simply can't win.
The QuakeWorld Forever project is using encryption to protect the game while still maintaining compliance with the GPL. Their model currently allows one key, but they're not finished yet. It will allow public key cryptography before they're done, just as you suggest here. I don't know if they've considered key trust levels yet though.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/02/23/20142 05&threshold=-1&comment sort=0&mode=thread&cid=131
To quote the "license" that Slade publishes on his webpage:
Um, yeah. Basically, he tells me that if I download his closed-source binary and then give this binary to a friend of mine, I have to adhere to the GPL, thus giving the source to the binary to my friend if he asks for it. With the slight problem that I cannot give him the source because Slade chose to not give me the source in the first place - chicken and egg all the way. For a person (i.e. Slade) that personally states that he has been involved with the GPL for 10 years, this is a pretty whacky statement to make.
While it's obvious that the 2nd amendment is flawed - insofar as nothing is absolutely perfect - I must disagree with you as to its continued utility.
Basically, I think that you're making the assumption that tools dictate behavior. Yes, while a gun's only purpose is to hurt people (it makes a lousy remote control or beer opener, but the ability of a gun to threaten is derived from its ability to harm), we exist in a world in which *people* decide to harm each other - guns become a tool. A very good tool, but they are still just a means to an end.
In order to accomplish your ideal (which I generally agree with, though I've been puzzling over the moral issues of suicide for years now) a dramatic shift in attitude would need to occur.
In a world without guns, but where people still behave as they do here, other means will be employed to harm people. This can run the gamut from nuclear/biological/chemical weapons to fists and clubs. Certainly people have killed one another in ages before the basic elements of firearms had been dreamed of.
So yes, guns can be considered to be an instrument of evil. The problem is that you won't have solved anything by removing that instrument - you will have merely effected the means chosen to achieve evil aims.
On a note more specific to the 2nd amendment, I feel that the reasoning, which I'll get into in a moment, is still valid. Basically the 2nd amendment is the check and balance of last resort.
Until we end up in the world without evil you wish for, we're stuck with this:
It is unlikely that an oppressive, violent government will accept reasoned/non-violent arguments against itself.
And while it may be difficult to oppose such a government even by force, it cannot be considered impossible. Many countries do not have the will to turn on their own citizens so fully, nor do they wish to kill them all, due to the problems that arise when a significant part of the population is unable to help provide for other parts. (Yeah, there are lots of exceptions; someone insufficiently moral to accept that things ultimately rest with the people is probably not going to worry about these issues)
If you prefer a more polarized/Godwinian argument, would you prefer that the Jews:
1)Submit to the Nazis, since it would be evil to use guns to oppose them (even though the Nazis are already evil), or 2)Oppose the Nazis, since by performing one immoral act (killing) it can prevent other immoral acts from occuring
Me, I'd like no Nazis at all, but I don't count on it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I always thought (and I suspect this goes for most people) that the first time the GPL was challenged in court it would be by some massive corporation stacking high-priced lawyers up against whatever trickle of legal funds the FSF could provide to some starving Linux programmer.
Now, instead, it's some starving programmer trying to rip off John Carmack, a recognized programming god among both Windows and Linux users, and a man with a successful company and a Ferrari collector's level of personal wealth backing him. Sweet. Could we ask for a better opportunity to get some legal precedent to back up the GPL? I'm sure Slade will back down... but ironically if he really "is a strong supporter of the GPL" the most helpful thing he could do is throw away a bunch of money on legal fees and lose a court case attacking it.
He should lose, of course. He claims:
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.
Whereas, the GPL claims one of the conditions of distributing binaries is:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
That's it. Either you distribute modified work under the same license or don't distribute at all.
Otherwise you make Carmack mad. And between the Quake player and the Linux advocate in my soul, there's some kind of sweet righteousness in the image of Carmack pouring a can of whoop-ass on a GPL violator.
Impossible. You're aware that automatic weapons are being increasingly popular among the criminal population of the United Kingdom? This is _despite_ the fact that they are an island with a smaller population, fewer firearms per citizen, and a greater history of willingness to suspend their rights in favour of security. Part of the reason is that if you're going to be breaking the law by obtaining a firearm, you might as well get the best you can buy... in addition, they know that very few cops will have the firepower to stop them. Ergo, an automatic allows them to have fewer people intimidating more. Consequently, you see an increase in violent crime, including home-invasion robberies -- there is approximately zero chance that a law-abiding citizen can repel them, or that armed police arrive on the scene in time to make a difference. You can no more rid the world of firearms than sovereigns could prevent unruly peasants from using turning their implements into flails and polearms -- in particular, laws by themselves have necessarily minimal effect on those willing and able to already evade your laws.
This was my solution to the cheating problem for quake. The hooks to the code must be gpl'd but the outside code cannot or we have the same problem.
Another addition to this was my twin engine idea. By having two seprate pieces of code validating the other (checksum) and passing the ok to the system. By having two different engines it would slow the reverse engineers down just a bit. I wonder if carmack would add the hooks and give us a "blessed" binary to use?
Assuming Slade has bought Quake, shouldn't he have the right to do whatever the hell he wants regardless of the license? It seems like this is the prevailing opinion with DeCSS, that since a person had bought a DVD they are entitled to do whatever they want with it.
Am I way off base?
> The second amendment is inherently flawed. It
> was passed at a time when America had no
> standing army.
I dunno about you....but I am all for getting rid
of the standing army again.
> Yes, Guns kill. Guns kill people.
What is your point?
Guns kill people...so do knives. So do any host
of other things.
How would you propose that we not only get rid
of guns, but stop people from making them on the
black market? (we know how well things like drug
prohibition work...its just IMPOSSIBLE to buy
Methamphetimine now thats its illegal right?)
Is it ALWAYS wrong to kill people? If a man
attacks me with a knife or gun, is it wrong of
me to kill, or otherwise wound, him? Perhaps I
should just stand there and allow him to attack
me? Perhaps I am suposed to run and hope I can
run faster than this person?
I will now iterate the stance of people who agree
with me. "Guns do not kill people, people kill
people". This means that a gun is a tool. Guns
are USED to kill people, they do not kill people
unless a person makes them.
Your argument is equivalent to that of "Hammers,
and saws build houses". No, people build houses,
and they use hammers, saws, and other equipment
to perform this task.
In any case, this is immaterial to this case.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
International Business Machines has pulled something similar to what D2Deek described above with the LGPL covered Linux C library work. IBM redistributed a work (specifically ADSM v3r1 level 0.1 for Linux) statically linked with the Linux C library. When requested for the object files to accomplish relinking against modified copies of the same Linux C library, IBM pulled the statically linked work and put up a new ADSM v3r1 level 0.7 dynamically linked against a whole new major version of the C library. Support for making modifications to the C library which was statically linked against still has not been provided. But Daniel Frye, the Program Directory of "Open Source" & Linux at IBM wrote me back and said that the problem was immediately "fixed" since the latest work didn't violate the LGPL section that the previous work violated. At no point in the exchange of emails between us did he acknowledge any obligations due to redistribution of the previous work. Now, if a member of the BSA which supposibly promotes the enforcement of software licenses and the Program Directory of "Open Source" of that member company sees no obligations due to previous violations then why should Slade? With companies like IBM embrassing Linux and attempting to present themselves as roll models in the open source community, why bother going after little guys like Slade. He is just following the example set before him.
This is a good demonstration of the fundamental differences between how Windows people and Linux people regard software. In the Linux world, open source code is sacred and the GPL (and similar licenses) is not something to be treated likely.
The closed nature of Windows, however, treats software like magical objects whose inner workings need not be understood. As a result, users have little contact with source code, and frankly don't even want to see it. The software provider is actually doing the user a favor by hiding the code, since they can't break what already looks like a complex and fragile thing. Even scarier is the idea that someone else could modify the code and do something evil with it. Since the average Windows user wouldn't know malicious code if they saw it, better safe than sorry. This attitude has been reinforced in the Windows gaming world every time a game is hacked or the game source modified to cheat. So to most Windows users something like the GPL is purely academic and outside the realm of their concern, and anyone who actually would want the source code would be up to no good. They don't care who gets the code, as long as it works, and if it means someone else getting the code means it doesn't work then it's more convenient to just not bother releasing it.
Did that make any sense?
WTF? It's not about the right to cheat. JC didn't GPL his code so people like you could cheat. And where is it written that you have a right to cheat? Fucking dumbass.
"If a company really wanted to fight it and win, I have no doubt that sufficient funds could pull it
off."
This statement rears it's ugly head once again. The thing people forget is that this can cut *both* ways. The assumption is that the "bad guys" are the only ones well funded. One of the pluses of the "commercialization" of Linux is that anyone coming along and attempting to "upset the apple cart" to borrow a phrase could be in for a rude surprise. The phrase "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" comes to mind.
I would like to submit the following challege to Slashdot readers, if you recieved a CD from Caldera Systems from a trade show, can you email lockdown34@hotmail.com where a written offer for the source code for GPL and LGPL works was provided?
to all of the replies.
I know it's not the best analogy. It's just the best I could come up with during my lunch break., but thank you for the constructive criticism.
Do I think this guys doing "the right thing"? NO, can I see his side? Why he's doing what he's doing, yeah maybe. At least I'M TRYIING.
EVERYONE here is just singing a long, kill the non-GPL, burn the Microsoft. Etc.. RELIZE everyone has a story to tell, for fairness, it's important to tell all sides of the story.
I know if I was in his place, I would feel somewhat compelled perform the same actions. I just don't think I would, I don't have the balls.
-Jon
this is my sig.
If I go into a store, and buy boxed copies of Windows 98 and Red Hat Linux, I assume by default that I have certain fair use rights for backup copies, reverse engineering, etc. The GPL gives me rights in addition to my fair use rights. Shrink-wrap licenses tend to take away fair use rights, without any notice before I buy the product, or with any legally binding waiver on my part.
The GPL doesn't take away any rights, it adds a certain set of rights if you fulfill all the conditions.
Article the fourth [Amendment II]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Constitution makes it very clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is granted because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. So when gun control advocates claim that owning uzi's to hunt deer isn't protected by the Constitution, they actually have some pretty firm ground to stand on. The constitution does NOT say that the right to bear arms is unconditionally granted to all people for all purposes. The Economist has an excellent essay on the history of guns in America; I suggest anyone who is interested in the subject take a look. Go to www.economist.com and click on "The Best of The Economist". Scroll down to Guns in America.
please see The Second Amendment as Teaching Tool in Constitutional Law Classes for the correct meaning of well-regulated militia. From http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/2amteach.ht m#32 Militia" in the 1790s quite clearly referred to pretty much the entire adult male white citizenry (age 18 to 45). See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is still the definition under the Militia Act of 1956, 10 U.S.C. 311, though of course extended beyond whites (and probably extended to women by the Court's recent equal protection cases); and it's one of the definitions given in the dictionary, see, e.g., Random House Dictionary 1220 defn. 3 (2d ed. unabridged 1987). Of course, most students first interpret the word in the more common modern meaning of a National Guard-like body.
IANAL, but I *do* know that civil disobedience has a very specific definition.
<b>It does *not* apply to civil contracts - such as the GPL.</b>
<b>It does *not* allow you to harm others in any significant manner.</b> You may cause a minor inconvenience by a sit in, for instance, but not by punching somebody in the nose.
Finally, <b>civil disobedience *requires* that you be willing to pay the full legal price for your actions.</b> You refuse to sit in the back of the bus? Fine - but be prepared to sit in jail as well. You think the draft is immoral? Fine, but be prepared to send the next year or two in prison, not Canada.
These rules sound strict - and they are - but that's to prevent the common crook from wrapping his actions in the flag. Even if we ignore the fact that this is a civil, not criminal, case, let's ask some other questions. Is Slade being forced to use the GPL software? No. Is Slade being prohibited from developing his own software free of the GPL "encumbered" code? No.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I've managed to make it into a fairly clean website, The QuakeLives Files.
At the moment, there's only the verbatim material, without any commentary. However, it still makes for very interesting reading, and the agenda and methods of QuakeLives and Slade are still very apparent...
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Yes.
They do it, but there's an old saying about might and right. You may have heard it.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=slade .
You lame bastard!
I know I'll burn what karma I have, but I have to say it
What a complete fucken dickhead... someone oughta smack him in the mouth
Thanks, I feel better already
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
What happens if I take, say, a GPL'ed Ping utility and link the results to a closed source reporting engine. You know have this: Ping.cpp Report.lib Where Ping.cpp is modified to make a few calls to the .lib. Does releasing the .lib file and the .cpp file (with modifications) satisfy the GPL? If it doesn't, then, if I write a proprietary / closed source commercial app for Linux, and run it on a linux box, where the OS is GPL'ed, and my app makes calls to the OS to run properly, do I have to open the source up for my app? If so, it seems to me, that because "code touches other code", all code on Linux is forceably GPL'ed. I.e., where does the GPL draw it's line as far as rights are concerned? Thank you for your responses, this issue has bothered me for sometime.
Anyone know if and when Q2 would be GPLed? If? Well... Half-Life, Sin and others might not feel too keen on this right?
I think that because the licenses for Half Life, Sin, etc. are children of the original license, they are grandfathered and are thus not required to open *eir source.
I also think I remember reading somewhere that Half-Life is a HEAVILY modified Q1 engine, not Q2 at all. Anyone know more about this?
-Steve
My intelligence insults itself.
Is that what you think the GPL is? A way to get more control? Glad to see that you GPL advocates are finally getting honest.
You're missing the point: what matters is who controls the code. There's nothing wrong with having someone control a public resource. The great thing about the GPL is that it places control of the use of the code in the hands of the law and on the public record, instead of at the whim of the creator. In other words, it uses the court system to ensure that the code is being used in the community interest. If you think that kind of control is a bad thing, so be it.
If you want an analogy, say that I have a plot of land that I want other people to be able to use as a park. Now I could just throw open the gates and let people use it, but what happens if in a few years, after the community has spent a lot of volunteer time and effort to landscape the park and plant grass and build a swingset, I decide to take the land back? Moreover, someone needs to make sure that some greedy individuals don't build condos and highrises on land that's meant for public use.
In the the analogy, the GPL is the Public Parks Office at City Hall to whom I could donate the land. Since it would be on the public record, I couldn't take the land back if I change my mind. Furthermore, the Parks Office would administer the park and use the law to make sure that the park is being used for the public good.
This is one of the basic functions of government: to make sure that public resources are being used for the public good, and to enforce licenses that stipulate a given resource as public. Even libertarians acknowledge that in this respect, having the law control GPLed software isn't a bad thing.
There's a post from one of the ex-coauthors of the QuakeLives project up on the QuakeForce mailing list archives about this situation. He resigned when the 2.53 binary patch was released. He's got an exchange with Slade about the issue as well.
Really? Can you make nerve gas? Let's see ya do it.
From what I see here, Slade is going to have to give up without a court fight, yet (as so many people have pointed out) this is a great opportunity for proving the GPL in court.
Wouldn't it be nice if somebody (even JC himself, heh) backed Slade up with some money to fight the case, so that we could avoid the inevitable settlement?
I am using a GPL'ed source in an inhouse project. We use the code purely for internal purpose and we never distribute/sell or plan to distribute/sell the the modified program (either in source or binary) to anyone.
My question is "Is it required by GPL that we provide the source if someone requests for it?"
As far as my understanding, we are not distributing the program. Thus, we are not abide GPL to provide the source upon request. You need to provide source if and only if you are distributing the program. Please tell me if I am wrong.
It seems to me that the GPL falls under what can be categorised as "shrink-warp licenses" thus making it illegal.
Please tell me that I am wrong, because shrink-warp licenses are illegal (1435 C.c.Q.) where I live (Canada) and I know that they are too in many US States. Some companies tried to sue under their skrink-warp license, and got clubbed to death in court in a nano-second.
Can someone share some light on this subject?
-Earthling
-Earthling
"I'm sorry, I had to; the irony was just too thick."
You can look at it from his point of view all you want, but his point of view is wrong.
He agreed to the GPL when he used the Quake source. He knew what it meant, he's tried this before. He wants something for nothing. He wants to use someone else's work to help him make something and give nothing back. That's exactly what the GPL is supposed to prevent. If he wants to make something and keep it to himself then he should write the damn software from scratch instead of trying to rip Carmack off.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"NOBODY has the right to kill anyone else. " Not even the United States government?
Are you serious? The government should not be able to kill anyone. Just because we elect people to represent us (yeah, the system doesn't work as well as planned. Then again, nothing does) doesn't give them the right to kill. Like that unarmed man who was shot 40+ times by police because they thought he was armed - if that was legal, an officer could shoot me while I'm walking to the store and claim I was carrying an AK-47. or something. This is how countries like Iraq rid themselves of opposition. This is not something that should happen anywhere, especially not the US.
this is in response to another post:
I believe in "eye for an eye." So the government has the right -- nay, the duty -- to execute anyone who shows a wanton disregard for human life and kills someone else without cause.
I don't believe in "eye for an eye." So the government doesn't have the right? It's not right to "show a wanton disregard for human life...", but it doesn't mean the government has a duty to kill people.
His story is irrelevant... he agreed to a contract and now he's trying to break it. Where's the validity in this?
I like the BSD license. Do whatever you want with my code, I got my share of use from it. Notice how many commercial opensource apps you see, I don't even know of any.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
second, he sues me, I show the judge a nice green piece of cardboard paper, judge says case dismissed
Forgive my lack of cluefulness, but what is Slade referring to here? Does he mean a "green card", i.e. Slade is a permanent resident of the U.S., not a citizen? Are you not allowed to sue people with green cards or something?
On a completely unrelated note, Slade is generous enough to share a wide variety of his files with you. Just connect to his computer at adsl-61-0-42.dab.bellsouth.net (if you don't believe it's him, go to irc.gamesnet.net #console and /who Slade) and leech away! He's got all sorts of stuff, including lots of MP3's, Quake 1 registered (and other games), and full length movies. Isn't this nice of him?
I work for a major coporation, and routinely rip out code from MAJOR GPL projects, and add them into our own. I don't give out the source, nor give credit where due.
So sue me. You will never, and I will gain from *free* code. Thanks for the fantastic GPL!
#console on irc.gamesnet.net
from what is being said in there they seem to think that Carmack is a spoiled litle boy who can't get his way.
It's really quite simple. ID Software did the work, they paid the money and they developed the software (Quake 1). They then licensed that software to the rest of the world under the GPL. They could have just as easily sunk the software to the bottom of the Pacific.
That's where your foster child analogy fails utterly. Quake 1 is ID Software's property and what Slade is doing is just as illegal as if he were making pirated copies of Windows 2000.
If Slade didn't like the license, then he should have written his own software from scratch. I can't make copies of MS Office and sell them to people at Costco, and Slade can _not_ distribute binary copies of Quake 1 derived software without distributing the source as well.
Straightforward as can be, ain't it?
GPLed software is just like commercial software in the fact that it is copyrighted material. In fact, it was just this type of behavior that the GPL was written to prevent. What gives Slade the right to rip-off ID Software? If everyone would just share source code then we would be able to cut lawyers clean out of the deal. Unfortunately there is always some doofus that wants to wreck it for everyone, and someone has to call in the attack dogs.
It's a crying shame.
I don't speak German well either, but if you're replying to the guy I think you are (I read a few of these trolls when I was viewing this page un-logged in, without a minimum rating level), I suspect he actually is rather proficient in German. Look at the types of mistakes he makes, and at what he gets right -- being sort-of correct in a language can often be more difficult than being absolutely right.
:-) Solche Dummkopfen soll die Slashdot-Meisters nicht vertragen! :)
I agree, though, that he's an idiot
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
From what I understand, once the source goes under the GPL, that's it. There is no special licensing allowed -- not by Slade and not by id.
Can someone confirm or deny this? And is there a case of an original author pulling something out of being covered by the GPL after releasing it?
I know this is not the case here, but I'd hate to see Carmack set a bad precedent. Fortunately, it looks like he's heavily sided with the GPL spirit on this one.
- PatientZero
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Some integrity this Slade _kid_ has... the Internet brings out the best and the worst and this is one of the worst. Stick it to 'em, John. It'll be funny to see how a 15 year old kid buckles when a lawyer is threatening him and his parents.
You have the OBLIGATION to distribute source code with the binary.
And you can't give up an obligation, can you?
Oh yes - and check out this directory -
t op\quakelives
\\adsl-61-0-42.dab.bellsouth.net\C\WINDOWS\Desk
(especially current-source2-19-00.zip)
Viva GPL!
Don't you ever sleep?
I'm kinda suprised nobody asked yet. This raises a few questions about the LGPL...
Would he legally (I'm not asking about morality I think that's pretty clear) right if this were the LGPL?
Legally speaking how clear is the the distinction between patching and linking against a LGPLed file in the LGPL licence?
Legally speaking how clear is the the distinction between patching and linking against a file in the courts? Are there any precedants set?
In the LGPL case, Codewise, how feasible would it be to set up a (also) LGPLed api in our hypothetical LGPLed Quake to link to a seperate binary with the changes? If it's just to damn complicated for quake then can anyone think of an LGPL program that this scenerio is more feasible?
Boy I ask alot of questions! :)
Thanks to anyone who try to answer these, this scenerio makes the Lesser GPL look kinda weak to me.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
You should of said "Can you do anything about it?"
Well, if anyone finds out that you have that code there, the viral GPL automatically makes all your code GPL.
Yeah the GPL's enforcability hasn't been proven.
The stupid thing is that the damn MPAA and RIAA can pretty much swing the law around like a big hammer at anyone and anything, while most open source projects can't defend the reasonable rights they have to the source code they have created.
I'm not sure if you are serious or not, but it is an interesting question. How do we know if the code is there or not? Remember that case between McAfee and Symantec over stolen code?
i see, most of the time guns are used as deterrents. that's not vague at all... nope, nosiree.
go blow gary kleck, you fucking gun-loving baby killer
Well, to barge on in the conservation, I'd probably speak for most of us when I say, no, we can't make nerve gas. But somebody out there can...
And last I checked, this wasn't a discussion about nerve gas, it was a discussion about guns. And there are certainly people out there who can make guns, although admittedly, I'm not one of them.
There are countless examples of areas that limit guns severely or ban them, and the result is an increase in crime. There is much truth to the over-used statement, "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
Maybe famous people who post here should have some kind of signature or indication to prevent spoofs like the "Bill Clinton" thing.
Could just be a little icon or something.
"Commercial" my ass, that's totally beside the point, though it might surprise you to hear that Carmack made a pile of money off Quake. I realize he's not a real success story like you, but from what I've read I gather that he at least makes the payments on his Ferraris.
The point here is that the BSD license is a "free lunch" license, and is therefore beloved of libertarians, who always whine about their own rights and everybody else's responsibilities. The GPL demands that you treat your customers fairly, and that when you use the code in your own work, you return value for value received: "I'll show you mine if you show me yours". You don't want to show Carmack yours? Fine, you can't see his. No problem. This is what happens when free people freely contract with each other. I understand that people like you are bothered by that kind of thing, but do you really think anybody gives a shit aside from the other guys in your klavern? Don't be ridiculous.
Do whatever you want with my code
Your code? Ha! Bullshit. You probably don't even know C. You're just another useless Slashdot blowhard, and a neo-nazi to boot.
FOAD, Adolf.
If Quakelives can't play by the rules then it's time for some butt kicking.
they would set a fine example for those that would think the GPL has no meaning
This makes me wonder exactly how you would implement a secure open source client/server. The only way I can come up with to make sure the client isn't hacked is to have some kind of challenge/response system. Some kind of checksum of the executable would be ideal since that would ensure that only known clients are accepted, but obviously since both the client and server are open sourced, a determined cheater would figure out the proper responses and incorporate those into the hacked client.
So what I thought about is Apple and OS X. I know they are using open source software in their OS but I have no idea if they actually did release the modified source. Perhaps someone can clearn up on that... I know Apple hasn't got into a snit about that and does this have the same case as Apple and its use of Open Source Code?
And what about writing an document and using other people's written work in it? Technically the book is all open source since you can read it word for word but still copyrighted open source. Yet you can still include other people's works and own a copyright to the book but not their piece of work. Has this any relation to what Slade has done?
I'm more bias to GPL right now and I don't have anything against it. I actually do like to look at the source and understand what's going on. I only have enough ability to follow code but not actually code from scratch and fix things up. Curiosity and understanding is all I have and this bit was just something I wondered about.
~~~NO CARRIER~~~
You're just jealous, Mr. Post#89. And if anyone needs to spend his time more constructively, I'd say it's someone who posts on Slashdot about poop. I'd always heard that two-year-olds are obsessed with their own bodily functions, here we see it in vivid practice.
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL. Specifically the rights regarding access to the source code. And while we are obligated to offer you the source code, for up to 3 years until we stop releasing this. To gain access to this site, you are obligated not to ask.
Doesn't the GPL have clauses stipulating that one
cannot add certain kind of additional restrictions? Isn't that the basis of most license incompatibilities? If I can't say, link MPLed code with GPLed code because of the additional restrictions imposed by the MPL then I certainly can't impose the restriction of waiving the license entirely. Slade was bound by the GPL with the first public release of modified GPLed code. He has no legal right to insist that you give up your rights under the GPL. It's just as untenable as making custody loss of one's firstborn child a consequence of contract violation. There is no doubt that such an interpretation of license was never intended. If this is allowed to stand then ANYONE can thumb his nose at the GPL. Mr. Carmack should have this guy's guts for garters.
as a matter of fact nerve gas is only mildly difficult--I remember seeing instructions for one type in tenth grade
Slackware: old school feel, new school gear.
I'd like to think that part of Carmack's motivation for embracing the GPL was something like this:
The people most interested in the Quake source are part of a Windows-centric "community" to which the GPL is utterly alien and incomprehensible. This is where closed-source shareware came from, right? Those people don't even give away the source for "freeware". Hell, I'm a Windows programmer, but I can recognize the fact that these people are mostly (though not all!) yutzes. It was goddamn inevitable that some asshead was going to build something on the Quake source and then turn Libertarian and refuse to abide by the GPL. If you drop a rock, it will fall. If you drop source code onto a gang of Windows programmers and Libertarians, somebody's gonna try to steal it. This is a law of nature. Carmack damn well knew this was going to happen.
It's great fun and damned cool that somebody just happened to release The Code Most Likely to Be Subject to GPL Violations . . . under the GPL. And that the code happened to be released by somebody willing and financially able to hire dozens of savage, bloodthirsty lawyers to send howling after the blood of malefactors. I've seen comments from Carmack about how much he likes the GPL as a user, because (as Stallman intended) he can fix bugs in drivers instead of waiting for vendors to make excuses. I think he cooked up a test case. I think he's been a nice guy and given this Slade moron a lot of rope. And now I think he's going to nail Slade's ass to the wall, and it's going to be a beautiful and instructive example. I don't think that was his only reason for GPL'ing Quake, nor even a major one, but it is what it is. When a guy with a machine gun in his hand throws meat into a tank of sharks, I don't think he's just exercising his throwing arm.
Analogies are fine for explaining concepts to people, but trying to use them to make a point in an argument is not a good idea. They are easily defeated and you end up looking foolish. I wish everyone would keep this in mind.
I'm gonna love watching this cocky asshole get slapped with the trout of reality. He sounds like a 16-yr-old kid who's taken a government class in HS and thinks he has it all figured out. OOOOOooh I'm gonna keep tabs on this little development. :)
What's with the "dubious" and "Not sure if Carmack should do this" crap in the article?? If the situations were reversed, and a corporation had ripped off some poor coder's GPL, you'd be howling for blood. Actually, it looks like most of the reader comments are howling for blood, but, still! Carmack seems to be doing the right thing here, and that's not the impression you might get from reading just the blurb.
Shut up, David. We're sick of your crap.
The thing he fails to realize is that this is not a moral issue, its a legal one. Basically he is challenging the GPL and by extension, all other works covered by it. He thinks just because "Oh I'm not making money off it and I just want to do something...etc" that this automatically makes breaking the GPL excusable.
The GPL is reasonable and it is a legal document.
Its not like you can say "Well I'm gonna take Win2k and violate the license agreement for Microsoft's benefit, so its ok." Why so with the GPL?
It doesn't really matter what he thinks. Quake is id software's property, and he isn't allowed to take it and close source it, no matter what reasons. If anything the most he could do would be to ask Carmack to add an exception to Quake's GPL license.
He has to understand the law is that way. If one person can do it, why can't everyone else? You can't just let it go because his mind is in the right place.
While I am not a libertarian, nor belong to the
NRA, lets look at the fourth article of the
second Amendment in it's historical perspective.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There was no National Guard back then, the people
were the Militia, and vice versa. People that
joined the Militia were required to furnish their
own weapons, since military stocks were in short
supply or non-existent. The government needed
people to defend the State and thus encouraged
the right of the people to bear Arms. That meant
flintlocks and muskets in those days. The signers
of the Constitution would have consider the
M16/AK47 as being the equivalent to muskets in their day. They would have considered a 9mm the equivalent of a flintlock. A current day shotgun
or hunting rifle would have been viewed as a
pike or club, usefull but inadequate in the long
run.
We dont live in those times anymore, we no longer
have a Revolutionary government. An established
government with no fears of external invasion
will automatically seek to limit the means of
the populace to revolt sucessfully. It is only
common sense. It reduces trouble to manageable
levels.
England having lost many colonies thru time has
placed many restictions on their population that
we would not and should not accept. The right
to bear arms is not a God given right but is
defined in the Constitution and is fought over
and redefined as we go along.
On a side note, guns do not kill people, people
kill. Far more people have been killed by axe,
club,sword,spear,rock,bare hands,poison than
any gun, if you look at the historical numbers.
Any person that thinks that they need a gun to
kill, lacks imagination. A gun is a distance
weapon, much like a bomber. The people that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki
from a distance were abstracted from the fact that
they wiped out about 130,000 people in one fell
swoop.
And yes I do own weapons, not just guns.
Everything can be a weapon if properly used.
Henri J. Schlereth
Er, anyway. I have to say, im quite amused with some of the people's posts here. One llama complaining one other poster doesnt know C, i tell you i nearly fell off my chair reading that post, dude (yes keep quiet, i know C++/VB, though the Q1 source confuses me); someone else saying Carmack has no right to enforce the GPL which in my eyes, they need to start coding their own project for 1-2 years and see how they feel; and some 13 year old cheering himself for being the first poster. Dear lord, get a life. Firstly, yeah, im on Carmack's side, i've got an open source project under VB, that im not releasing under the GPL because one people would just laugh at me and two it's not a large project so there's no point. It's 2 years of me, and im not about to let someone steal it and call it their own. A friend of mine says one of their friends wanted to do that and the thought still puts fire in my eyes. I've impressed some people so much they think i should sell it to Micro$oft, but personally i dont think it's that good. But enough shameless plug, the GPL and us programmers are at risk here :) Sure, i think Slade's project is great, but i think it's more of a slap in the wrist rather than threatening to take him to court. I read the last sentence in Carmack's .plan and thought "big daddy wants blood". It's a tad extreme but it'll set an example for other fagbunnys that want to violate the GPL and prance through happy grasslands like faeries screaming bloody murder. I've been violated. And so has Carmack.
What people don't seem to realize is that a lot more is at stake here than just the source to QuakeLives. While there have been other GPL court battles before, this one may well be the first to become truly high-profile. Businesses, particularly Microsoft, will be watching this like hawks.
If Carmack doesn't defend the GPL tooth and claw, then the GPL has neither teeth nor claws. If the beast has no teeth, you need not fear its bite. Companies will be able to steal GPL'd code left and right, using this as a precedent. It's likely they will do it too.
I'm going to be straight. I don't like John Carmack all that much. Particularly after that bit about forwarding information about people's computers to Id whenever they used Quake3. My opinion of him has been improving tremendously as of late, due to his recent actions in various areas. But I see we have no choice but to count on him; I hope he does a good job.
And as for Slade... I want to know his real motives. To all appearances, he's nothing but a software pirate (pirating by not distributing the software; an interesting paradox but that's the way it works with the GPL). But I think there's more to this than appearances. I don't buy the things he's said. They echo the words of some of the most monumentally stupid anti-OSS zealots out there, and I don't believe Slade is a stupid person. He's made a fine program; a stupid person can't do that. I don't believe he's just in this to spite the GPL, either.
So why would he do this? Judging from what I've been hearing people say here, sheer arrogance seems to be the currently accepted theory. He modified Carmack's program and now he thinks he is John Carmack. He's in for a very rude awakening if this is the case.
...they rip off all the GPL's stuff all the time in their toolkits
How about a feature to remove (or moderate down) the "moderate this up!" comments after the comment actually gets moderated.
#ifdef DISCLAIMER
I'm not a lawyer, just my opinion.
#endif
Perhaps we can file a class-action lawsuit against this guy for violation of our rights. He has violated the rights of everyone who downloads it. Does that not constitute a "class"?
If the courts hold that the GPL does not apply they would in effect destroy all shrink wrap licenses too. It could mean the end of the EULA altogether. I think it's a win-win situation.
War is necrophilia.
Hi.
If I have a piece of GPL code (or any code, for that matter) up on one terminal, and I re-enter it on another terminal, and then tried to release my new copy under a different liscense, that would be a violation(?)
What if the original code was in C and my copy was in Pascal? Does the GPL protect just the source program, or does it protect the algorithm as well?
I wonder if I could release an algorithm (in whatever language) under the GPL and have it be protected, so that commercial software comps. could not include it unless they got a special license ($$$) from me.
Any ideas?
Knives may kill people, but a gun requires less proficiency to be deadly, heck pencils kill people too, but require even greater proficiency or luck
Guns kill quicker, and more people easier than a knife, plus guns have no inherent use outside of killing, a knife has many uses that have nothing to do with killing
Guns may not kill people, but neither do people kill people, people with guns kill people
I am going to license the source code for the following program and anyone that uses this code is therefore bound by the GPL and must opensource thier own code.... here it is: printf("Hello World"); If you have any comments or questions please email:slade@quakelives.com
so stop it already, lowlife scum.
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
I don't like John Carmack all that much. Particularly after that bit about forwarding information about people's computers to Id whenever they used Quake3.
.plan files sometime, you will come around.
This was an oversight read bug or error if you want to. The "feature" was documented in early releases of the Q3Test bin's, it was all in the readme files. Due to an oversight, John admitted that this feature was NOT documented in further readme files. In the first few he documents it and tells you how to turn it off.
It was a mistake, and John even posted his first ever series of posts to slashdot to apologizes for the mistake. (I cannot find the link right at this moment.)
John is greatly admired around here because he has great integrity. Read his
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
"IANAL, but I *do* know that civil disobedience has a very specific definition.
..."
It does *not* apply to civil contracts - such as the GPL.
It does *not* allow you to harm others in any significant manner. You may cause a minor inconvenience by a sit in, for instance, but not by punching somebody in the nose.
Finally, civil disobedience *requires* that you be willing to pay the full legal price for your actions. You refuse to sit in the back of the bus? Fine - but be prepared to sit in jail as well. You think the draft is immoral? Fine, but be prepared to send the next year or two in prison, not Canada.
These rules sound strict
I have never seen this particular definition before, out of curiosity is it your own or are you getting it from somewhere else? Also it seems like under your definition only non-violent actions can be considered civil disobedience, how do you make a distinction between what calls for legitimate revolution and what for civil disobedience?
Bradley
(I realize this is somewhat off topic, but its these type of thought provoking discussions that make slashdot worth reading)
*** absolutek (absolute@207.210.168.194) has joined #console ;_; ) - ( Away for 1hr 46mins 48secs - ( IrcX ) ;) ........*unf*................. ] ) ;) ... valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution ... ;) :) :P ;) :-) ... but it isn't your source.. not completely at least :P :) .03 Alpha ) Webpage:( http://members.xoom.com/Polaris_IRC/ ) Wasted:( Hours 4 Minutes and 1 ) :) . com] ) :o .. :: rapt0r@208.184.88.8 :: sirc user :: Tucker.GA.GamesNET.net Georgia's GamesNET Link :: 15secs :: #console :End of Channel Ban List ... ...
< Slade> nah. rsa was licensed to iD software for their project.. and they rereleased it
< MORG> Deek: when you created this , IF you did.., did you distribute with it information on how it should be dsitributed? maybe a copyright? patent (heh) or anything of the sort?
< Slade> its under iD's license now
< Slade> not the rsa
* AnimeMan[Rams] is back - ( Groceris, i am missing the bowl
< MORG> Slade, where did you get this code?
< Slade> quakesource1.zip
< Slade>
< Majestic> =P
< MORG> then its ID's
< MORG> so wtf is Deek's problem?
< Slade> deek coulda made it for all i know
< Slade> iD didnt
< Slade> hey deek.. its floating away.. getter go get it
< Majestic> lol
< Deek> Slade: You must get the software to me. Whether you mail it on a disk/CD or send it to me, it must arrive as per section 1(b) of GPL.
< synOs> Deek: please site the passage in this channel
< Slade> deek: first you dont own copywrites on any binary strings, second that code is licensed from iD.. not you
< Deek> If you refuse, I would like your name so that you may be subpoenaed.
< Slade> no deek. i have the right to remain anonymous.
< Slade> you dont
< synOs> Deek: haha you're a fucking idiot. You may be right, and the source may be yours, but you're still a fucking idiot.
< Majestic> he he
< bish\aoe2> 15 seconds!!!!!!!!
< MORG> yip yip
< Slade> you havent proven who you are
< bish\aoe2> Woooo
< bish\aoe2> ao2 now
< MORG> hurray!
< Majestic> btw
< Deek> Slade: If I have to track this through your ISP, I will. No problem, it'll just add to the settlement.
< synOs> Deek: why do you want the source that bad?
< Majestic> where did it say Deek a.k.a Jeff Teunissen invented those parts in the source Slade used?
< MORG> to create cheats for it
< Slade> synOs: GPL freak. QF put him up to it
< synOs> you must be a fucking loser in real life if you're willing to take it to court.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> ghey
< MORG> i know its a faken game
< Majestic> Hm?
< Majestic> Give us Proof.
< Majestic> On a Official Site.
< Deek> Majestic: I am not required to, dumbass.
< synOs> Deek: you're not required to give proof?
< Deek> GPL. Period.
< AirRazor> umm wrong
< Slade> yeah synos. the way the rules go. if you're going to sue you dont have to say who you are.. hehe
< synOs> Deek: if you could answer the question on why you want the source, maybe that would help.
< Slade> GPL's in compliance deek
< Majestic> Hes Giving it to you,Just get it..its floating away..go get it
< Slade> if you want to take this up futher i suggest you do it with the BSA
< Slade> if you even know who they are
< Deek> Slade: Oh, please.
< r3m-Dog_gfx> Oh please Slade...oh PLEASEEeeeEEEE..................
< Majestic> lol
< r3m-Dog_gfx>
< MORG> if you were serious about this i doubt you would come to him like this through IRC
< MORG> get lost
< Majestic> hahahaHAHa
< Deek> Slade: Name. Address. Now. If not, you will be hearing from my company's lawyers within the week.
*** MorgBS has quit ( Leaving )
< Slade> deek: a/s/l
< synOs> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAA
< synOs> Deek.....
< synOs> GET
< synOs> A
< synOs> LIFE
< AirRazor> ahahhahhhaahhahaah slade
< synOs> seriously.
* AirRazor is dieing here
< Deek> Actually, you will still be hearing from my lawyers, this will just keep avoidance off the list of charges.
< AirRazor> if any of it was for real slade would get a letter in the mail
< MORG> there will be no charges even if you try
< AirRazor> not the net
< Slade> deek: its in the river. feel free to go get it
< MORG> you cant expect anyone to trust anyone on the internet
< MORG> you should know this
*** []Phoenix[cs]-FF has quit ( It's all about the Jedi, and you know it. Yeah... )
< synOs> Deek: I suggest you leave and call your lawyer, cause you arent getting any where here.
*** r3m-Dog_gfx is now known as John_Carmack
< Slade> deek: since you are going to be anal about it. you cant request a copy of the code and not give a place to send it
< DarkOne> Deek, stop hiding behind your lawyers and get a fucking life.
< John_Carmack> the code slade..gimme gimme!
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol
< Majestic> lol
* AnimeMan[Rams] rapes John_Carmack
< Deek> Slade: 2155 Avon SW, Wyoming, MI 49509-1754, USA.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> wow
* John_Carmack likes it
< Majestic> 49509-1754
< AnimeMan[Rams]> everone spam snail mail deek
< Majestic> is that possible?=P
< AirRazor> public knowege
< DarkOne> lol
< MORG> lol
< Mercury> DarkOne: Intrestingly enough, QL has been hiding behind lawyers much more then this..
< synOs> Deek: where is the proof that you are entitled to the source?
< Deek> synOs: In the source.
*** Sordid[RAMS]|superbowlparty has quit ( Ping timeout for Sordid[RAMS]|superbowlparty[s11.dial2.fnj.nac.net
< synOs> in what source?
< DarkOne> Deek: How do we know who you are?
< AnimeMan[Rams]> he gave us his adress duh
*** Wn-Onze`S (IDENT@207-244-55-208.unnamed.cdc.net) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to Wn-Onze`S
< DarkOne> Dood, I coulda made one up just a quick
< AnimeMan[Rams]> that must prove he is a real person
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe
< Deek> DarkOne: Because I told you, and gave you my address. You can verify that my name and address are really what they are.
*** Wn-Onze`S ( IDENT@207-244-55-208.unnamed.cdc.net) has left #console
< AnimeMan[Rams]> as opposedf to a bot
< synOs> Deek: why do you want the source?
< synOs> explain.
< John_Carmack> Deek...gimme your phone #
< Deek> synOs: I don't need to.
< DarkOne> Deek: OK, lemme just hack into the US Government.
< Mercury> synOs: It does not matter.
< synOs> Deek: I'm just asking.
< DarkOne> It does matter.
< Deek> synOs: I am a developer.
< DarkOne> If he's doing all this just because he can, then he's got mental problems.
< synOs> Deek: and so you need the source because what?
< Mercury> He is a programmer, he wants to see the code.
< Deek> synOs: uhh, to develop it. [duh]
*** John_Carmack has kicked Deek from #console ( ITS GOOD! - ( IrcX ) )
*** Deek (~deek@c927866-a.grapid1.mi.home.com) has joined #console
< DarkOne> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> GOOOAAALLL???
< John_Carmack> being superbowl and all..
< AnimeMan[Rams]> ooh wrong futbol
< Mercury> If you can't understand that, then its going to be pretty hard to explain..
< Slade> deek: again. you cited something from GPL that i do not see
< Deek> Slade: section 1(b)
< synOs> Deek: cut and paste the part explaining it.
< DarkOne> You have 10 seconds
< Slade> deek: lemme look
< DarkOne> times up, you lose.
< Deek> also section 3(b).
< synOs> where can I find the GPL info?
< Slade> k
< AnimeMan[Rams]> www.gnu.org
< Slade> nothing here says when i have to deliver it
< John_Carmack> www.wildebeast.com was taken?
< AnimeMan[Rams]> yep
< Slade> or that i have to make the initiative to send you the code
< Deek>
< Slade> right the offer is valid
< DarkOne> That's really really vague
< Slade> which means by the letter of the law
< Slade> doesnt mean it says when
< synOs> doesnt that mean that you have to send Slade $5 first, and then he can FEDEX it?
< Slade> no. it doesnt say that either.. says i can charge him for the source distribution
< Slade> which doesnt say how
< DarkOne> Dood, this is going no where
< Slade> so theoretically i could have him pay for the jet and everything used to transport it
< John_Carmack> Slade..send it by moose
< DarkOne> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i have parakeets
< AnimeMan[Rams]> you can attach it to thier legs
< DarkOne> Use a fox.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> they arnt smart tho
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe like in men in tights
< Slade> GPL's got holes in it.. hasnt been revised in a while.. it needs to be
< DarkOne> Yup
< Slade> i mean its only 9 years old
< DarkOne> Slade: Fox him and make him pay for all the vet bills and shit.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> didnt linus try to revise it once
< Slade> he did.. in 91
< synOs> Deek: are you willing to send Slade $10 so he can FEDEX you there source?
< Deek> synOs: Absolutely.
< Slade> synOs: not fedexing it.. i dont trust them
< synOs> hrm.
< synOs> I think you'll have to deliver is personally.
< John_Carmack> fedex=evil
< MORG> we need to send it by Brinks armored vehicles with armed guards
< synOs> that's a big jet fare.
< DarkOne> moose? moose are trustworthy, right John?
< MORG> its top secret
< Slade> synOs: he can pay for the cost of physical distribution.. which means he will buy me the jet i use to go to the helicopter i will use to land on his porch and give it to him
< John_Carmack> use the nuclear materials tranport division
< synOs> I see.
< Deek> Slade: I will cut you a check when you arrive.
< Slade> deek: nope sorry, payment in advance
< synOs> I think prepaid is best.
< John_Carmack> mooses are very trustworthy..i have one on payroll..he does all the Q2 accounting
< Slade> deek: like most other software transactions
< Deek> Slade: Exactly. You come here, I give you a check.
< synOs> Deek: you go to Slade's.
< Deek> Slade: You see, I don't trust you as far as I could throw you.
< synOs> not the other way around
< Slade> deek: doesnt matter I released the code, according to the GPL i make the rules as far as distribution
< Deek> Luckily, I am not required to trust you.
< John_Carmack> Slade..take a roundabout route....goto vegas, new york...fly out to the coast..
< Deek> If I have to sue you to get what it rightfully mine, I will. Name and address, please.
< Slade> Deek: I have given you an offer
< Slade> Deek: for you only
< synOs> Deek: Do you understand why Slade doesnt want to give you the source? It's pretty much his, it makes it less secure. Why do you want to ruin that? Cause you're a prick?
< Slade> Sorry folks.. dog.. synos.. you're not allowed this offer
< Slade> not even you Carmack
< synOs> doh.
< John_Carmack> bah
< Deek> Slade: You have to give anyone else source as well.
< Slade> ok fine
< Slade> you guys can have the deal as well
< Deek> I just have more authority.
< Slade> need jet, helicopter and trained llama to deliver
< MORG> still no proof of who you are, you cant expect someone to react at this level just because you hoped in IRC and told him you were someone
< Deek> go ahead.
< DarkOne> Deek: You have money to pay for all that?
< Slade> please direct all comments to my secretary if you wish me to make the arrangements
< Slade> in the meantime. i'm coding
< DarkOne> Slade: Am I your secretary?
< Deek> Slade: On second thought, I can just revoke your license.
< MORG> Someone should contact the REAL carmack
*** synOs has quit ( Read error to synOs[cr2034-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com]: No route to host )
< MORG> yes Slade, your deer hunting license
*** synOs- (soldier@cr2034-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to synOs-
< DarkOne> lol
< DarkOne> I didn't know deer lived way down south
*** John_Carmack has quit ( Ping timeout for John_Carmack[cr744804-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com] )
< Deek> If you do not wish to send me a copy of the source, you are not entitled to use my code.
*** Kornchild-J- has quit ( Read error to Kornchild-J-[wecnet5200-2-30.wecnet.com]: Connection reset by peer )
*** synOs- is now known as synOs
*** aWG (aWG@userSa006.videon.wave.ca) has joined #console
*** Myconid (Myc@arc0a52.mont.sover.net) has joined #console
< MORG> how do you know hes even using your source? he could of created a string of code
*** John_Carmack (dogsoldier@cr744804-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to John_Carmack
*** Kornchild-J- (coolirc@wecnet5200-2-30.wecnet.com) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to Kornchild-J-
< DarkOne> OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG!
< DarkOne> This guy just doesn't give up
< Myconid> ?
*** aWG ( aWG@userSa006.videon.wave.ca) has left #console
< DarkOne> Nothing
< MORG> maybe ID should sue everyone for using their code because of all these new full 3d games
< synOs> Deek: Why cant you let it go?
< John_Carmack> nuh..i'm filthy rich..theres no point
< DarkOne> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe john owns a ferrari!
< AnimeMan[Rams]> the bastige!
< John_Carmack> 8)
< Myconid> John: so is it true you own 50 ferrari's now?
< Myconid>
< John_Carmack> 32..rest are porsche
< Myconid> lol
< DarkOne> John: Can I sleep with your wife?
< Majestic> LOL
< Myconid> Dark: got that base covered <g>
< John_Carmack> no, sorry...only family
< DarkOne> Damn
*** Crus (SPHERE@dyn1-tnt6-245.chicago.il.ameritech.net) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Crus
< Deek> synOs: Why the hell should I let it go? My license is not being followed.
< Myconid> Deek: whats your problem?
< John_Carmack> Deek..shouldn't you be taking this up with ID?
< John_Carmack> not me...but the company
* Myconid gives deek some morphine
< synOs> Deek: because you should have some respect for what these programmers are attempting to accomplish.
< Myconid> syn: whats deep bitching about?
< MORG> this isnt that actual carmack now is it?
< Myconid> deen
< Myconid> deek
< Myconid> whatevah'
< Myconid> MORG: lol
< Deek> synOs: They are attempting to accomplish a wholesale destruction of open source.
< synOs> BWHAHAHA
< Myconid> dogsoldier@cr744804-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com
< John_Carmack> synos..i've learned something in the 3 weeks i've been on this project, developers are stringently anal about the gpl/gnu
< Myconid> John sold his T3 and got cable
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe myconid
< John_Carmack> hey...its my bacjup
< synOs> Deek: you know that's not what they're trying to do.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> yeah all t3's in dallas are out
< AnimeMan[Rams]> thats why iam on my dialup
< Myconid> hehe
*** silntkiss (l.demers@ppp4500.on.bellglobal.com) has joined #console
* AnimeMan[Rams] calls john up
* Myconid has a dialup T3
* John_Carmack answers the phone
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i had hishome phone #, but never called it
< Myconid> lol
< MORG> AnimeMan, you gotta gimme some work to do so i dont make stupid comments
< MORG> hehe
< Deek> synOs: Bullshit.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe
< synOs> The only reason they're modifying the source is to keep a community alive, as well as personal satisfaction. If you want to attempt to destroy that, then fine, but you're a worthless human being with little respect anyone around you.
< Myconid> Deek: are you bitching about QL being closed source?
< MORG> Deek: your stupid
< synOs> Myconid: dont get into it.
< Deek> synOs: There are legal ways to do that.
* silntkiss goes and sits quietly on the ceiling
< Myconid> heh
< MORG> how can we have fun if everyone cheats? sorry these people arnt a team of 300 godly programmers that could do such a thing and have it open source
*** UnderDog[Titans]|away is now known as UnderDog[Titans]
* UnderDog[Titans] is back -[ party ]- gone 4 hr 36 min 17 s
< Deek> MORG: Sorry, but we seem to have done it.
< Myconid> Deek: I love QL. I go play on QL servers and no one cheats.. I goto servers like the sniper server and such and EVERYONE has freaking autoaim.. you know how boring that is?
< Majestic> lol
< MORG> this is a freaken game. there are more people working to cheat it then to make it
< MORG> whats your problem?
< AnimeMan[Rams]> deek, you with QF?
< Deek> AnimeMan[Rams]: Of course I am.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i see
< synOs> Deek: There may be legal ways to do that, yes. And maybe they wouldnt be following the letter of the law by denying you the source, and I agree that if you have legal rights to it then you deserve to have a copy of the source, but it would be nice if you just respected Slade's wishes not to release the source to you.
< synOs> Deek: all you have to do is say ' I dont want to see the source '
*** raptor (raptor@phila-dialup421.nni.com) has joined #console
< Deek> synOs: wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which one gets full first.
< synOs> that'd be a nobel action
< Myconid> lol
< raptor> hi
* silntkiss hops off the ceiling and sits beside Slade
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hmm your speedcheat code doesnt take account of air tunnes etc, you know slade could always help you with that
< synOs> Deek: Are you married? Do you have a girlfriend? Children? Because I pity anyone who knows you.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> not to mention being very secure
< raptor> MORG: btw, "MORG| maybe ID should sue everyone for using their code because of all these new full 3d games"
*** `Chamber- (johhny@host-209-214-189-100.clt.bellsouth.net) has joined #console
< Deek> synOs: Married with kid.
< synOs> porr thing.
< raptor> those other full 3d games paid to have the right to keep the source
< synOs> err poor
< John_Carmack> Deek..you abuse the children?
< Myconid> syn: stooping to personal attacks?
< synOs> Myconid: yes.
< Myconid> Koo!
< Myconid> Can I join in now?
< Myconid>
< raptor> slade recieved the source under the gpl.. if he wants to keep the source private then he must pay like the creators of those other games
< synOs> go ahead.
< MORG> those are commercial games
< `Chamber-> is QL gunna die?
< synOs> Chamber: no.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hell no
< MORG> this is free distribution
< `Chamber-> good.
< raptor> MORG, that doesn't matter..
< raptor> MORG: no this isn't free distrubution if it was free the source would be released
< Myconid> MORG: So is redhat linux.. yet its commercial
< `Chamber-> when is QL releasin the next beta?
< Deek> If you guys want to pay me $50,000, you can get a non-GPL license.
< Myconid> Deek: who the hell are you anyways?
< synOs> Deek: now that's just lame.
< John_Carmack> we can scratch up maybe 25$ between us...
* John_Carmack writes a check
< Myconid> John: i got $2
< `Chamber-> i got $10
< Myconid> hehe
< Myconid> $50,000 - 12 = hmm
< Deek> Myconid: I wrote code that is GPL, and it is fucking going to STAY GPL.
< synOs> Deek: do you understand that by releasing the source to you Quakelives security loses a LOT of strength?
< `Chamber-> is deek full of shit?
< AnimeMan[Rams]> TOUCHDOWN
< AnimeMan[Rams]> 16 - 0
< Myconid> Hahah
< Myconid> Rams own
< John_Carmack> hey..watch that language..not everyone in here are over 18!
< `Chamber-> oh fuck
< `Chamber-> Anime. u serious?
< `Chamber-> CRAP
< AnimeMan[Rams]> yeah
< `Chamber-> CRAP
< AnimeMan[Rams]> rams on top
< MORG> my virgin ears!
< AnimeMan[Rams]> GO RAMS!
< raptor> Slade: if i rooted your machine and took the source; would you be happy ? no
* Myconid pittys Chamber
* `Chamber- smells his $40 going down the drain
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol chamber
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i had a 40 on the game too
*** [WM]Dom (Dom@elitedom.res.WPI.NET) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to [WM]Dom
< `Chamber-> for who?
< raptor> Slade: ID software lent you source and you stole it from them
< AnimeMan[Rams]> and mine is looking good
< AnimeMan[Rams]> rams
*** [WM]Dom has quit ( Read error to [WM]Dom[elitedom.res.WPI.NET]: EOF from client )
< `Chamber-> crap
< Myconid> Btw Deek: debian suxors
< raptor> when you borrow you must return
< `Chamber-> i got a 7 point spread though
< raptor> you gotta return man.
*** [WM]Dom (Dom@elitedom.res.WPI.NET) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to [WM]Dom
< Deek> synOs: Not my problem. You want security, make real security.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> want the source? 2.52 is free for d/l
< Myconid> Deek: there is no way to make security w/o closed source bud
*** `Chamber- is now known as `Chamber-[TITANS]
< Deek> Myconid: Please.
< synOs> Deek: make real security? You cant make 'real security" when you release the source to ever yahoo.
< Myconid> Deek: Explain how you could then
< Myconid> synOs: SSL 2 is pretty secure
< raptor> Myconid: you also can't legally have closed source so the point is mute
< synOs> 'pretty secure'
< raptor> Myconid: i think you all should read the Catherdral and the Bazaar
< Myconid> raptor: sure you can.. Quake's code is GPL. Addons arent
< Myconid> I have
< Myconid>
< raptor> Myconid: you aren't making addons... if you really want closed source do it right
< John_Carmack> Deek...join out team and help us solve the problem of security, without breaking the gpl/gnu!
< `Chamber-[TITANS]> Slade said everything was cool
< raptor> and it can be done legally
< raptor> make a GPL, modular quake
< synOs> Deek: your code would stay GPL if you wouldn't ask for the code. So just dont ask for it, it doesnt serve any purpose.
< raptor> and make closed source modules that contain NO quake source
< raptor> and distribute those modules separately in an "extras" package
< Deek> John_Carmack: If the GPL is followed, I'll consider helping.
< Deek> John_Carmack: I've heard it before, though.
< synOs> Deek: is Slade breaking the GPL/GNU?
< raptor> synOs: the GNU is an organization you can't break it..
< synOs> err GPL
< raptor> synOs: he is breaking the GPL however
< synOs> fuck I dunno.
< Slade> 16 wheelers do a good job of breaking it
< synOs> how is he breaking the GPL
< raptor> synOs: you should readup if you wanna have any argument...
< Myconid> syn: closing source?
< raptor> you don't even know what the fsck the GPL is so shut up
< synOs> I dont want to, this is a game, JUST A GAME. Why cant people leave it alone.
*** [DW]Condor has quit ( ( I was using Polaris IRC ) Version:(
< Slade> GPL isnt broken. anyone who says it doesnt know what they're talking about
< Slade> please take all GPL conversation out of my channel now
< synOs> Raptor: you do know this is about a GAME, right? not some gayass code, and licensing agreement.
< John_Carmack> how about them Leafs eh?!
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i am getting bored fo it
< raptor> Slade: well your boy over there doesn't even know what the gpl is..
< synOs> I know what the GPL is.
< synOs> basically.
< synOs> but I dont care anyway, it's a FUCKING GAME>
< synOs> why cant you people understand that.
< synOs> it's not that hard.
< Myconid> syn: because you are wrong.
< raptor> synOs: it might be a game.. but it is written in code and this code is released under a license and when that license is broken it is a crime
*** John_Carmack is now known as r3m-Dog_photoshop
< raptor> so it might be a game; but an illegally distributed one
< Slade> !k raptor what did i tell you
< synOs> RAPTOR: I dont care, I just enjoy playing it.
< MORG> when i play this game i dont go
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol chanserv is dead
< synOs> raptor: who made you FBI?
*** ChanServ has kicked raptor from #console (<Slade> what did i tell you )
*** raptor (raptor@phila-dialup421.nni.com) has joined #console
< MORG> "whoa, check out how they ripped this code, closed source forever! down with GNU!"
< Slade> !kb raptor scripts are stupid
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** ChanServ has kicked raptor from #console (<Slade> scripts are stupid )
*** Slade removes ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** Slade removes ban on *!*@Dorm-35985.RH.UH.EDU
< Myconid> !kb myconid you suck, no i dont, yes you do
*** raptor_ (raptor@phila-dialup421.nni.com) has joined #console
< raptor_> stupid prick
< Myconid> lol
< raptor_> learn how to kick/ban
< synOs> god, releasing the code as GPL was fucking lame, and now all you fucking lameass coders think you're the law. Cant you leave shit alone, it has nothing to do with you.
< Myconid> syn: QL wouldnt even exist w/o the GPL'd code
< Slade> raptor i unbanned you right away to stop your script
< synOs> Myconid: NEITHER WOULD THE CHEATING ASSHOLE
< Slade> synos: this is your warning as well. no more GPL
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> synos..come over..we'll have a beer
< raptor_> Slade: script? no.. just my client
< Slade> you can direct all GPL questions and comments to bill@microsoft.com
< Myconid> Slade: heh
< Slade> if they reguard QL anyhow
< raptor_> Slade: give me your address to send that $10 for source that you offered deek
< Slade> raptor: i didnt offer it for 10 dollars
< raptor_> and ill add something extra too
< Myconid> slade: <ignornat question>have you, or anyone written something on how QL is not breaking the GPL by being closed source?
< Myconid> ignorant?
< Slade> !k Myconid no GPL
*** ChanServ has kicked Myconid from #console (<Slade> no GPL )
*** Myconid (Myc@arc0a52.mont.sover.net) has joined #console
< Myconid> slade: I wasnt being accusitive at all..
< Myconid> Im sorry..
< Slade> i said. no discussion of it
< Myconid> aight.
< taniwha> bye, morrons. You've been logged
< Slade> raptor_: my method of distribution is via leerjet/helicopter/trained monkey you can pay for it that was as well
*** taniwha has quit ( gotta go, l8r )
< raptor_> Slade: you are just being a prick because you know you are wrong.. GPL requires the source be open, closed source is against the GPL; hence illegal.
< Myconid> slade: I have keys bound.. like 99% of them.. when I type stuff the aliases bound to them are activated.. is this a bug?
< Slade> !kb raptor_ GPL is a badword
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** ChanServ has kicked raptor_ from #console (<Slade> GPL is a badword )
*** Slade removes ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** fucker (raptor@phila-dialup421.nni.com) has joined #console
< fucker> fucker
< Slade> !kb fucker language
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** ChanServ has kicked fucker from #console (<Slade> language )
< MORG> no need for harsh language
*** Slade removes ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** raptor____ (raptor@phila-dialup421.nni.com) has joined #console
< raptor____> yo stop it
< Slade> !kb raptor____ yes boss
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** ChanServ has kicked raptor____ from #console (<Slade> yes boss )
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol
< MORG> 16-6
*** AnimeMan[Rams] removes ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** AnimeMan[Rams] sets ban on *!*@*.nni.com
*** r3m-Dog_photoshop has quit ( Ping timeout for r3m-Dog_photoshop[cr744804-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home
< Majestic> lol
*** r3m-Dog_photoshop (dogsoldier@cr744804-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to r3m-Dog_photoshop
*** synOs- (soldier@cr2034-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to synOs-
*** synOs has quit ( Ping timeout for synOs[cr2034-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com] )
*** synOs- is now known as synOs
*** Slade is now known as Slade|scrim
< MORG> that was rather unpleasant
< Slade|scrim> does anyone know whats up with the superbowl?
< Slade|scrim> does anyone care?
*** fynqrvfnqvpx (rapt0r@208.184.88.8) has joined #console
< fynqrvfnqvpx> hi
< MORG> Slade, lemme guess, canadian?
* Slade|scrim grins
< fynqrvfnqvpx> would you believe that shpxfynqr was taken ?
< Majestic> Slade
< Majestic> #Superbowl
< Slade|scrim> sokay Majestic
< Majestic> =P
< absolutek> MORG: I'm canadian, and I know lots of people here who love NFL...
< Majestic> CFL = Gay
< MORG> yeah but its not as huge as it in the states, nutcases
< MORG> its bigger then christmas
< absolutek> MORG: true true...
< Majestic> They Stole Flutie from us
< Majestic>
< absolutek> heh...
< MORG> hehehe
< MORG> CANADA ROCKS
< Majestic> they left us with his shitty brother
< Majestic> pfft
< fynqrvfnqvpx> so anyone here wanna break the gpl with me ?
< fynqrvfnqvpx> i heard this is the place to go
< Majestic>
< Majestic> Whois --( fynqrvfnqvpx )-----
< Majestic> Address
< Majestic> Realname
< Majestic> Server
< Majestic> Idle
< Majestic> Channels
< Majestic> its Raptor again
< Majestic> laff
< fynqrvfnqvpx> like my nick?
< Majestic> !ban 208.184.88.8
< fynqrvfnqvpx> parce
< Majestic> woops
< fynqrvfnqvpx> try rot13
< Slade|scrim> hes a l33t haxor
< Majestic> !kb fynqrvfnqvpx
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*rapt0r@208.184.*
*** ChanServ has kicked fynqrvfnqvpx from #console (<Majestic> Later fynqrvfnqvpx )
< Majestic> yep
*** Majestic removes ban on *!*rapt0r@208.184.*
*** bish\aoe2 is now known as [REV6]bishop
*** [DW]Condor (root@ppp160.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) has joined #console
*** b0mb3r (ahjdh@du-stk1086.gotnet.net) has joined #console
< Slade|scrim> as a closing statement: its funny how people assume we're under the GPL. because as of yesterday, I dont think we are.. i'll have to look into it more
*** b0mb3r is now known as DaBomb_Dx
< DaBomb_Dx> heh
< DaBomb_Dx> Introducing, QuakeLives Gotwalls
< DaBomb_Dx> Gotwalls 2.53
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> Slade..you said the "G" word..don't make me kick you!
< DaBomb_Dx> Now works on all 2.53 servers
< DaBomb_Dx> THANK YOU VERY MUCH
< DaBomb_Dx> =)
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> no they dont you phroot
*** #console *!*@*.nni.com AnimeMan[Rams] 949284287
*** #console
*** silntkiss ( l.demers@ppp4500.on.bellglobal.com) has left #console
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> great..too bad 2.53 is gone for the forseable future
< live-evil> yer
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> thank you..and grow a penis
< DaBomb_Dx> Well we will keep rolling out more
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> they'll come in handy once you reach puberty
< Slade|scrim> dog, have one he can borrow?
< DaBomb_Dx> Oh well say all you want
< DaBomb_Dx> But we dont like this QuakeLives
< Slade|scrim> we?
< DaBomb_Dx> We are not cheaters, we just dont like quake
< DaBomb_Dx> Down with Quake
< MORG> you dont have to play it
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> hehe..well why didn't you say so?
< MORG> neither do you have to ruin it for people who do want to play it
< DaBomb_Dx> =)
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> go play eq or javatetris..whatever turns on idiots these days
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> leave the quake playing public alone
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> remember..just because you shit on the neighbors car...doesn't mean its "cool'!
< DaBomb_Dx> Hey gotwalls for 2.53 server works
< DaBomb_Dx> And as more server/clients come out
< DaBomb_Dx> more cheats
< Majestic> No Such Gotwalls for 2.53 Fool.
< Slade|scrim> we're having our fun. he can have his
< DaBomb_Dx> Wanna bet?
< Majestic> Official Site=www.gotwalls.com
< live-evil> yer there is
< live-evil> yer
< DaBomb_Dx> Heh
< live-evil> but the guy used the gotwalls source
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> yer?
< DaBomb_Dx> There is majestic
*** Richie` (~ghost@00-60-67-2c-59-f6.bconnected.net) has joined #console
< DaBomb_Dx> Belive me
< DaBomb_Dx> and it works
< DaBomb_Dx> =)
< Majestic> hmm
< DaBomb_Dx> it wasnt the same guy
< Richie`> this is pissing me off
< live-evil> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/File/6097/
< live-evil> d/l it
< [REV6]bishop> it's past your bedtime morg
< live-evil> it works
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> gotwalls is copyrighted...don't make ackmed hunt yer sorry ass down
< DaBomb_Dx> ROFL
< Majestic> yah
< Majestic> =P
< DaBomb_Dx> He doesnt care
< live-evil> gotwalls was released under the gpl
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> yesh
< DaBomb_Dx> Im shure its really copyrighted
< Slade|scrim> not the name
< live-evil> ne1 can use his code
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> DaBomb has to release his source code
< MORG> yeah, i should of been in bed by 7 pm
< DaBomb_Dx> No he doesnt
< live-evil> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/File/6097/
< DaBomb_Dx> its a secure program
< DaBomb_Dx> It doesnt use the QuakeWorld source
< live-evil> gotwalls style 2.53 client
< live-evil> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/File/6097/
< live-evil>
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> it uses a derivitive of...
< DaBomb_Dx>
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> you have to release your source
< Slade|scrim> hey dog. no big deal
< DaBomb_Dx> Yeah I sent out a call to all people on fortresscheats.com
< Slade|scrim> to much spam in here
< DaBomb_Dx> Because im cool like that
*** Slade|scrim sets mode +m
< Slade|scrim> Now i'm gonna go play tf for a while
< Majestic> lol
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> people who hate quake are the ones who sucked at it in the first place
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> thats why they hate quake..and people with working reflexes
< Majestic> lol
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to devkev
*** MORG has quit ( Leaving )
< Slade|scrim> feel free to voice anyone else you think deserves it
*** r3m-Dog_photoshop gives voice to Jackrabbit[12]-away
*** DaBomb_Dx ( ahjdh@du-stk1086.gotnet.net) has left #console
*** Crus is now known as Jay[BH]
*** [REV6]bishop is now known as bish\scrimmmm
*** []Phoenix[cs]-FF (phoe@ifitl-78-252-159.asm.bellsouth.net) has joined #console
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to DarkOne
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to AnTMaN
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to Myconid
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to Richie`
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to `Chamber-[TITANS]
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to UnderDog[Titans]
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to [DW]Condor
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to [DW]Exterminator
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to []Phoenix[cs]-FF
*** ddep2 (rstab@dialup-209.246.135.125.Dallas1.Level3.net) has joined #console
*** ddep2 ( rstab@dialup-209.246.135.125.Dallas1.Level3.net) has left #console
*** Majestic has quit ( Reboot )
*** Majestic (Majestic@HSE-Toronto-ppp85656.sympatico.ca) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Majestic
< ChanServ> [Majestic] <An4rchy> -rs C:\addons\antiban.mrc
< Myconid> gimme voice
< Myconid> oh
< Myconid> nm
< Myconid> hehe
*** DaBomb_Dx (ahjdh@du-stk1086.gotnet.net) has joined #console
*** Mercury has quit ( Signed off )
*** DaBomb_Dx has quit ( Signed off )
*** [DW]Condor is now known as [DWr]Condor
*** Morg (Ben@24.65.71.75.on.wave.home.com) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Morg
< Morg> did i miss anything?
*** DaBomb_Dx (ahjdh@du-stk1086.gotnet.net) has joined #console
21:52:24 < Myconid> Whats the url of that QWC or whatever
21:52:34 < Myconid> the place biscuit east is always talkin about
21:54:27 *** Leviathon (gargoyale@MTC2-161.mtcnet.net) has joined #console
21:54:28 *** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Leviathon
21:55:21 < `Chamber-[TITANS]> ahh christ
21:55:24 < `Chamber-[TITANS]> 1 yard!!!!!!!!
21:55:32 < `Chamber-[TITANS]> titans lost by 1 yard
21:55:46 *** `Chamber-[TITANS] is now known as `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]
21:55:47 < Myconid> i am banned from BE
21:55:49 < Myconid> wtf
21:55:51 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> why?
21:56:01 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> qsa?
21:56:01 < Myconid> I tried to connect with the QF client <g>
21:56:05 < Myconid> no..
21:56:05 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> quake security agent?
21:56:09 < Myconid> I just tried to connect
21:56:11 < Myconid> it said banned
21:56:13 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> quake security agency?
21:56:17 < Myconid> it didnt say
21:56:20 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> qsa.cjb.net
21:56:27 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> but u wont get no help there
21:56:44 < Myconid> http://qsa.cbj.net don work
21:56:46 < Myconid> I dont want help ther
21:56:48 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> scjb
21:56:49 < Myconid> Wanted to see it
21:56:50 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> cjb
21:57:06 < Myconid> why coulnt they just buy jdsklfjs.net ?
21:57:11 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> go to biscuitservers.net
21:57:15 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> go to banned list
21:57:18 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> maybe that will help
21:57:37 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> myc
21:57:47 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> i will be on irc.microcore.net
21:58:11 < Myconid> it doesnt
21:58:12 < Myconid> work
21:58:19 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> what doesnt
21:58:19 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> work
21:58:22 < Myconid> Talking to whosamacallit
21:58:31 < Myconid> Why are you going to that lame server
21:58:32 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> salesbitch?
21:58:38 < Myconid> yup
21:58:38 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> microcore rules
21:58:41 *** DoW|Huan (mille144@owen-b-030.resnet.purdue.edu) has joined #console
21:58:43 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> cya
21:58:44 *** UnderDog[Titans] is now known as UnderDog-M
21:58:48 *** `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost] has quit ( Leaving )
21:58:50 *** Myconid has quit ( Leaving )
21:59:28 *** DaBomb_Dx has quit ( Signed off )
22:02:07 *** Jay[BH] has quit ( reboot )
22:05:20 *** Kornchild-J- has quit ( Leaving )
22:05:36 *** Crus (SPHERE@dyn1-tnt18-130.chicago.il.ameritech.net) has joined #console
22:05:36 *** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Crus
22:08:14 *** DoW|Huan has quit ( Read error to DoW|Huan[owen-b-030.resnet.purdue.edu]: Connection reset by peer )
22:08:17 *** Huan|study has quit ( Read error to Huan|study[owen-b-030.resnet.purdue.edu]: Connection reset by peer )
22:09:05 *** AnimeMan[Rams] is now known as r3m-AnimeMan
22:09:10 *** Huan|study (mille144@owen-b-030.resnet.purdue.edu) has joined #console
22:09:38 *** bish\scrimmmm is now known as [REV6]bishop
22:12:05 *** kF|w3rk has quit ( Signed off )
22:12:44 *** Morg has quit ( Leaving )
22:13:29 *** Slade|scrim sets mode -m
22:13:48 *** Slade|scrim is now known as Sladew
22:13:50 *** Sladew is now known as Slade
22:15:27 *** AirRazor is now known as []AirRazor[grls]
22:16:03 *** Clanless (matrix@206.180.130.221.dial-ip.hal-pc.org) has joined #console
22:16:22 *** Clanless has quit ( Leaving )
22:17:36 *** penpen (~penpen@woggle14.zip.com.au) has joined #console
22:21:51 *** [REV6]bishop is now known as RICH`WAI_SUCKS
22:22:35 *** RICH`WAI_SUCKS is now known as rich`WAI
22:24:06 *** rich`WAI is now known as [REV6]bishop
22:25:01 *** []Phoenix[cs]-FF has quit ( It's all about the Jedi, and you know it. Yeah... )
22:28:24 *** Slade is now known as Slade|scrimmore
22:29:27 *** penpen has quit ( penpen has no reason )
22:30:09 *** [DwC]Thr3dd (thr3dd@mty2-107.dip.mbay.net) has joined #console
22:35:31 < r3m-AnimeMan> i need soem linux help..anyone?
22:35:48 < Majestic> lol
22:35:49 < Majestic> Linux
22:35:59 < r3m-AnimeMan> yes you phroot
22:36:01 < r3m-AnimeMan> =)
22:36:34 < [DwC]Thr3dd> who is working on the "Mac solution"?
22:36:45 < r3m-AnimeMan> not sure
22:36:52 < r3m-AnimeMan> you can ask slade
22:37:00 < r3m-AnimeMan> when he gets back
22:37:03 < [DwC]Thr3dd> everyone tells me that but he's never here
22:37:05 < [DwC]Thr3dd> heh
22:37:12 < r3m-AnimeMan> =)
22:37:16 < Majestic> yeah
22:37:19 < Majestic> Slade|scrimmore
22:37:36 *** You have left channel #console
someone mod parent down to the -1, Flamebait it deserves
As the GPL is the backbone of open source, it needs to be tested sometime. Why not prove it's validity by sueing the balls off of some jackass who spits in the face of all those who have worked under this license to produce quality software. Carmack can certainly afford the lawyers, as can the FSF... so I say sue the prick and ensure the GPL is not taken as a joke ever again.
put it through the C preprocessor ... good luck anyone deciphering that!! The GPL says "machine readable code". Yeah, preprocessed C code is perfectly machine readable, and it's still source code. A major flaw in the GPL?
Oops?
Case 4: Free (as in beer) software under a restrictive EULA: Your analysis is correct, since the UCC doesn't apply, and you can't claim you own a copy of the software.
I forgot to point out that they could only sue for copyright violations, not breach of contract, since click-through/shrink-wrap contracts aren't binding.
Anyone who uses a GPL'd sourcecode to derive own code-work automatically agrees to the provisions of the whole GPL agreement of releasing all source-codes derived. Period.
You want to close your source-code, then don't use a GPL'd source-code to make your shit.
It's as simple as that.
Does Slade really want to see lawyers? Does Slade want the other GPL-"enforcers"?
--treatment--
What if he started charging people $5 to download the binary after they had clicked through?
--
The shareholder is always right.
I'd just like to thank the ac who posted that. I got a huge laugh out of the words "windows programmer" and "asshead" being in the same thought. Pretty much sums it all up.
What the GPL does is it grants you some rights in addition to copyright. If you chose to reject the license, your rights revert to the base rights provided by the copyright laws. The GPL gives you the right to build and distribute a derivative work. Under copyright you don't have that right. The GPL is very straightforward and should withstand a court challenge.
IANAL, but I play one on TV.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Jesus Carmack. John Christ. Praise the Lord. p.s. ph33r The Romero
The GPL specifies that machine-readable copies of the source must be made available.
:P)
Optical Character Recognition.
(you havn't lived untill you've read a pirated version of neromancer
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is not my hope for it but there are far too many people that want to see this go to court without thinking: Lacking a precedence makes this harder not easier. Carmak is not your knight in shining armor riding the budweiser horses. He is an Entertainment company Executive. Slash is Vanilla Ice singing ICE ICE baby to Carmack's riff. No, Queen and their Label did not win that lawsuit. Just in case you read this Slash: V-Ice is universally hated and never worked in the industry again so if your Ego is giving you aspirations you can eat it.
Say goodbye to open source. It was fun while it lasted. We are programmers not lawyers. A lawyer would have set a precedent for Open Source's validity instead of working for years under the assumption that it was bullet proof.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Well it looks like the source is out now, intentional or not.
http://douglas.min.net/~drw/slade.gif
--
first, you can make money off of GPL'ed works, as you can easily see just by looking at the newspaper.
The GPL has promoted companies like IBM and SGI to start Linux development.
If they had any hint the their code and work could suddenly taken and turned into a closed-source product like BSD, they would probably run like mad. While BSD might be *technically* more superior in some ways, the license makes all the difference.
Now if you have something like the standard libs, or simple reusable code then using a BSD style license makes sense, but large projects such as the Linux kernel, a GPL license is a nice and helpful thing.
Your statement is the wrong way around.
If I make a large application, I don't want some company to take it, develop a closed-source fork, and create something that I might have to pay for.
I really don't understand your reasoning. GPL is appropriate in many areas. Cygnus made a lot of money working under the GPL. What suddenly I'm going to take GNOME and shove it into my commercial application?
Besides, a copyright is NOT A PATENT. You can read the code, take the ideas, and incorporate them, without using the actual source.
The flipside of your statement is "I get all your code, you get all my code, and we both get to share the additional developments and there is little doubled effort."
That is the point of the GPL, to keep software free. open and unencumbered licenses mean no one has a reason to give you back anything. GPL's reason is "Hey if you want to use this software, I've given it out, you have to give back."
Most commercial developers rarely use outside code anyway, at least it seems that way.
The above link was to show that people were fixing the software, and that slade was wrong.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
-rw-r--r-- 1 drw drw 3336079 Feb 24 01:34 current_source2-19-00.zip
They are DEFINTELY real.
:) At really short lengths theres BETTER than linear increases, but thats just because the damn thing is draggin in the air, or crapping between magnets. Location is a big factor too, a few degrees can make a big impact on your escape speed. (not really, but when angled away from perpendicular, your actual velocity in an absolute direct is less, and these puppys depend entirely on the inital run to get off this rock, I'd personally be very afraid to work an assist rocket on one) You want a very constant slope either way. A couple feet off and you either lose big energy on the change in direction (which = change in velocity) or have a big accident to clean up.
If only I could give some decent links, sadly, they're aren'y many, and none worth typing out I know offhand. Info is easy to provide though.
The type of railgun in q2/q3 is not quite what the real one is, but similar principle.
First off, the projectile would NOT be depleted uranium.
It would be either 1) very susecptible to magnetic fields or 2) Aluminum. The movie 'Eraser' happened to notice #2, though they got just about everything else wrong.
#2 has to do with a reaction with other solid composites when certain conditions are meet (usually a sufficient current) that produces lots of gas very fast, and the thermal output further converts the gas to excited plasma soon after. These are usually reffered to as ignition slugs, and are expended with each shot, somewhat like gunpowder (a hekcuva lot more efficient though)
This type of 'railgun' is where the actual name came from. Obviously, because of the gas/plasme exspansion the entire unit besides the exit point has to be enclosed, but if you use a conductive tube, it won't do squat. The reaction ONLY works if the current is flowing across the aluminum projectile...and ideally ONLY the alumium, as little of the 'barrel' as possible. Hence the two narrow contact rails, + and -.
Theoretically, other metals can be used for the projectile, but the conductive/weight ratio of Al eats them all for lunch. No one has gotten anything but Al to leave the building, so to speak. Theres not much demand either, any exotic metal or alloy would invariably be heavy, because anything lighter than lead has been tried. In the future, if materials with high superconductive temperature maximums are found, they might work well. REALLY high though, not room temp. I doubt it, since gas-->plasma temp is 2000C and beyond, and the reaction edge of the alumium generates this heat, so the theoretical 'superduper conductor' would have to remain superconductive, or at least conductive at those temperatures. If it was just conductive at said temp, the Al would likely kick its ass good.
The magnetic railgun (which doesn't need rails, can be tube, spiral, or even disconnected parts) has been less tested, and its hard to get a decent speed going. But its great for the larger things, like firing a satalite into orbit, all you need is a DAMN long railgun. The best non-classified magnetic railgun has achieved approx 1/3rd escape velocity on an 400kg test object.
The ignition-->gas-->plasma railguns are better as the weapons-oriented, because they have much shorter lenghts involved (anything past a ciritcal length does not help, and could potentiallly hurt the power of the gun)
The magnetic ones are benefitted by length, though not linearly proportional, a 6 mile long gun with identical configuration as a 3 mile long one is going to have a lot more WHAMMY to it, but sadly not 2X. Higher speed = more resistance too
A little physics goes a long way...a lot of physics is none of your damn busniess, I've been there and back again ten times over.
Please, please, PLEASE say you have this safe on your hard drive! PLEASE! If you do, please mirror it. If you can't find a site to upload it to, e-mail it to me and I will upload it to gauge3d.org!
------
-Everything has a cause
-Nothing can cause itself
-You cannot have an infinite string of causes
There are valid, legal ways [including obsfucated modules] to provide a level of protection equal to closed source binaries
Obsfucation is not permitted under the GPL. Section three states that you must make complete source code available, and "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
Jim
whoever the fuck moderated that down is a MORON! look at the thread is started. anything worth that debate is worth looking at.
it wasn't anti-GPL, wasn't anti-OpenSource all i said was "try to see this guys view" and NO you couldn't do that. everyone who flamed me couldn't see that, couldn't bare to even think it.
every man trys to do "good", whats best for him may hurt others, but that's STILL GOOD FOR HIM. personally, ya, i agree. he's a dumbass. but you still should try to se his side of it.
this place is full of very inteligant people, unfortantly, at times. and in certain threads you can be very closed minded.
-Jon
this is my sig.
The source has been taken from his drive (he had anon FTP on and well his whole hard drive was accessible) we all have a copy and its going to be all over the net buy morning. From what i have see some people have looked around the source and found that there code from there projects has been taken and put in to Quake Lives word for word code for code.. BAD KID! you should know better than to steal code under GPL and then not release it. http://krunge.pheste.org Demere "KRuNGE" Janness
I saw slade admit in IRC that he fscked up...so thats not a fake screen shot
I have to return some videotapes...
Now, what if you click "I dissagree", then reverse-enginer the installer to not ask you? Since you never agreed to the eula, you should still have all your rights, correct?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Forget BSD, forget LGPL, if you want anyone to be able to use your software for whatever they damn well please, release it into the public domain.
The standard arguments against public domain are silly. Releasing a work into the public domain does not waive all your legal rights as the author, only those derived from your copyright. You still have rights as a private person and as the person who made this public speech.
You are responsible for your actions (as is everyone else). If you release code into the public domain, you can still be liable if you coded malicious attacks into it (as you are in any case, no matter what kind of licence you use). However, there is no implied warrantee for public domain software (unlike software you've paid for), so nobody can blame you for any bugs in it.
Furthermore, simply releasing public domain software doesn't grant anyone a special legal right to use your name in their advertisments.
Also, if someone removes your name and claims to have written the software themself (note that this is not the same as simply not mentioning where all their source code came from), or adds malicious or poorly written code and claims that you wrote it, they are responsible for this fraudulent claim. If it harms you, generally you can sue them (the specific tort varies).
Public domain is the only truly free software. It is compatible with any open source licence and free to use for any purpose. The GPL has its place, personally I think it is overused, but there are some situations where it is absolutely vital (for instance, when competing businesses decide to collaborate and standardize on a piece of open software, and want to be sure that nobody sneaks off and breaks the compatability with a proprietary version). However, these other licences which almost recreate the freedom of public domain but add the problem of mutual incompatibility only cause harm.
(IANAL, TINLA)
Therefore we don't have to sue you. The writing is on the wall. Sell your stock and leave Redmond while you can. You have embraced your doom. The virus is within. Others have already been prosecuted after examination of the unique aspects of the assembly code generated from their stolen GPL code. It's like DNA. Viral DNA.
Floppy.
Phobos - Greek word for fear or flight
Am i compleatly wrong, but i tought you could stick different prices on the code and the binary. so i was thinking this jackass could get around the gpl (sorta) by charging $0.00 for the binary and about a billion bucks for the code
----------------------------------------- Fractured One
Yes it is true, check out the screenshot. Ask on irc.slashnet.org:#slashdot or irc.openprojects.net:#quakeforge
Sorry for the off topic post in this thred..umm..wait. This is VERY on topic because it changes everything.
I have to return some videotapes...
i agree 100% and i have a small stake in this. bunch of crap the person that has authered the mod i play has gone with QuakeLives because he was promised some security and a few features he wanted.
sadly it seems all we have receved is some of the "features" and a whole host of bugs.
many of us have been patient with Slade and his crew, however i am unhappy with the whole attiude of the QuakeLives staff in regards to the source issue.
i have played my favorite brand of Quakeworld for close to three years now and i enjoy it varry much, but if it means loosing the mod i love the most loosing what the Open Source movement has brought, then the mod goes in a hartbeat.
that is a no-brainer.
the mod i love to play may be a casualty of Slade's lack of vision in regards to the Open Source issue. but in the big picture it's no big deal.
Quakeworld will go beyond this and because of iD software and the Open Source movement it will be a much better game.
please excues the typeos it is late here and i am mad.
D_B_COOPER, MD.
I will not stop.
I can almost guarantee you that some dumbass idiots are going to email you, thinking that you are slade (you're email address appears right after the word '--slade' in the comment...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I hope my esteemed colleague the Honorable Coward did not intend to insinuate that the Libertarian Party itself necessarily opposes the use of the GPL. However, it is only fair to note that certain Opportunistic Persons will choose a party based upon a selfish desire for personal Gain, rather than on a true Agreement with the party's Principles and a deep Belief in what is right.
For this reason many welfare recipients may be Democrat, big businessmen tend to be Republican, and many who wish to disregard the Law as it stands claim to be Libertarian. These people, Self Centered as they are, also tend to be 'single issue' voters, and have no Loyalty to true party Philosophy. Thus little Sue Perkins next Door would eagerly support even Bush, if he promised to score her some Good Weed. Vinny down the street would be Gore's friend for life, if he but thought that would aid his Business of Unsolicited Knee Surgery. This of course does not mean that there are no good Libertarians, Republicans, or Democrats, but only that there are a few bad ones, and that the Correlation of their Particular Defects is well known.
I myself have a few Questions and Concerns regarding the Libertarian Platform. In Section 6, Article the Second, it is argued that grants of legal privilege make government "the source of monopoly." Copyright is a monopoly granted by the United States Congress, but of this the Article gives no specific mention. By that Silence, ought I to construe consent thereto? If this matter is elsewhere addressed, please be good enough to let me know, as the question bears Grave Import upon the Libertarian Opinion of Copyleft.
(And, for my own personal curiosity, I must wonder if the Libertarian Party in general favors a government overview of the Purity of Food and Drugs, or is it to be a private contractual matter between Producer and Consumer, whose ultimate arbiter is the Court?)
In any case, I am enboldened by Carmack's Proclaimation, and feel that those who have put their Trust in the Strength of the GPL will not soon be disappointed.
I don't believe a game-mod counts as a _high-profile_ violation. It is a violation, but in the world of suits a rather low profile one.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
fuckin-A enough said. I agree.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
steve is a tw33k3r
A member of QuakeLives expresses his views on "free software" and the GPL:
:)
<@Gr2[MC]> i am running ms shit right now
<@Gr2[MC]> all of it warezed
<@Gr2[MC]> and perfectly illegal
<@Gr2[MC]> and i didn't pay a dime
<devkev_> Gr2[MC]: and you're so much better than me
<@Gr2[MC]> Thats what free software is to me
Its 4am in #GPL on irc.gamesnet.net... do you know where your cluestick is?
Register as an OnShare user and then go to: http://www.onshare.com/filelist.jsp?dirid=45716 The group password is 'lives'
As mentioned elsewhere, GPL is different from an EULA, since if you do not accept it you can still use the software under your default fair use rights and any other rights you may have such as reverse engineering.
You can think of the GPL as two licenses:
a) You do not accept (or even read) the GPL, you have a default 'license' based on the laws of your jurisdiction.
b) You accept the GPL, you have additional rights probably not granted to you in a) such as the ability to distribute derivative works.
This is different than a normal EULA which is:
a) You do not accept the license: you may not use or perhaps download this software. You may be able to get a refund.
b) You do accept the license, you can use the software with more restrictions than your default.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
TollTroll (who defaults to -1) wrote:
make posting they don't like or agree with. as long as you say something that everyone agrees with (like "what a complete fucken dickhead") then nobody cares. however, if you were to say "john carmack is a complete fucken dickhead" you would get your karma eaten alive like nobody's business...
thanks (hope you browse at -1 'cuz the karma fairy smacked me around)
I support the United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation!
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
what will this mean for the entire linux community? specifically, if the GPL fails to win (assuming a nice dramatic OJ type trial), will we start seeing a fragment in the linux kernel? food for thought.
I believe there is strong evidents that "Slade" is the handle of Bill Gate and/or Bill Clinton. His mind numbing word-twisting antic is a dead give away!
"I do not have GPL relationship with that source code!"
Anti-Cookies != Anonymous Coward.
This is quite likely. What I find interesting is that most EULA's try to restrict your use of the software. The GPL actually grants rights and uses copyright law as a protection for those who refuse it. To violate the GPL you first have to violate copyright laws.
"RETURNEN ELIAN GONZALEZ TO CUBA, SWEINHUND!!! KOMMUNISM IS THE GOOD ONES GOVERNMENTISH, AND CUBA IS MORE PROPERTY DAN UNITEDE STATE WAITER AMERIKANISH!!! YOU ARE INTIMIDATISH BI MY DEUSTCHE ACCENT, NOWE RETURNEN ELIAN GONZALEZ OR COMMUNIST CUBA AND FUHRER CASTRO WANT NUKEN YOU!!! FUHRER CASTRO GOOD SOCIALISTISH MAKING AMERIKANISH DYING!!!! FICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! " Dunno what this guy is after, tho.
Whoa... has anyone considered this?
If this thing goes to court and this guy can nullify the GPL with that "firearms" argument then couldn't the same thing be said about commercial software?
"By downloading this software, u are agreeing to the new license stipulated in the release notes and any consequent copying of this software is subject to this new license."
Maybe some 8 yr old kid who cant be prosecuted would like to be the original "distributor".
Stranger licenses that state "by opening this shrinked wrapped package u are agreeing to the hidden license agreement inside" is getting passed through state houses...
Go figure...
#############################################
# exoduz : escape while you can.
#############################################
--
# I have no brain
With that, the printout could be machine-readable, too.
By his logic anyone that clicks through for the code loses their right to ask for the source.
That happens if I have a copy of the binaries that I got before he put up the click-thru screen? As I have the binary and did not agree to the click-thru then I surely have a right to ask for the source.
Along the same line what happens if some else downloads the binaries and then give me a copy? Once again i have the binaries (that gives me a right to the source) and I did not agree to the click-thru.
Personally I doubt the click-thru is legal but even if it is this should get around it very easily.
"Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
By his logic anyone that clicks through for the code loses their right to ask for the source. That happens if I have a copy of the binaries that I got before he put up the click-thru screen? As I have the binary and did not agree to the click-thru then I surely have a right to ask for the source. Along the same line what happens if some else downloads the binaries and then give me a copy? Once again i have the binaries (that gives me a right to the source) and I did not agree to the click-thru. Personally I doubt the click-thru is legal but even if it is this should get around it very easily. I might get a friend to download the binaries, give me a copy and ask slade for the source today.
"Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
this guy knew when he started w/ the GNU GPL'd code that in the end he'd have to GPL his modified version of it.
Where is this guy coming from? It seems to me to be a real case of having your cake AND trying to eat it. The only reason he could get that code in the first place was because people decided to that it would be good for everyone if it was released GPL'd. Does he not realise that there won't be much of that sort of code around if people start this sort of shit?
And while we're in parable mode - if the guy who fostered the child was taking better care of the child than the real father could, he prob. should get to take care of her. Do you think this slade guy is taking better care of the source than carmack (under the GNU GPL) is?
Nobody is demanding they give up their source code. They just have to give it to others as well.
To stay with your analogy, you're so proud of what you've done with the girl that you lock her up in her rooms so she can't talk with anyone else because you fear losing a part of her or something.
Then the real father of this child comes in, says "thanks for raising the kid, but I have the right to meet her - you can keep her, but stop locking her up" and points you to the constitutional right of assembly (the GPL) showing he can enforce it.
Do you suggest keeping her locked up?
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
This is odd - this Slade guy has guts - the type of guts that make people run at a machine gun nest when they've only got a .22 rifle (with 1 old, wet and possibly faulty bullet left) - the outcome is Darwinian evolution in action, folks. He has taken a piece of software released by a reasonably large company, and is re-distributing contrary to the license agreement. It doesn't really matter that it's GPL. What would happen if he took Adobe Photoshop, stripped out its default filters, added some of his own, and put it up for re-distribution on his web site? He could then mumble that he can break Adobe's license agreement, because if he didn't, he wouldn't be able to distribute his plug-ins in a functional form (i.e. surrounded by photoshop), and so the Adobe license agreement is violating his right to free speech. Tosh! He obviously can't - he must get a special license from Adobe to do this. Likewise, he must get a special license from Id if he wants to redistribute in violation of their original license (it has been pointed out that the original license could require him to pour cherry slurpees on his head - no slurpee pouring, no redistribution). Personally, I think the instant that he sees anything printed on a letterhead from Carmack's legal firm, he'll give in. If he doesn't, he'll get what's coming to him (expensive legal fees, fun in court, and a possible large personal financial loss from a civil suit), and we can all have a good old chuckle.
"But he's missing the point: When he "licensed" the original Quake source, Carmack excercised his right to deny Slade the right to deny anyone else access to his code....He's free to restrict people, but the moment he does, his loses his right to distribute the source."
It's not strictly true that Carmack excercised his right to deny future distribution restrictions. Slade *could* legally restrict the audience for his web and FTP sites, and thereby restrict the people who can download the software. Of course, Slade *has* to provide the source code to all those who download binaries, and those people would have to provide source if they redistributed, and so on, ad infinitum. So, this Slade fellow *can* de facto restrict distribution, but he must abide by the terms of the original license, as will all of those who download and distribute the software from Slade.
The problem with Slade's logic, of course, is that he confuses rights granted to himself, and rights that he grants to others. Carmack, by placing Quake source under the GPL, has granted a finite and immutable set of rights to Slade. Slade, in turn, may place restrictions upon those resources which are under his legal control--his computers, disks, website, etc. Those resources licensed from Carmack, however (the Quake source), cannot be used under different terms than the original license agreement (GPL).
Slade seems conscious of this distinction--note where he acknowledges that he is "legally required" to distribute source code. However, he steps over the line when he prevents the users of his resources from "asking" for the source, thus presuming that he has dodged the requirement of distribution of source code. He's correct, in a way--I don't have the right to ask for the source--but he is still as obligated as ever to provide the source under the terms of the GPL. And for that reason, we should all politely inform him that he is in violation of the GPL, until he gets so tired of the traffic that he caves or quits distributing his software completely...
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
I am a fan of Carmack's work and for me all software should be under GPL. So John is only protecting his rights and at the same time allowing the Quake community to play around with the Quake source. So it was a very good decision.
For those of you who want to read the agreement which JC's plan file talks about, a copy can be found here. (Since the original server seems to be down)
Now, these ideas, as christianity in the Dark Ages, were great distorted by an imperialist state(USSR). In truth, the real evil is the imperialist desire to homogenize the world as one's image. It's kind of sad to see such FUD and tabou around communism as an ideal in the US. But the more you think about it, the only great imperialist state left is the US and this mind pattern is self serving.
So:
"I would say this Slade character is more of a capitalist, siezing private property and not giving anyhing back."
Is much more closer to the truth that the communist utopia of a world without possession....
I have an idea. Why not encrypt the data that is sent, but only send the (small) decryption key when the client is allowed to use the data? Alternatively, send all the data as well as some decoy data and only send an authenticator when the data should be used. If you see someone reacting to the decoys, you know you've got a cheater.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Is the GPL legally enforceable in Britain, where you can't copyright software?
In that case, perhaps you could explain why our murder rate per head of population, and gun death by head of population is so much lower than in the states?
We have approximately 1/5th the population you do, but I think we had something like 20 deaths from guns last year, how many thousand were there in the USA? I think your death:population ratio is something like 50 times ours. Guns are not that popular with criminals here - the guy breaking into your house, doesn't need a gun, neither does the guy asking nicely for your wallet. As a result you might lose your video or wallet just the same, but not your life as well.
Answer me this - if the guy breaking into your house is armed, and suspects you are too, who is going to shoot first when he sees you asleep in bed? Now re-run the situation with the following assumptions. You don't have a gun. The guy breaking in knows this. If he carries one there is a fair chance he will find himself in a siege with an armed police unit, so he doesn't carry one. What now is your chance of being shot while you sleep?
Unfortunfortunatly the copyright holder needs to sue. Of course you could always hand over the copyright to say the FSF and they can go after the company.
I just want to write some GPL code thats gets copied into the source of some closed source companies and go after them for the damages, that would be nice.
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
You can copyright software inthe UK. All Software in the UK is implicitly copyrighted when it is written. The copyright belongs to the creator. It also loses strength if the copyright is not defended.
What you can't do is patent software (strictly speaking. There are ways around this) A patent is totally different in that it protects inventions rather than a form of words, it has to be specifically applied for and does not need to be defended to remain valid.
I don't know there's a hell of a lot a third-party like myself can do, but for what it's worth, John Carmack has my 100% support in this, and I'd be glad to assist in any (legal & reasonable) way that I can. Thugs must not and SHOULD NOT be tolerated.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Absolutely false. Guns are most commonly used to discourage crime; in most cases, the gun is not even drawn.
Your apparent hopolophobia notwithstanding, you may wish to do some reading of materials that are not completely biased against gun ownership. You may change your tune once you have the facts.
And a note to Europeans: stop moderating stuff down just because you disagree with it.
While I agree with the gist of your argument, your use of the word Libertarian is completely wrong. Libertarians are strong advocates of contracts and the priniciples which make them meaningful and enforceable. You might have been thinking of Communists?
Admittedly some in the free software movement seem to have some communistic sounding rhetorical accretions (Stallman for instance,) but at the heart of it the GPL is nothing if not Libertarian - it's all about voluntary transactions with the terms of those transactions set via contract. And Carmack is doing exactly what he must do - he's enforcing his contract.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Hello?? I'm Sorry??
Bandwidth is not intellectual property, and certainly isn't covered by copyright laws.
Slade's bandwidth deal is with his access provider, and any use of it which doesn't contranvene computer misuse acts is legitimate. Importantly, IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING -- IT IS THE COPYRIGHTABLE SOFTWARE THAT IS SUBJECT TO LICENSE, AND THAT LICENSE IS THE GPL
Gees, people seem to think that anything may be declared intellectual property, copyright, etc. and licensed.
To anybody who thinks I am saying that all bandwidth is free, I am not. Just that it isn't subject to the same laws as software. In any case, slade is not permitted to place the requirement that the downloader renounce his rights under GPL, since that violates the GPL agreement that HE has agreed to for HIS copy of the software (note that this is independant of any downloaded copies).
John
John_Chalisque
Namely - its very nice with GPL, open source, etc..
.x. .D *SB*
That Its very nice John want to support cheaters - thats his deal - and his right... but - lets look of what he done, and its consequenses instad of the very nice, but bottomline - totally unintersting part about GPL me this and that.. GPL doesnt help the cheater or anticheater - it has no impact on the game..
What HAS impact is that JC released source - now every damn cheater are running around damaging the game.. seen from the game-side - its hurting Quake - ALOT - because - ppl whom before maybe would consider to play it for 1-2 years - now leaves, especially after the guy with aimbot, hacked QW, and speedcheating messed him up...
Along come slade, and others - wanna preserving the game, and the fun playing it.. and all u can focus on are - he violates the GPL - well - ppl - its a easy choose - F*ck the game, or f*ck GPL...
For u NOT playing it - then i understand why u think GPL are more importent.. but if u ARE playing it - then all u get out of enforcing GPL - is that QL and others might aswell shut down, u might aswell admit - u and JC - are RESPONSIBLE for cheaters destryoing the game.. because U forces him to deliver every manhour, everything he has done to preserve the game... Maybe JC and ID made the game - but bottomline - we dont play it - Q is dead.. and i know alot of ppl, and more considering it - whom are leaving, or will leave Q and all its mods because of cheating.. JC maybe released the source - but 100000s of ppl are hurt by it.. and theyre hurt every day... clans, leagues, guilds are affected of cheating.. so - whom u support - the cheaters, or the ppl actully trying to help out the 100000s of players whom wanna play Quake - without having to worry about a 100 mp/h speedcheater, coming racing, with godmode, hacked walls etc.. the thought of GPL is nice - but in this case - its precidense.. do we wanna be sure, that games even if sourcecode are released can be made safe by others, or do we wanna say to the community - when source code is released - the community are doomed to death...
Well, its all youre call, and especially JC's...
Whats its gonna be.. support the cheaters - and dooming the game to death, or support the ppl trying to make the game fun again...
Try consider that, when ure discussing GPL me this and that.. - its more then just about GPL - its about the future of this, and coming games where sourcecode are released..
- Tiger
Clan Leader Task Force Tiger (Worlds biggest NTF/MTF/TFC/CS-clan)
x-Coordinator International Mega Team Fortress League
Founder League Referees Guild
Founder Guild DetPipe
Staff Member Team Pro League
LRG Senior Referee
Leader of Danish National Team - MTF
Coordinator Worldchampionship 2000 for national teams - MTF
Member of guilds: QMA,
You are expecting too much from the stupid fucked up fag french moderators on this site. In a couple minutes, Commander Enchelada and Homos will be there to give you a good ass fucking.
Quake was the first program that I actually paid for the 5 copies that I own. the quakefests I have had (and still have on occasion with my teenage sons) are the most fun any game in existance. (Except for Duke Nukem 3d... that one still rocks on all the old 486's, even though I had to use crappy IPX networking to get it to run) Quake II was purchased twice, and Quake III will probably be bought when I can get a Linux native version. (All pc's are now Linux in my home) If I have to go out and buy 20 copies of Quake III to show my support then he's got it!
NOTE: most other games I habe bought now sit in a drawer, unplayed.... while Q,QII are always within reach of the CD drawer. (Ok, hacked versions that dont require the CDROM for QII... that's a pain in the butt to me.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Any more than I believe you have a job.
TWW
The constitution allowed the federal government to grant a copyright - a legally created monopoly - for a limited period of time, for the consideration of providing that the work which would enter the public domain at the end of that period of time. You could make a libertarian argument against even that limited grant, but very very few serious libertarians would bother - as it originally stood this was a pretty good thing.
Remember there is no obligation to take the copyright, you could throw your work directly into the public domain or you could keep it under wraps as a trade secret or the like without ever going through the copyright process at all. You still can.
The problem is that over time the "rent-seekers" (a polite word for those who practice thievery by legislation) with Disney in the lead have bought extension after extension to the copyright terms to the point of virtual perpetuity (every 10 years or so they lobby for another 20 or so...) - this is NOT the plan of the constitution, and it completely violates the spirit of that clause of the constitution, which was to grant a temporary monopoly right to the creator of a work in exchange for the guarantee that the work would enter the public domain.
(And, for my own personal curiosity, I must wonder if the Libertarian Party in general favors a government overview of the Purity of Food and Drugs, or is it to be a private contractual matter between Producer and Consumer, whose ultimate arbiter is the Court?)L.P. Platform 1998 III.3:
We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. However, we oppose paternalistic regulations which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict risk-taking and free choice. We oppose governmental promotion or imposition of the metric system.We oppose all so-called "consumer protection" legislation which infringes upon voluntary trade, and call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.
We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration, which has jeopardized safety by arrogating to itself a monopoly of safety regulation and enforcement. We call for privatizing the air traffic control system and transferring the FAA's other functions to private agencies.
We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and particularly its policies of mandating specific nutritional requirements and denying the right of manufacturers to make non-fraudulent claims concerning their products. We advocate an end to compulsory fluoridation of water supplies. We specifically oppose government regulation of the price, potency, or quantity able to be produced or purchased of drugs or other consumer goods. There should be no laws regarding what substances (nicotine, alcohol, hallucinogens, narcotics, Laetrile, artificial sweeteners, vitamin supplements, or other "drugs") a person may ingest or otherwise use.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
A note to Americans - your Blind faith in the Second Amendnment is bizarre. You claim that anarchy will ensue if "Guns" are outlawed.
You claim that Guns actually prevent crime, implying that not having guns encourages crime.
BullSh*t!
Here in Canada, we have very strict gun control and basically always have. By your logic, we should therefore have more violent crime, n'est pas? I've quoted these stats before and I'll do it again - Toronto, where I live, is the largest city in Canada with a population of about 4 million. Last year we had 54 murders, of which only about 20% involved firearms(this include shotguns and hunting rifles). The record number of murders for the city is about 75 in one year(about ten years ago, violent crime has been steadily decreasing for about 15 years). The entire country of Canada has about 800 murders per year, with a population of 30 million. Every single gun call the Metro Toronto Police go on makes the evening news - EVERY SINGLE ONE! Comapare that to Washington, DC, Chicago or Detroit, where guns are freely available to stop crime by not being pulled out of a holster.
All of this gun control and yet I can still own a hunting rifle or shotgun and go hunting every year (and I do).
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So don't make it easy for people to kill other people by letting them have guns (especially hand guns which, unlike shotguns or rifles, have no other reason for existance than to kill another human - not for hunting)
But I guess as long as some of you'all think it's your God given right to hunt deer with AK-47, Glauk 9mms and use teflon tipped, armour piercing bullets, there's no talking logic to you.
PS. Europeans: keeps up the good moderation work
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Well, you are allowed to despise the statement, but I think your initial reaction to it isn't really the reason you despise it. Yeah, in an ideal world, I'd love to see John get a new Tommy Kaira (although, I would have suggested a ZZII), and all that other stuff with my money. The fact is though, that this is not an ideal world.
You had the right to guess at what my mindset was when I wrote what I did, and you were wrong, and now I'd like to guess what's in your heart. You are truely disgusted by this statement because you know that I am right. How do we really know whether our beloved GPL would stand up in a court room? And don't say "because it's the law as per the lisence agreement" because we all know how much we would like to win the battle over the MPA eventhough what they are doing is made legal by a crappy law. We would like to think that if we fight hard enough, the law will change. So isn't it concievable that someone could fight the GPL if it ever got into a courtroom? And is it conceivable that they could even win? someone else posted something about the difference between UCITA vs. the GPL, and how they are basically the same as far as giving rights to the creators of software, but that they differ in how they effect the user. Are we digging our own grave here?
So what I think is that you realize just how disgusting it is to know that you live in a world where things have to be "proven" to the rest of society. Well, I don't like it much either. I completely agree that we don't need corporations and government and all that crap to tell us what is right; we can truly figure that out for ourselves. But what we do need is the knowledge that the beliefs we have, the beliefs we know are right, will be upheld by the society in which we live. This is an important thing. If we are confirmed in our belief, we can rest easy, and if we aren't, we will fight hard to have the "truth" be heard. And we need to know what we are doing in our everyday lives. Are we going about our business, or are we fighting for our existance.
And you are pissed off because the world you live in "isn't fair," and isn't ideal, and isn't what it could be if everyone just knew all the things that are in your heart. The world shouldn't (and can't) be affected by your mindset. We need a way to find a medium, to moderate between what is needed by the world, by ourselves, and by others. This is the most difficult task at the forfront of human reality. It is common (and understandable) for people to be afraid to admit this, and, in the open source community, it is common for individuals to believe (mistakenly) that it is their own view that should be adopted, at all costs, completely and unwaveringly by everyone else.
How do you balance individualism with society? Realize that the two are separate, but must coexist. I am an individual with my beliefs, which I hold very close and dear to my heart. I do what I will, of my own free will. I am an individual beacause I shape who I am. And I also live in a society in which I realize that I cannot rule simply because I believe with all my heart that I am correct. All I can have sometimes is that knowledge, and exist knowing that I have held on to it despite what the rest of the world thinks or does. And that's it.
Moderators, is there anything you can do about this guy? siteban him, or at least ban him from posting? It really pisses me off when i'm reading a serious discussion and some loser starts spewing garbage. I'd be willing to bet that most of you agree with me. Any comments on this Email me at aegis@mad.scientist.com and if I messed up that HTML sorry it's been a few years
John says he'll pay for the lawyers to get this one taken to court, while I can't see Slade suddenly backing down from what people are saying here, though I admit I'm not familiar with the case.
So this one might go to court. At which point we have the legal system poring over the GPL and deciding whether it's a valid contract or not.
This could get very interesting as last time I heard, it was untested and a good number of people didn't think it was enforceable.
Remember, it's not impossible that the result could be the exact reverse of what most people seem to want.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Is anyone else really impressed by the breadth of the GPL? There's literally 100 threads here ruminating on ways to beat it and everything seems to be covered in one section or another. Guess I should spend time reading it :)
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
It's Open Source, if you can't modify it you can always contract some capable programer to do what you want/need.
The collective has been infecected, All is lost!
Why don't you first post pussies start doing something challenging? Like "Last Post!"-ing all the stories?
The word you all appear to mean is "Stalinism" which is not even remotely the same thing no matter what senator McCarthy may have told you.
Thank you.
We oppose all so-called "consumer protection" legislation [...] and call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.
We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration, [...] We call for privatizing the air traffic control system and transferring the FAA's other functions to private agencies.
We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration [...] We advocate an end to compulsory fluoridation of water supplies. We specifically oppose government regulation of the price, potency, or quantity able to be produced or purchased of drugs or other consumer goods.
Gack! I didn't realize how dangerous to my personal safety the Libertarian Party would be. Thanks but no thanks.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
The new code is a derivitive of the original, and
as such copyright is legally in the hands of the
original author....NOT the modifier.
This is interesting. So the original author owns all the marbles?
Does this mean the Linus could create his own, closed source fork of the Linux kernel with all the contributions of the entire community? I could envision Total World Domination Day + 1; Linus licenses the whole shebang to IBM for a couple of billion dollars. Of course the open source versions are still out there, but IBM would have the technical depth to give the free software comunity a serious run, especially since most people out there are not really ideologically committed.
My understanding of the intent of GPL (IANAL) is to create parity between the original author and subsequent contributors. He cannot redistribute contributions unless they are GPL'd or unless he makes separate licensing agreements with the relevant contributors. The only unique right in the community he gets is to redistribute his unmodified original work in any form he wishes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I agree with Jeremy. I had several violators of the Clarkson/Crynwr packet drivers' GPL. They all backed down -- either by distributing source, or by ceasing to distribute the hacked binaries.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
, 1 month 20 days ago..
_ tfbarandgrill.txt
not sure if anyones interested, but being 1 month and 20 days ago its kind of interesting how this turned out in hind sight..
http://members.tripod.com/c_chronicle/kornchild
you can see the date in one of the whois's that includes idle time and date signed on, thats how i dated this doc.
Jeff
But then, the solution to this might be to simply divert those AI tools into Quake RobotWars games where the purpose is to see who can program the best player...
No, you overlook the most important aspect.
Let us take for granted that you're right that having the source equals supporting cheaters. I don't agree but I'll pass that one to you just for giggles.
I'd rather damn you and your game to oblivion under hoards of cheaters than to sacrifice every single GPL program ever written.
The license and what it stands for is greater than any one single entity. May JC take everything Slade owns.
I think you have the original poster's point confused. Chris wasn't saying that Carmack can't use Quake I source in the next Quake without open sourcing the new Quake. What he was saying that Carmack couldn't take improvements that others made to the Quake I source, and use them in the new Quake (unless he wanted to open source the new Quake, or he worked out other arrangements with the authors of the improvements).
A knife wound is a lot more deadly than a gun wound. Admittedly a gun makes it a lot easier to, for example, open someones head up, but a knife can still do it. I'd rather be shot in the gut with a 9 mm or a 45 than be stuck in the gut with a 6-9" blade. The blade is going to make a large whole.
Fuck. "larger hole." not "large whole."
Guns don't kill people.
Bullets kill people.
So ban those darned bullets! There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to keep and bear bullets! So, ban bullets and you get to keep your guns, without any interference by the Government, or those limp-wristed, pansy-ass, always looking out for the underdog, peace and prosperity lovin' Liberals! Hell, with no bullets, you can even use your guns without fear of retribution by the Law! You can freely wave your gun around, point it at anyone you please, and yell "BANG! BANG!" as loud as you want! It's those loud noises that affirm your exceptional level of masculinity. Without bullets, no one gets hurt, and you can still be a manly man.
Hell, without bullets, you can even get 110% drunk, wave your gun around, and still yell "BANG!" Of course, since you're toasted, it'll probably sound like "Bbbannnlluublub *snort* *hic* annnGGGgG!", which isn't nearly as impressive, but hey! You've got your gun! You're still a man!
Also, while the gun lovers always say things like "you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers", they never say anything about those wacky bullets, which obviously means they don't give a rat's ass about bullets. They won't care if there aren't any bullets --- they just want their guns.
So, ban bullets. There's no violation of the 2nd Amendment, no one has to give up their guns, and no one gets hurt by guns anymore.
See? Ban bullets, and everyone wins!
Here is another group with the same goal, to minimize cheating in QW, and they seem to be doing it fine WITHOUT violation GPL. hmmm... http://qwf.challenge-world.com/index.php3
"Blind faith in the Second Amendment?" Hardly. The Second Amendment only guarantees rights that we already have, that derive from God/Allah/humanity, etc.
You claim that anarchy will ensue if "Guns" are outlawed.
No one has made such a claim that I'm aware of. The claim I make is merely that outlawing guns will not reduce violent crime. It never has.
You claim that Guns actually prevent crime, implying that not having guns encourages crime.
Read Kleck.
Here in Canada, we have very strict gun control and basically always have. By your logic, we should therefore have more violent crime, n'est pas? I've quoted these stats before and I'll do it again - Toronto, where I live, is the largest city in Canada with a population of about 4 million. Last year we had 54 murders, of which only about 20% involved firearms(this include shotguns and hunting rifles). The record number of murders for the city is about 75 in one year(about ten years ago, violent crime has been steadily decreasing for about 15 years). The entire country of Canada has about 800 murders per year, with a population of 30 million. Every single gun call the Metro Toronto Police go on makes the evening news - EVERY SINGLE ONE! Comapare that to Washington, DC, Chicago or Detroit, where guns are freely available to stop crime by not being pulled out of a holster.
Where to begin with this mess? First of all, every one of the U.S. cities you cite have Canadian-style gun laws. Yet, they have very high violent crime rates.
Secondly, you are comparing apples and oranges, since Canadian cities are quite different from U.S. cities, demographically.
When you actually compare apples to apples, what are the results? Not surprisingly, we find that violent crime has a large cultural component. Compare violent crime or murder rates in rural areas of the Great Plains (i.e., North Dakota vs. Manitoba). They are nearly identical (last I checked murder rates of 2.3/100,000 in N.D. vs. 2.4/100,000 in Man.). This is the case, despite extremely high per capita gun ownership levels in North Dakota. Gun ownership in large U.S. cities is quite a bit lower than in rural areas, yet it is the large cities that have the violent crime problems.
When you look at the numbers honestly, and limit your comparisons to valid comparisons, you simply cannot conclude that gun ownership contributes in any meaningful way to violent crime rates. That is, if you actually consider the facts and statistics, and keep illogic and emotion out of the comparison.
PS. Europeans: keeps up the good moderation work
So, you believe that people should be moderating comments down, because the have a political disagreement? I find that position unconscionable.
Mainly, I just threw in that bit about libertarians to rattle people's cages. It was uncalled-for, and even in my own opinion it wasn't really all that accurate. I made a general statement which IMHO has some truth about some members of the group I slagged -- but there are always exceptions, and they must always be mentioned.
your use of the word Libertarian is completely wrong. Libertarians are strong advocates of contracts and the priniciples which make them meaningful and enforceable.
Yeah, and the segregationists made a lot of noise about "freedom". I don't really care about the principles people appeal to in their stump speeches. I'm much more interested in the specifics of how they apply those principles in the real world. As far as I'm concerned, "libertarianism" is the sum total of the actions of libertarians. If you look at it any other way, you run a great risk of evaluating other people by their actions, while evaluating yourself by your stated intentions. I'm sure you've heard libertarians saying "communists are bad because they do foo, bar, and baz, while libertarians are good because their position papers state that foo, bar, and baz are wrong". Apples and oranges. It's grossly unfair, as I think you'll agree, though it's also human nature and we all do it at least occasionally.
So: It's a fact that a lot of the libertarians I've known are very interested in their rights, and in everybody else's responsibilities. Their official "creed" doesn't say that, but that's how it gets implemented. Idealism always gets distorted somewhere in the theory-to-reality converter. I'm not fond of idealism in general, for that reason.
some in the free software movement seem to have some communistic sounding rhetorical accretions (Stallman for instance,) but at the heart of it the GPL is nothing if not Libertarian
The reason the GPL sounds libertarian is that Richard Stallman, a libertarian, wrote it by way of codifying his beliefs. He's not a right libertarian, but I have absolutely no patience whatsoever with "libertarians" who try to pretend that libertarianism and right-wingery must necessarily go together. It's not rare that they do go together, but it's nothing like a law of nature. It's a sad fact that most of the self-described "libertarians" on Slashdot are in fact conservative Republicans, and not libertarians at all.
Sounds cool, make the slash-code automatically delete any post labeled 'moderate this x' where x is up or down... or maybe there could be a little box labeld 'moderate up/down' or something... it could remove some spaminess...
Guns also make it really easy to kill people. You can kill way more people with a gun than a knife. Odd how you forget to point that out..
Small, hard to detect, easy to make drugs are not comparable with large, metallic, detectable, precision-engineered-in-a-large-factory guns.
No, you're not expected to just stand and die, that would be silly. But your argument is basically 'some one else might have one, so i need one' and thats just daft.
--- imh
Yo, I'm the troll who slagged the libertarians. I know that part was irrelevant to my point (and only semi-accurate at best), but I threw it in to annoy people.
Anyhow: I couldn't care less about the Libertarian Party platform.
First, the Libertarian Party is one particular organization which does not represent all libertarians, and I doubt that their platform fully and accurately represents even the views (never mind the actions) of all of their members. People are individuals, and I would certainly hope that libertarians are more individualistic than most.
Second, would you find out about communism by reading the platform of the Communist Workers' Party? No, you wouldn't. You'd tell me that they should be judged by their actions, not by their stated intentions. Why should I cut libertarians in general (or the U.S. Libertarian Party in particular) any more slack? You may (or may not
---------------------------------------------
[1] Is it fair to follow the standard libertarian practice of holding Nicaragua responsible for Stalin's crimes? If so, why? I call myself a programmer, and so do the people who wrote winNT -- am I responsible for their bugs? How can an ethic of individual responsibility lead to holding each self-described "communist" responsible for every action of every other self-described "communist" in history? That was a rhetorical question.
As part of the Windows culture, let me elaborate on this. I think a lot of people in the Open Source community are confused about freedom.
The freedom granted by Open Source is irrelevant to most users. This is because most users are not programmers. Giving them the source and allowing the community to modify it would result in non standard versions, confusion, and difficulty in running tech support call centers (due to the proliferation of different versions and configurations).
The exchange of money for binary only actually enhances freedom. Users are liberated from the decision making process involved with deciding how they are going to configure, install, support, what commands to use, what window manager to use, what distro to use, etc. In Windows, there are few apps that could be described as fritterware, a term I've heard used to describe *NIX programs that have an endless variety of configuration and enhancement options.
This argument doesn't necessarily apply to average users only. On my desktop, I've got MS Developer Studio, which allows me to create Windows apps almost totally WYSIWYG, compiles C/C++ and handles all the necessary chores for building Windows applications. I have no desire to view the source for Developer Studio.
If DS breaks so badly that it has to be patched, MS patches it. If I had the source to DS, MS might feel less obligated to patch it. Then I would have to scour Usenet looking for patches, rebuilding DS and testing the rebuild. What a waste of time. I bought DS to build apps, not rebuild DS. I would much rather pay MS $800 for the latest version of DS then spend $5000 worth of my own time tweaking DS (not an unrealistic dollar figure given todays IT salaries). MS actually saves me $4200. That $4200 represents freedom to do a lot of other things.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Interesting subject line, since afaik the Libertarian Party is the only major American political party whose platform doesn't include government handouts for anyone.
Before you go shooting your mouth off and revealing yourself as an ignorant dolt, you might want to study the things you hate. You might find that your prejudices are irrational and fallacious, and that you were confused about the nature of your self-assumed adversaries.
Of course, you can always just go on living the life of an uninformed, confused bigot; every civilized discussion is enriched by having a complete idiot in the corner shouting boorish sentiments about things he doesn't understand. It allows the people who are actually qualified to discuss politics respite from their usual tedious debate by providing a common jester the entire forum can simultaneously enjoy.
Every Libertarian I know would support John in his quest to recieve payment for his efforts- payment in this case being the source for the code derived from his efforts, as stipulated in the contract (GPL) which was accepted implicitly by the use of Carmack's work. It sounds like you agree with this as well- odds are pretty good your beliefs are compatible with those of the LP, at least on this topic.
Rev Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
But I'd swear we have the beginnings of a Bill Gates Jr. here.
We all knew that, if Free Software was ever to grow and fluorish outside the hacker community, legal tests would become both inevitable and necessary. That time has come. Now it is more important than ever to set aside bigotry on all sides and focus on what really matters: codifying the GPL and other Open Source licenses in a body of legal precedent.
Please don't turn this political.
But it's so much more fun that way!
I know quite well that what I said was unfair. I don't think it was quite as unfair as most libertarians would claim, but then I'm not what's commonly called a "libertarian" (I don't agree with anything but their stated principles) so I'm in a position to judge them by their actual behavior rather than by the position papers on their web site. This, of course, is the method they use to judge everybody else, while in many cases demanding special consideration for themselves: "If you compare my plans with your results, it's obvious that I'm better!". NOTE, however, that the rest of us do the same, so it's really nothing at all against libertarians in particular. Just human nature.
I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in some parts of the US it is not unheard of for muggers/robbers to murder their victims so they can't call the credit card companies to cancel their cards. For the most part, criminals don't think about the consequences until they're caught.
Another point -- it is more common for burglars to come to your house in the daytime when you're away. In a study, prison inmates were asked about this and most said that breaking into someone's house at night was dumb because that's how you get shot.
First, let me say that I am not a libertarian. With that understood, where do you get the idea that anything you quoted is dangerous to your personal safety? The libertarian party is advocating the "right" to provide an inferior product or service, and the right to purchase an inferior product or service, but not the right to advertise said inferior product or service as more than what it is. Hence you merely now have the choice to endanger yourself if you wish to. How can that be a bad thing?
Actually, I am now going to have to take a closer look at the libertarian party.
Ever been bitten by a chicken? They HURT! This chicken has no teeth either, but he's hurting us all the same.
Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
Who fucking cares about your platform? Show me the results. Since nobody will ever vote in a gang of fringe-lunatics, you're safe: You'll never be required to prove the worth of your bizarre theories in the real world.
That's never been an option for me. I'm incurably well-informed, clear-headed, and open-minded. What's bothering you is that I have a sense of humor. I also happen to expect the same of others. Tough shit. If you want to see an "uninformed, confused bigot", look in a mirror and observe your own reaction to anybody who disagrees with you.
All I can say is that America's different. I don't know about Detroit, but in DC and Chicago it's basically illegal to own handguns. We try to enforce the law, but criminals are going to get theirs no matter how hard we try. So people make the argument that laws like this are just disarming people who follow the law, making them easy targets for criminals. This is why some people support gun rights.
I'm amazed that so many other countries have such few problems with guns because if I were a criminal in Canada or Europe the first thing I'd want is a gun, then it would be easy to rob people.
The site is very bogged down right now, but try http://grc.com and his Shields UP! online share tester. It'll tell you right online if your shares are open or not! Check back in a few days if it's too busy right now. No charge!
Thankfully we don't have it that bad yet! I think most burglary occurs early afternoon, or when people are away, for the reasons you have, but I think your last comment at least in part supports my argument - the gun culture in the US encourages violence against victims, sure there will always be some who will carry guns anyway, but in general at least our "petty criminals" aren't packing.
Back in the days before I had a semblance of a life, I used to belong to one of the old-school TF Quake clans, the "Green Panthers" (http://www.greenpanthers.com).
Anyways, I was in the clan for two years, but we started to recruit more and more idiots. One of those idiots was "Slade[GP]". He was arrogant, loud-mouthed and generally an asshole. I ended up quitting the clan partially because of this guy.
Anyways, pissing off JC is just the kind of thing I could see Slade[GP] doing. Does anyone know if this Slade is the same as Slade[GP]?
At any rate, JC/iD should sue this guys ass. Lets see if the GPL is actually worth anything in court.
He agreed to the conditions of the GPL when he used the GPL'd code. He has no right to now try and modify the agreement after the fact. Using the second admendment and all this gun talk is just trying to play off the emotions of people all worked up about gun laws, but isn't relevant to the GPL at all. The GPL is not a constitutional right, it is a license agreement.
What an asshole!
. . . the Libertarian solution is to punish me after the customers die. A libertarian will say that the customers had it coming, because they were free to test the food for dioxin (and cyanide and botulism and a thousand other dangers) themselves, but they didn't bother.
So: The libertarian position is that all the laboratories and processes of the FDA should be duplicated in every home, at every meal. They call this "freedom", and perhaps it is. The rest of us call it "absurd" and "impractical", and we vote either Republican or Democrat, and we keep the FDA right where it is. The libertarians are talking about fixing problems only after the damage has been done: This sounds fine in principle, but in practice the burden it puts on the consumer is intolerable. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", as the man said. The libertarian approach made sense 200 years ago, when you bought eggs from your neighbor. Life is no longer like that. As William F. Buckley once said, "As idealism approaches reality, the cost becomes prohibitive". He was talking about communism or affirmative action or something, but it's a generally applicable principle. Whenever you hear a beautiful, simple idea about how to improve the world, stop and think through the bad consequences as well as the good ones. Simple solutions to sociopoliticaleconomic problems have a long history of creating disasters. They make bungee jumping look safe as houses.
The libertarian party is advocating the "right" to provide an inferior product or service, and the right to purchase an inferior product or service, but not the right to advertise said inferior product or service as more than what it is. Hence you merely now have the choice to endanger yourself if you wish to. How can that be a bad thing?
Actually, I am now going to have to take a closer look at the libertarian party.
May I suggest that you also look at the 1906 (US) Food and Drugs Act and The Meat Inspection Act and the historical context? I'm glad that someone is looking over the shoulder of the meat packing industry, although the Libertarian Party doesn't seem too happy about it...
Is it morally acceptable to do away with strict safety standards for airlines and allow the marketplace to punish airlines with poor safety records? No.
Is it morally acceptable to allow companies to sell adulterated foods and at best worthless and at worst dangerous drugs to people who don't have the time, knowledge or inclination to do the safety studies themselves? No.
Just take a look at some of the yellow journalism from only 100 years ago about the adulteration of foods and the sale of patent medicines prior to mandatory Federal inspections of meats and regulations of drugs. Do you want companies to slip addictive substances into products again without disclosure requirements? Coca Cola used to be a highly addictive product.
Comsumer Protection is just what it says it is. I don't have any market power to a corporation that sells millions of units. There is a huge disparity of power between me and a corporation. Laws give me some equity. I don;t want to give that up.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Software is more like art, writing and music and is covered under much the same laws. Comparing it to a car is idiotic.
Quake 1 was GPL'd
Quake 2 probably used some of the source for Quake1. Maybe it only used 1 line. So now it's a derivative work, and I can demand source.
Quake 3 probably used some of the source from Quake 2. Again, maybe it only used 1 line. That would make it a derivative work.
I demand source for Quake 3!
They were written before the liscence was in effect. Besides, Quake3 was a complete re-write. I don't remember how much Quake2 code is original, but there's probably a lot. The game is structured totally different with DLL's instead of quakeC. The quake2 engine is openGL, too, designed to run on win32 instead of dos, and has many different features which probably make the assembler code for quake 1's engine mostly worthless.
There were a couple of threads discussing how slade's machine is unprotected, and the source code was copied right off his desktop. Were those posts deleted? In any case: http://www.chatzone.org/~drw/gpl/
In conclusion, under normal copyright law, the theory that agreements are not binding unless signed is compatible with both the validity of the GPL and the invalidity of shrink-wrap licenses. This is not having things two ways: the asymmetry exists because the GPL gives you additional rights, while shrink-wrap takes away rights. You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights, but you do need to sign something to waive your existing rights.
I agree with the author of the previous message that failing to enter into the GPL does not mean that a recipient is free to use or distribute the software. The Copyright owner could then sue for infringement for unlicensed reproduction and distribution. This particular question --to the extent it has ever been controversial (it hasn't)-- was well-settled as a matter of law in the Duke Nukem case.
However, the author also appears to be under the misapprehension that a contract that has not been signed is unenforceable therefor. This is not the law.
Only certain kinds of agreements require a signature as a condition of enforceability. For example, contracts concerning the sale of real estate or goods with a price in excess of $500 require a signature in most states under the Statute of Frauds or the UCC. The Copyright Act requires that an assignment of copyright or an exclusive license shall be the subject of a signed writing.
There are other examples of contracts and instruments requiring a signature, but none appear to be relevant here. Even when there is a signature requirement, there are exceptions to the SOF that will permit enforceability in many cases.
Further, many things constitute a legal signature that do not appear to be a signature. Depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances, initials at the end of an e-mail, or an "x" on a piece of toilet paper, for example, would constitute a legally binding signature.
Most contracts and instruments are enforceable without a signature, provided the essential elements of a contract are present: offer, acceptance and either consideration or a substitute for consideration. The legal issue with respect to shrink-wrap agreements is not one of signature, but assent. Again, depending upon the circumstances, many license agreements can be entered into with a handshake, a computer click, or the breaking of a shrinkwrap.
The presumption that shrink-wraps are unenforceable merely because they are shrink wraps is, at best, naive. Your mileage may vary. In some jurisdictions, the proposition may be more debatable than others, and in other jurisdictions, the question has been well-settled in favor of enforceability. In any case, it would be very dangerous, regardless of jurisdiction, to presume that a shrink-wrap is unenforceable in any particular circumstance without first consulting competent counsel.
PW: coward
...so expect to be frustrated. I could hardly get through this log without feeling nauseous. They think its a fun little game, getting lots of attention, but when the smackdown comes, it's gonna lose its fun real fast.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
I take offence to you branding typical IRC'ers are all like the people in that IRC Log. In fact the majority are absolutly nothing like that. The people in the IRC Log I posted are the bottom dwelling scum of IRC. They are wannabe script kiddies who think only of them selves, and are obviously to young to comprehend what is really going on here...
Bite the hand.
Quake 1 was GPL'd
Quake 2 probably used some of the source for Quake1. Maybe it only used 1 line. So now it's a derivative work, and I can demand source.
Quake 3 probably used some of the source from Quake 2. Again, maybe it only used 1 line. That would make it a derivative work.
I demand source for Quake 3!
You have misread the GPL.
You see, Carmack owns the copyright to the quake 1 source. He can do whatever he pleases with it. He can take his original source and re-release it as Quake 1 1/2 if he wants to. No one can stop him. This is because he is the copyright holder on the orgininal code, he can release the original code under another licence too if he wants. What he CANNOT do is take already released GPL code that has been changed and close it.
So even though Quake 2 and 3 may be derived from Quake 1, because Carmack owns the source he can do whatever he damn well pleases with it. He just cant do whatever he pleases with someone elses GPL'ed code.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
...
**>>BELCH
I can't believe how hard it is to get people to hear this argument. No higher court has ever found that the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is what the framers meant but that gets almost zero air time during debates on gun control. Even people who are for gun control talk about it as if an amendment to the Constitution is needed even though that would only confuse things further.
I have to give it to the NRA though, they are right up there with the tobacco industry and politicians in their ability to snow the American public with ad campaigns.
Sorry
By the way, I judge people by their actions rather than by the ideals they claim to have. Isn't that how you'd judge the Communists? I know I would. It happens I go a step further and hold you guys to the same standard. You do come out better than Stalin did, of course
Also if there were anyone 'and their lawyers' i would like to see defend this, it's john Carmack and Id Software. Look at it this way, Id has always had problems with people distributing their S/W illegally, from the 'shareware' cracked CD's to the Q3 IHv test program. They've had a lot of experience with this sort of thing and as a result are very vigilant, not to mention they get the support of the Quake players behind them (I'm guessing this guy is already becoming somewhat of a pariah as a result of his actions...) And if it does come to a court battle you can bet Id's lawyers will be a lot toothier than the ones the DeCSS defendants have. Of course this is all IMO, take it as you will, but defending the GPL in court may well be the best gift that John Carmack could ever give open source auhors.
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
go blow gary kleck, you fucking gun-loving baby killer
Man, with intelligent, well-spoken people like you arguing against guns, it's tough to understand why so many of us here think people like you are idiots.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Of course information is much easier to come by and diseminate now then back in 1906.
"Guns do not kill people, people kill people". This means that a gun is a tool. Guns are USED to kill people, they do not kill people unless a person makes them.
:)
Hmmmm. Yeah, maybe guns *don't* kill people. As a matter of fact, people use hammers and saws to kill people sometimes too, albeit more effort is required with hand tools. I was thinking, how about:
"Guns make it easier to kill people when you have that urge...and to do it quickly, before the urge wears off."?
I'm just saying
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
These licenses are nothing more than words on a page (or screen). They have no real meaning or value in a court of law. They could only really be enforced if the person in violation profited from that violation. Even then since the license is put out by a group with no financial backing there would be no way anyone could go up against the legal team of a large corporation.
Gunpowder has been around for over a thousand years. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to use it to propell a hunk of metal at another preson. Banning guns (even if it was remotely feasible) will just ensure that people are defenseless against those who are bigger, stronger, faster, or more numerous than themselves. What's to stop the tyranny of a corrupt government if all the citizens are unarmed? The military will possess the vast majority of weapons in the country and even though they will likely lose much of their manpower (because many wouldn't be able to be convinced that they should fire on american citizens, although many others will be much easier to persuade or bribe) they will have the sole ability to enforce the government's wishes. Then we end up like so many other countries out there with opressive governments backed by military force. Our government has already taken many steps to limit our rights. They already use federal forces to enforce the law on citizens. Don't think it will stop anytime soon.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No, you're not expected to just stand and die, that would be silly. But your argument is basically 'some one else might have one, so i need one' and thats just daft.
I think his argument was perfectly reasonable. I would extend it even further. Just because someone breaks into my house and threatens me with a knife instead of a gun, should I not be allowed to shoot him, or must I use a weapon more equivalent to the intruder's weapon?
Perhaps I should just challenge him to an arm-wrestling match. Winner gets to keep the TV and stereo equipment. I guess you think that whomever is bigger or stronger or faster should always have the upper hand when committing a crime against another person. Why should I be forced to try to defend myself from someone who would have no trouble twisting me into a pretzel, without the aid of a gun? A gun requires little physical prowess to be proficient in its use. If I learn how to use it and practice often enough that I don't get overly rusty, then I have a pretty good means of defending myself. Even if I'm disabled and can't use my legs, I could still operate a gun, which would probably be my only method of self-defense.
I firmly believe that everyone should have the right to own guns for self-defense. Simply because they are one of the most effective tools for self-defense. Quite often they don't even have to be used, just the fact that you have one can be enough to deter the criminal, even if they have one as well. Criminals don't like even odds. They want the easy score.
I could also go into other reasons why people should have the right to own guns, mainly dealing with defending against the government, but I'll leave that for another discussion. I think others have gone into that in some of the threads here already anyway.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The disrespect for private ownership is what caused the american trade enbargo on cuba (and almost launched WW3).
Umm. No. The overthrow of a _military_dictator_ *supported by the US government* is what caused the American trade embargo and the missile crisis. The suggestion that the Americans were somehow supporting freedom and democracy in condemning Cuba is ludicrous.
I would just like to heartily endorse the use of the word "asshead". Not necessarily in conjunction with anyone in particular, just in general. I think "asshead" is a word that just doesn't get enough airtime.
Thank you. Of all the positive feedback I've gotten on my trolls here at Slashdot, yours is very meaningful to me. When the word "asshead" came to me as I wrote that troll, I knew it was special, and I used it with fierce joy! I'm very glad that someone out there shares my affection for "asshead", and I'm grateful that I've been able to share that word with somebody who appreciates its worth.
I'm a little bit choked up here. Seriously! I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, it's just rare that I run into somebody who really enjoys words like "asshead".
--80md
I put up a sign in my yard that says "I support the 2nd Amendment and the NRA!"
You can put a sign in YOUR yard that says, "No one should have guns at all! NO GUNS HERE!"
Your argument is PATHETIC. If your "psycho" is already a killer, it's already illegal for him to own a firearm!
If you PICK AND CHOOSE which rights you support, then basically you're a hypocrite. Both Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to Bear Arms have limits, but they're BOTH FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
re. the fusion of 3 and 4: how can you describe yourself as incurably well-informed, clear-headed, and open-minded, while simultaneously not caring to inform yourself about the issues (or platforms)??? my sense of humor tells me this is funny. So am I laughing at you or with you? just how good is your alleged sense of humor?
Also, I don't have much difficulty interacting socially with people who disagree with me politically. My fiance is a Democratic zealot; i.e. she votes democratic regardless of who is running or what they stand for. She would vote for the antichrist if he was wearing a donkey hat, yet I love her because she is a caring, intelligent, strong-willed person who has an incredible zest for living. In fact, none of my close friends are Libertarians. I look for different qualities in my acquaintences online and off...
Besides, if I didn't have a sense of humor, would I be a chaoist and reverend of the POEE? I take myself seriously only when absolutely necessary. When I feel like my right to not take life seriously might be threatened by ignorance amongst well-meaning people.
kallisti,
Rev Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
Nobody holds Haider responsible for Hitler's crimes. People are concerned because Haider has expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler. Nobody in the Sandinistas ever expressed admiration for Stalin.
On the other hand, it's interesting that you defend yourself by saying, "they do it to us!" -- and the "us" you have in mind is somebody who has publically expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler. If that's your "us", I'm pleased to be one of your "them".
At any rate, even if Haider were "being held responsible" for Hitler's crimes, and even if Haider weren't a fan of Hitler to begin with, that would hardly justify your mindless bigotry against Nicaragua. If it's wrong when your "opponents" do it, does that make it right when you do it? No, you pathetic dumbass, it does nothing of the kind.
You're just a shithead looking for an excuse.
This is obviously sarcasm. I'm trying to suggest that the government doesn't like us having guns and being able to kill simply because they don't like the competition.
I've read the posts on this thread with more than a little interest. The posts really run the gamut. From civil libertarians to GPL zealots to warez d00ds, this topic has 'em all covered. Since I am none of the above, I thought I'd contribute my own $.02, for once. To the extent he holds the copyright to code, John Carmack is within his rights to release that code under whatever terms he chooses, within some limits. (For example, he can't require us to commit criminal acts in the license. I suppose it may be illegal in some states to dump milk/cherry slurpees on your head, but I can't say I know that for sure.) To me, the interesting issues here are those that relate to contract formation, and interpretation of the GPL. The enforceability of most software click wrap licenses is generally predicated on the act of clicking a button (usually required to install commercial software which uses that type of license) to seal the user's acceptance of the license and form the contract. The act of clicking the button, which is required to install the software in the first place, is the evidence needed to establish that the user accepted the license. It's quite common in the Linux community, however, to distribute software in a manner which does not require the user to read anything, much less a license, to install and use it. I wonder how John packaged the Quake source code and how that would affect the enforceability of the license. I wonder if the package required Slade to accept a license before accessing the code. The other aspect of this that really interests me is interpretation of the GPL to the facts. In some of the posts, I've seen some indications that Slade believes he is distributing (in some cases anyway) patches to GPL'd code, rather than binaries which include GPL'd code. I can't say that I know the true facts about what Slade did, but the GPL doesn't purport to apply unless the binaries you distribute are a derivative work of GPL'd code. Another point to keep in mind is that the GPL is notoriously ambiguous. I've been told that the license was drafted that way to prevent people from easily finding loopholes in the license. While the intentions behind the drafting the license may have been fundamentally good, I don't think the ambiguities in the GPL serves the best interests of the open source community. One of the fundamental tenants of contract law is that "ambiguity is resolved against the drafter". To the extent Slade can establish a reasonable interpretation of the GPL which would permit his activities, Carmack may find himself in an uphill battle. If that doesn't unsettle you, consider this: unless both Carmack and Slade waive their right to a jury trial, factual matters (such as whether Slade's code include Carmack's code) will be decided by a "jury of their peers". Mind you, that "peers" includes the general population. Imagine 12 Joes and Janes from the street trying to make heads or tails of this, with the fate of the GPL in their hands. Now, before I get /.'d, bear in mind that I'm not trying to take sides here. For me this is more of an intellectual exercise than anything else. I'll be kind of curious to see what develops over the coming weeks.
I don't understand some people.
The bottom line is he Slade knew what using GPL'ed code meant - releasing his code. He blatenly disregarded that.
If he didn't like the GPL then he should
This reminds me of loser smokers who think they have a right to breathe toxic fumes into the air for others to breathe, heheh.
Carmacks latest
.plan mentions an important point, Slades development was remotely wrecked. That is not what we need. We don't need vigilantie justice (as much as I admit I got a smile from some of the comments on Slashdot as to what was going on with his system.) This is NOT the way to promote the GPL.
.plan follows: - --
- --
Full text of Carmack's
-----------------------------------------------
2/24/00
-------
Some people took it upon themselves to remotely wreck Slade's development system. That is no more defensible than breaking into Id and smashing something.
The idea isn't to punish anyone, it is to have them comply with the license and continue to contribute. QuakeLives has quite a few happy users, and it is in everyone's best interest to have development continue. It just has to be by the rules.
-----------------------------------------------
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
The idea that someone will 'blow the whistle' is complete crap - the engineers here are paid FAR, FAR to well. Unlike you pricks.
http://home.wanadoo.nl/whatdoya/QuakeLives , Just in case the others get /...ed http://home.wanadoo.nl/whatdoya/css is still up as always..
Just my personal vendetta, for euronet.nl selling the bandwidth I payed for 1 year in advance, for free under wanadoo.nl (the upstream from S1-0-0.mae-east.us.euro.net to asd-bfr.euro.net still sucks, no matter how much excuses) You can't give away that which you don't own.. (bandwidth)
Picture this: We already know that the US is full of blood thirsty lawyers. Now what would happen if a few of them got CS degrees and some creativity? They could look at the electronic signatures of various software programs and then compare them to open source projects. When you get a match, BAMMO! We all know that the open source community doesnt really care about money, but the lawyers/CS people do. So they could bargain that they get a large lump sum of the out-of-court settlement for damages as well as help open source people keep the IP rights to thier own code. sounds like a plan, what do other people think? Is this sort of thing even possible? Granted this would only work if people were to copy large parts of open source software,
"The importance of using technology in the right way has never been more clear."
Why can't you keep all the physics (or whatever; the data and computation needed to do worthwhile cheating) on the server and put only bare interface stuff on the client? Would this be a much higher data transfer requirement; like would the graphics be a lot harder to compute? That seems like a viable solution.
... that compute that function. (No, X is not recursively enumerable, but there exist subsets of X that are.) Write a program Y that generates some (obscure) binary Xi that computes F each time it is run (where i is some positive integer). Release the source to Y. When a client logs in, have her download the binary for Xi. You can verify that this is a legitimate binary. (I think yacc or lex dealt with similar issues.) You wouldn't even need a sandbox, necessarily, although that might improve portability.
If this is too much of a bandwidth hog, make some computational sandbox for the server to download cheat-worthy computation to.
For every function F, there's an inifinite set X of programs X1, X2,
You might not even need for X to be inifinite, although someone could take an Xi and make a Xj with the same hash value; if X were infinite you (in theory) could discard used Xi's.
What am I missing here?
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Anyone notice that Slade hasn't popped up on irc.gamesnet.net lately? Wonder why? :)
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
> Coca Cola used to be a highly addictive product.
Are you kidding? Coca Cola still is a highly addictive product! Caffeine is physically addictive, complete with withdrawl, unlike cocaine. At the levels that cocaine was included in Coca Cola it could very well have been less addictive than the current formula.
"Factories" and "precision engineered" are two phrases that don't really go together. You've got to be careful that your rhetoric doesn't get in the way of your logic.
... interesting, perhaps they should give away methane powered cars, they could just about run on shit. Electrical cars shift the pollution to the power stations running on coal. We could cheaply use regenerative braking on todays cars, just think of the reduction in greenhouse gasses at the next set of lights. Anyone want to make a kit? Nikkers to this, catch a bus or train! Hey ride a bike! The consumer will eventually choose to buy GPL'd products when awareness increases, humans on mass generally take the easy way out which is why so many people drive a car to work, alone. If you don't get it forget it. The tide has turned.
>That Its very nice John want to support cheaters
Besides your own pitiful, whining imagination, what documentary evidence do you have that John Carmack is deliberately helping cheaters?
When the Cheaters first appeared, A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE the Quake Source release, what effective action did you take against them?
Did you organize any community effort to track the lamers down (using the net.gods amongst the Quake player *community*) and punish them so thoroughly that anyone even thinking about cheating after that would have nightmares?
If not, then you are way the hell out of line to be whining about them now!
> - thats his deal - and his right...but -
>lets look of what he done, and its consequenses
>instad of the very nice, but bottomline -
>totally unintersting part about GPL me this and that..
>GPL doesnt help the cheater or anticheater -
>it has no impact on the game..
The Cheaters had already cracked the weakly designed Quake network protocols and created the first radars and aimbots within a few short months after the initial Quake release. They obtained their OWN *assembler* source code by reverse engineering.
GPL helps the anti-cheater more than it does the cheater, despite how things may appear for the near term.
Opening the Quake source has made if possible for hundreds of very bright, creative and security-knowledgable Internet programmers to review the security model of the Quake Network protocols and come up with a strong long-term solution, if one exists.
What are you doing to help ensure that happens - besides whing about John Carmack?
[BR]Sneaky!
AHL Clan Bloodrush
long term Quake, TF and MegaTF player
email: mhobson@pacbell.net
There's a few people with [GP] in their nicks that hang around the channel where the QL people and Slade did....
--
> What HAS impact is that JC released source - now every damn cheater
>are running around damaging the game.. seen from the game-side - its
>hurting Quake - ALOT - because - ppl whom before maybe would consider
>to play it for 1-2 years - now leaves, especially after the guy with
>aimbot, hacked QW, and speedcheating messed him up...
>Along come slade, and others - wanna preserving the game, and the fun
>playing it.. and all u can focus on are - he violates the GPL - well -
>ppl - its a easy choose - F*ck the game, or f*ck GPL...
>For u NOT playing it - then i understand why u think GPL are more
>importent.. but if u ARE playing it - then all u get out of enforcing
>GPL - is that QL and others might aswell shut down, u might aswell
>admit - u and JC - are RESPONSIBLE for cheaters destryoing the game..
>because U forces him to deliver every manhour, everything he has done
>to preserve the game... Maybe JC and ID made the game - but bottomline
>- we dont play it - Q is dead..
It's long past time gamer idoits like you realized nobody really gives a damn about you. The Quake code doesn't belong to you. End of story. Go do something useful with your life--like playing in traffic.
I do more then whine - i handle the situation..
In the leagues i lead, by forming LRG - and LRGs
daily work, by getting (or try) Europian and USA-leagues to take steps.. vs the cheaters, either by rules, or implanting countersteps, control software etc...
By talking, and contacting serveradmins of big public servers, by operate certain servers, among this - for a a period - waveguide - which according to TheCLQ was one of USA's biggest servers.. i do more then whine.. but - i cant remember ive ever seen ure name popup in the debate regarding cheating/counter-cheating in STA, TvT, STFL, IGL, IMTFL or similar leagues..
Neiter do i find u on the roster of LRG or QSA...
And about cracking Quake - right - try again.. The first radar ffirst showed at QW late version in 97 - considering that QW was pretty old at that time... besides - 99% of the crachs that was out - didnt work, or worked poorly - today - both radars, speedcheats, etc works great.. now the cheaters dont have to guess - now they got not only access to the Q-source - they also get the source to the QL - because of GPL... but question are - maybe ure a cheater - since u think its such a great idea to send out the source to everything, and know when the cheats emerged ?!?!?
I so far havent meet many ppl - whom except for defending PGL found JC's attacks on Slade as a good idea..
Oh - and dont give me any BS about me contributing.. i had for long time been involved in 25-50% of most stuff in Mega TF (LRG, DetPipe, IMTFL, TPL), and in NTF (AKA Regular TF) - by beeing co-cordinator in ITFL, and helping out in TvT..
BUt - lets turn the question.. What has YOU done to contribute in youre community ?!
- Tiger
The difference is that i know that ppl gives a damn - and i know that for ppl ure nothing but a unknown guy posting a message, saying nothing..
Go play with youre aimbot..
- Tiger
U tend to overlock the fact, PGL or not - softwarehouses steals from eachother.. u remember the MS-Dos 6.0 thing with MS vs Norton and Stacker ?
Just to refresh u - MS stole the Defrag, and Stacker program from them... MS was forced by law to pay for the "thieft" - and pays still..
U think thats first time MS steals ? - u think its last? - u think theyre alone about stealing ?
PGL ? - nice thought - but in the modern world - a piece of paper which does nothing but trouble, for those ppl that in this case tries to do something for alot of ppl..
- Tiger
Here's the beef, to put up a simple clickthru agreement on a site (like the ones on warez sites and, of course, the one on quakelives.com) doesn't do a damn thing for protection. The simple fact of the matter is that to make an agreement (or even a full fledged contract) in regards to an ILLEGAL matter, simply means nothing. The whole 'you give up your rights upon entering this site' is irrelevant because by distributing the binaries to ANYONE regardless of WHO it is, as soon as THEY have the binary file, they immediately have a legal right to the source code which was used to write it, it is not totally in error to say that the source code is part of the binary file... I'm not exactly positive on this one, but I do think there are a few possible ways of getting around the 'security' problems Quakelives is having... One would be to release the binary in only insecure version, then to release a security patch that would go in and modify the Exe to the version that IS secure, this way, the patch's source could be kept closed source while the source to the actual quake binary could remain open (i know this is an added trouble to go through, but that's life)... Another way would be to use some open source compiler and modify the source of it so that it would require modified source code that would only compile under it (this way, no one else can compile it, you're fine) but I'm not much of a programming expert, so again, I'm entirely unsure of how easy and/or effective this method would be.... just a thought.
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Admittedly, I haven't been a member of a "gaming community" since the last time I played Dungeons & Dragons more than a decade ago. But couldn't this Slade character charge people to access his code/patches/whatever?
I understood the GPL to allow modifiers of source code to charge people for the improved (or merely altered) code, without limiting the right of their customers to give away the new/improved/altered source for free (or for the price of the transmission medium, e.g., burning a CD, paying for bandwidth, etc.).
I haven't seen anyone address this, and wonder whether I misprisioned the GPL.
Lawyers and experienced GPL folk especially encouraged to comment. =)
mokers who think they have a right to breathe toxic fumes into the air for others to breathe,
The Earth's atmosphere is very large. The smoke I breath into is is not going to affect you. Don't fucking kid yourself, you're just a mindless asshole looking for an excuse to ram your conformity down other people's throats. Either that or you're a hypochondriac, in which case you need professional help.
When people politely ask me not to smoke, I politely do them the favor of putting out my cigarette. I owe them nothing, but civilization is a matter of being considerate so people can get along with each other. This is called good manners, and it's totally alien to moronic anti-smoking zealots like you. When I meet people like you who, whine and bluster at me, I show them exactly the same courtesy they've shown me: I blow smoke in their faces and laugh. They deserve it. They've earned it. People who shove their weakness, fear, or stupidity in my face and demand special favors annoy me. People who make such demands rudely have earned a series of sharp kicks in the head. Your hypochondria and other character flaws are not my fault. Keep them to yourself.
DeCSS is not a license issue. DeCSS circumvents the encryption technique by which data on DVDs are protected. This encryption technique is protected under a trade secret provision. The trade secret does not prevent anyone else from coming up with a different way to do the same thing, but in I belive that it is illegal to reverse-engineer trade secrets and use that knowledge to make a different product without permission from the holders of the trade secret. This is what "authors" are being legaly persued under, as they have admitted to reverse engineering the encryption technique after discovering the un-encrypted key.
However, in general submitting a trade secret in a public legal document without getting prior protection usually invalidates the trade secret protection. While the judge in the DeCSS case has closed the document that contained the DeCSS source, and thus the "trade secret" that was under suit temporarily, it is uncertain if it can regain trade secret status after the fact.
The DVDs themselves do however have a license associated with them, which is that the DVD is for private use only, which generally means that it cannot be re-broadcasted or shown to a paying audience, etc. There may be other restrictions as well, but I haven't studied them.
Further, the content of the DVDs are protected under the copyright laws, which prohibits anyone from using the material for any purpose (commercial, free, etc) without permission from the copyright holder. There is however a provision for "Fair Use", and if there it is in the "public interest", then at times, some form of the copyrighted work can be distributred, usually by news organizations. Even then under fair use and public interest there are other conditions.
Derivative works are defined under copyright laws and I believe are works that are partially or wholly based upon an initial work. Derivative works are legal to privately make and privately own. The copyrights to the derivative works are owned by the the author of the derivative works. However, as a derivative work, it cannot be distributed publicly or privately without the permission of the copyright holder of the work that the derivative is based upon.
To bring this back to the Quake GPL issue:
Carmack et al. has the copyright to Quake, and until the copyright expires 75 years after the creation or publication, whichever is later the work is fully protected by the copyright laws.
Carmack et al. has decided to license his copyrighted work (Quake)to anyone who asks under the GPL. If there are people or organizations that do not agree to the GPL, then they must abide by the copyright laws and utilize the copyrighted material under seperate agreement or license from Carmack et al. If there is a derivative work made by an author who does not agree to the GPL, then they have only the rights accorded to them under copyright laws, which prohibits the distribution for fun or profit of their derivative work, unless the copyright holder of the original work grants them permission, either under a different licensing structure or some other agreement.
It's pretty clear cut that Slade doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. His attempt to comply to the GPL (which is to make the source available) but obviate it by making you agree not to ask for the source (which obstinately would be available, if you could ask for it) is pretty clever, but will probably not hold water. Most courts would probably hold that his "click through" agreement materially alters the GPL which his derivative work inherited, and thus is invalid, and order him to either withdraw the work, or modify his agreement. The GPL actually states that further restrictions cannot be placed upon the recipiants, which is a pretty final nail on the coffin for Slade's click through. The GPL was pretty tightly worded to prevent any such thing from happening.
Now for the standard disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and none of the above information should be taken as legal advice. Before taking or refraining from taking any actions concerning anything discussed above, please consult a licenced attorney.
Sorry, fellow geekers, I'm a newbie to this, and what is a GPL???
he'll be forced to open up the source
Be careful about forcing anybody to open source. I like the GPL - I think it's great. Unfortunately, the open-source/free-software communities need to realize it is as enforceable as any other license agreement. In other words, UCITA is the only way to legally enforce the GPL. Not sure if anybody has really considers this or not but its something you should be aware of. The GPL has no strength without either legal precedent or laws like UCITA. So remember, legally enforcing the GPL would give weight to click-wrap and shrink-wrap licenses. Thank you.
give nothing back? the whole point of quakelives is giving back to quake, giving back to the quake community. DO u guys even know what slade was doing? what the quake lives prject was?? it was to prevent cheating, because when the source for q1 was released cheating was all over the place, u cant play a public quake game without being raped by cheaters, its fucked. quake lives was going to make a secure quale 1 client to prevent cheationg, GIVE BACK to quake and let quake live on, instaed of being destoyed, but wait.. if the secure client is open sourced... then its not secure is it...? so by releasing the source for the new secure client slade was working on, it would fuck the project, and leave quake being raped by the masses of cheaters. would you do something illigal for something you love? I do not believe slade just didnt release his source because he is a greedy little bastard who thinks he can gain something for nothing, hes not trying to fuck us, but carmack is fucking him, and us (quake players) -ease
If this metaphore were working as it's theory implies, we wouldn't be seeing the government raise interest rates to curbe anticipated inflation because some maket dynamics would have taken care of it. Likewise, maket dynamics would be sufficient to maintain strong competition and would make monopolies impossible. There are HUNDREDS of similar examples that stand ready to show that Smith's metaphore stands closer to wishfull thinking than anything else. A Keynesian economist could spend hours bringing up real life examples that demonstrate the Smith's invisible hand is poop.
Touché!
I've been subscribed to the QuakeForge list for quite a while. QuakeForge was one of the very first projects (apparently along with QuakeLives) that was started when Carmack released the source. These [QuakeForge] guys have their heads on straight, have already made and applied many patches, bugfixes, and have plans to redesign, modularize, secure, and add features to the codebase whilst still maintaining backwards compatibility, and portability to a very large range of systems. So that's my plug for QuakeForge (www.quakeforge.net, and also on SourceForge - hence the name).
/together/, /sharing/ fixes/patches/ideas instead of hoarding.
On the other hand, QuakeLives, from what I can tell, is a guy and whomever he could attract throwing up a quick project to be k3wl quake c0ders. Many on the QuakeForge project demanded that source be available from QuakeLives, some even going so far as to complain about this outfit to Carmack (really, the guy just wanted to do what was best...he doesn't need the community running crying to him to solve its problems), it really is a matter of principle. A rogue project can't just take the GPLed product of Id software's hard work, and then give out new binaries and keep the goodies to itself. That is really against the philosophy of the community, and a snub to all the legitimate Quake source groups who are trying to build an infrastructure for working
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
This has been an interesting thread. I look forward to another debate of the kind in in a GPL/evil communism thread.
yah. medics get syringes. Engineers and HWGuys get a couple snazzy new items. All in all it just makes for a few more features - Airstrikes and such. I think there is a huge rift forming between gamers. There were the TF/MTF feuders, now the UT/Q3A brawlers...it's pretty funny. I think they're both damned good games. It's just too bad i got the V3 3500 instead of the GeForce. Oh well - bye bye framerate!
-FluX
-------------------------
Your Ad Here!
-------------------------
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Today in the United States, encryption techniques to control licensed access to a copyrighted work are protected by copyright law - not by trade secret law. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes it illegal - sometimes even criminal - to defeat encryption techniques like that of the DVD. This is not solely a United States matter however, as the WIPO treaty requires signatory nations to protect such technology. Read more here http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pd f