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.
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
--
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=
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...
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
--
[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.
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.
_________________
rooooar
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...
--
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.
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,
Actually Mr. AC
/. ed.. Look below for a complete posting of what Slade had to say.
The site has been
--
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.
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"'
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.
--
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 BooneThis 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.
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. =)
The QWForever project has a similar model, except it isn't violating the GPL.
--
This is just completely wrong. This whole issue doesn't seem to be about the GPL at all. People don't have the "right" to the source code, people who distribute code under the GPL have the legal obligation to provide the source code, at cost and upon request for up to three years.
If the code is being distributed outside of the GPL, the distributor is doing it in blatent violation of copyright law.
As for how "linking" fits into this I have no idea. It seems that Slade could get away with this. Think of two extremes:
IMHO there is zero merit to his "waive your rights" argument, but as mentioned elsewhere, the very loose linking argument seems unfortunately plausible.
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!"
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.
> 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"
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
> 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
Once upon a time, I used windows (years ago). This
was, needless to say, prior to my illumination.
I wrote a program and released it as shareware. I
always felt that prices should be "fair" so I
only charged $5 for it (I think in total 4 people
registered).
A couple of hard drive crashes, and OS change
later...I decided I would fuck it and GPL the
sucker...however...I could not. The source code
had been lost forever in a crash....I couldn't
even modify it to take out the nag box (the only
real difference between the shareware and "full"
versions).
In the end I just pulled it from circulation and
deleted my final copy of it.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/02/23/20142 05&threshold=-1&comment sort=0&mode=thread&cid=131
If Id does not VEHEMENTLY defend the GPL, Open Source is a lark. Do you want scum stealing your software and giving you nothing in return?
Let me put it this way... Do you want Microsoft co-opting Linux, yet try to not return the benefits of source code on the projects they "borrowed" from Linux' head start?
Forget embrace, extend and extinguish. It will just be steal and resell.
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.
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.
...except that when you 'found' the girl, she was carrying a large sign that explicitly stated what would happen with her in the future, so that you could be prepared.
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Bad analogy.
So the girl doesn't go home, or back to the streets where she gained the depth of character that served her so well in later life. She goes off to college, learns about life, meets another guy. Together they have two wonderful children. These children (unlike their mom) have no appreciation what her mother had to do to succeed. Living pampered lives, they later emerge to the world, pretty and proper, but basically useless for any real work. However, because of their "proper" upbringing, they are denied the truths of life outside their homes and are stuck only learning what thier parents tell them.
This goes on for a few generations and eventually you are left with incredibly expensive to maintain and administer grandchildren. They must be put to bed each night, and if they aren't watched carefully, they eventually go crazy and commit suicide. Heavy medication from various third parties is the only way to make them useful. Beautiful to behold, and great at having a good time, they are totally useless when it comes time to get work done, with no idea on how the real world is or functions, they force those that depend on them to eventually believe that all people are unstable, incomprehensible, and expensive.
-The End-
(don't ya just love silly analogies?)
--
+&x
> 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"
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?
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.
Of course you can do whatever you want - but you can't distribute that "whatever you want." Quake is copyrighted. Copyright covers copying, distributing and modification only - not use. So of course he could modify the GPL'd Quake source, compile it, print it out and burn it in effigy, etc.. but if he ever distributes it, it has to be in compliance with Quake's copyright and license, which in this case is the GNU GPL.
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:
Not a good idea. Really, do you think that this makes GPL advocates more credible? There are other legit users of the same hosting service, and you'd be subjecting them to a DoS as well (that is what you're talking about). Going down to his level, or worse, a 133t skr1pt k1dd33 level, will not do any good. Just don't download, don't play it, and send him a calm letter telling Slade how you feel about his abuse of the GPL.
-30-
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.
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!
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.
Put it another way:
Suppose John Carmack went to court with this Slade sleazeball and won, thereby setting a precedent. Fast forward to the future: a commercial shrink wrap license is challenged in court, perhaps by a group of open source software developers who desire to reverse engineer the product. As part of their defense, the open source developers claim that shrink wrap licenses are not enforceable. The company will then point to JC vs Slade and say "Look, here is a precedent".
We can't have it both ways: if the GPL is upheld in court, that gives some legitimacy to the notion that you can be held to a license that you have in some way agreed to, without having explicitly signed a contract.
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
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?
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!
Wrong... Do some real research, and you'll find guns are used most often as deturents, and never fired..
Legal guns are used effectivly to stop crime then accidents occur by a factor of 50 or so...
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
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!
You should be fine, you are only required to provide the source code to someone you have given a binary to. In GPL lingo the GPL respects your right to develop in private.
You might be in trouble if one of your employees does something stupid and distributes a binary (executable form or object code) to one of his friends outside of work.
Internal distribution is still distribution but as long as you can keep it internal you're fine.
We can't have it both ways: if the GPL is upheld in court, that gives some legitimacy to the notion that you can be held to a license that you have in some way agreed to, without having explicitly signed a contract.
(1) Imagine you receive a disk from me with a file foo.c on it. The first line of this file is:
/* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter */
No other copyright notice or license notice is given.
What rights do you have? Under US copyright law, you can compile and use foo.c, and make copies for archival purposes.
What rights do you not have? You cannot distribute copies of my code to third parties. You cannot distrbiute binaries without source (or with source, for that matter) to third parties.
(2) Imagine you receive a disk from me, with a file foo.c on it. The file states:
/* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation.*/
What rights do you have? All the rights in (1), plus some additional rights, if you follow the terms of the license which gives you these additional rights.
What rights do you not have? Since you did not sign the GPL, you are not bound to obey it. However, whether or not you agree to the GPL, the code is still copyrighted by me. So, if you do not agree to the GPL, you will have exactly the same rights as you would in (1). Note the in (1) you did not have the right to distribute binaries without source.
Just because you didn't agree not to distribute copies of my binary without source, doesn't magically give you the right to do what would be illegal under ordinary copyright law.
(3) Imagine you receive a disk from me, wrapped in plastic. A sticker prominently states: "By opening this package you agree to the terms of the End User License Agreement." You open the package, and find an EULA that says: "Every time you run this program, you must dump a glass of milk on your head. If you do not agree to these conditions, you must destroy the disk." Because you have not signed the agreement, you throw it away, and have the same rights as you would in (1).
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.
This is a fairly common misunderstanding about the GPL. Let me state it plainly:
The owner of the code can license his/her own work any way he/she damn well pleases.
In other words, I can license something under the GPL to everybody out there, and since the code is under the GPL, you can get it from anyone who has the code. BUT if you want ME to support that code for you, you have to license the code from ME (and only me) under a commercial license costing $$$. The reason I say "only me" here is that everyone else who has the code only has it under the GPL - which means they can't relicense it. Only the owner of the code can do that.
There's actually many pieces of software under multiple licenses. Probably the biggest is Perl - it's under the GPL and the Artistic License.
ESR talks about the free rider problem in The Cathedral And The Bazaar. The whole free software movement is predicated on people being able to take more than they give back, on the assumption that enough people will give back to make it all worthwhile.
Which it is, of course, or so many wouldn't do it. Somebody ripping off GPL software in way the this anonymous coward describes is damaging not because of the free ride gotten (we *want* you to have *free* code), but because it threatens to undermine the enforceability of the GPL. I agree with the other poster.. if anyone ever catches you at your theft and can prove it on any significant scale, you and/or your corporation certainly deserve to be prosecuted.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Totally false. The copyright holder can do anything with their code includeing relicensing. What they can't do is take code that is GPLed away from you. The authors don't lose any rights to their code.
This happened with Debian, Corel, and libapt. Corel wrote a QT frontend using libapt. Libapt is covered under the GPL (not LGPL). Corel would have been a violation of the GPL except that the author(s) of libapt gave Corel a special licence.
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.
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.
Ok, I looked at it, and that's not what I meant. They're trying to authenticate the client/server binaries. I'm proposing to authenticate the players. To play, you need to generate your online ID, and a key pair. When you first log in to a server, you give it your ID. The server checks a database for your ID. If the server doesn't know you, it asks you for your public key, and stores it in the database. Your key is marked "untrusted", because the server has no reason to trust you.
Other players see you on the server, and can play against you, but they know not to trust you, because the server marks your ID "untrusted" in the UI.
This is where things get complicated. How do you gain players' trust? There are several possible ways. You can gain trust with time. Play long enough (a week? a month? The period of time should be long enough that people will be discouraged from playing straight for a while, and then going on a cheating spree, until servers and players recognize them for the jerks they are).
A trusted player can recommend you to the server. This can be done automatically when you log in (I think this will cause problems for players with low-bandwidth connections, when the server starts sending ID's of newly connected players to everyone who's already playing, basically asking "is it ok to trust this player?"). This can be done between games, through e-mail, or through a menu option on other player's menus.
When connecting to the server the next time, you submit your ID, as before, except that now the server knows you, and challenges you to prove your identity, by sending you a challenge packet, containing a random number. You sign the random number, with your private key, and the server authenticates the signature with your public key, which it stored during your first log in. Now, when players see you logged in, they know that no one can pretend to be you.
The end result is that players can build up reputation, based on other players' recommendations. No one can pose as another, honest player, and cheat, lowering the true player's reputation. New players can be introduced to the game by friends who are already trusted, and the Quake community will become just that - a community.
Another advantage(?) for anyone who'll try to implement such a system is that the complexity of the protocols (not so much the authentication protocol, which is quite standard, but the automatic maintenance of the web-of-trust, possibly with servers updating each other periodically, causing reputation to propegate through the Net much like Usenet news, players' votes to lower or raise reputation values being adjusted based on the voters' reputations, etc. etc. etc.) guarantees some interesting design and coding experiences.
1. Suppose I agree to the GPL.
(3) Imagine you receive a disk from me, wrapped in plastic.
2. Then suppose I try to download a piece of software from Microsoft. Before I download the software, the eula appears, and I have to agree to the eula before I'm allowed to download the software. So I agree. (Note that this is actually a step beyond what most gpled software does - many free software downloads don't make you agree to the gpl before you download the software; and some gpled software are also sold in shrink wrapped form, so what is the validity of the GPL in this case?).
Given that I have agreed in both cases, why would you say that the license is enforceable in the first case, but unenforceable in the second case?
Now you say that this is because gpl adds rights, while the shrink wrap license takes away rights.
Suppose the software is free (as in free beer, think IE). So if you don't agree to MS's eula, you are left with where you started - you have no rights to the software at all, MS does not wish to let you use the software (keep in mind that you haven't paid MS anything in this case). But if you agree to MS eula's, you have an additional right - the right to use the software, provided that you adhere to MS's terms and conditions. Wow, just like the GPL. But MS eula is invalid but the GPL is valid, simply becuase you don't like MS's eula.
You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights
In the case of the GPL, you're not just giving me additional rights. You're giving me additional rights on condition. You're demanding a certain code of conduct from me. I do think that I definitely have to agree with this before you can hold me to it.
You are wrong. The GPL is not an end user license, read it and see. Users are never asked to "agree" to the terms of the GPL, because it doesn't set out to restrict the use of the software. The GPL only regulates distribution of a work, not its use by its users, and national and international copyright laws make a very clear distinction between use and distribution.
You are free to use GPL'ed software in whatever way you want, so long as your re-distribution of the software or modifications to it are in compliance with the GPL. If you don't agree with the GPL, don't distribute your work.
--
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.
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.
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!
*** 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
The GPL applies to software, not to physical objects. If I give you the source to some software, that _doesn't_ mean I don't have it anymore. The GPL isn't about lending things, it's about sharing knowledge and information.
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
Oops?
What if he started charging people $5 to download the binary after they had clicked through?
--
The shareholder is always right.
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?
Well it looks like the source is out now, intentional or not.
http://douglas.min.net/~drw/slade.gif
--
I think what you're saying is this: an agreement to a license (e.g. by clicking on a box 'I agree') like the GPL or a typical shrink wrap license isn't really a binding agreement; it isn't really a contract between the provider of the software and the user.
So if the user has agreed to the GPL, but then proceeds to violate the GPL, then you say that you may sue him for copyright violations, but not for violation of the GPL, because the user has not signed a contract, and there is no agreement between the user and the software provider.
Now suppose he agrees to the GPL, and distributes the software in compliance with the GPL. Can the FSF then sue the user for copyright violations? It seems that your line of reasoning will imply that the FSF can, because there has been no binding agreement between the provider of the software and the user. So the user has no real legal protection but distributes the software merely at the grace of the FSF. So it seems that your interpretation of this is unworkable.
First of all, the GPL does not restrict your right to use the software. It only places restrictions on your redistribution of the software, and it does that from the standpoint of granting you additional privileges that you would not otherwise have had under Copyright law. Let me quote the GPL directly, emphasis mine:
The point is this: The GPL does not restrict the freedoms you are already granted under the law. The software itself is already protected from unauthorized duplication and distribution under the Copyright laws. Then, as an extension of your privileges , the GPL authorizes duplication and distribution provided certain conditions are met.
In contrast, users are compelled to "accept" so-called Shrink Wrap licenses before even being allowed to install the product. In many cases, these licenses limit the conditions under which the product may be used, copied, altered, or stored. They may seek to control how the user may use the results of the program (eg. publish benchmarks, reviews, etc.) Also, many of these licenses require the user to relinquish rights to recourse against the manufacturer. In other words, Shrink Wrap licenses abridge the user's rights in many ways, and leave the user no way to negotiate or rework the terms of the agreement. Rarely do they extend additional rights to the user that the user would not have had in the absence of the agreement.
The GPL is essentially a very specific permission statement. In contrast, most EULAs and other Shrink Wrap licenses are blanket prohibition statements.
Quite a large difference, if you ask me.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
-rw-r--r-- 1 drw drw 3336079 Feb 24 01:34 current_source2-19-00.zip
The FSF wouldn't sue, it's not their copyright. The copyright holder could sue.
Ok.
How they could sue someone who abided by their license is beyond me. I don't follow your reasoning.
What I'm saying is that according to the line of reasoning given, the copyright holder could potentially sue. The user is not protected by a contract between the copyright holder and the user; he is merely reliant on the grace of the copyright holder, a very unsatisfactory situation.
Okay, we've just hit the Nazi threshhold. What was that old Usenet rule? Any thread that goes on long enough will eventually mention Nazis? Anyone remember the name and exact phrasing of that rule?
<BR><BR>
BTW, lay off the Libertarian baiting, will you? You don't see Libertarians ragging on the Idiot community, do you? Okay, maybe you do, but try to rise above them.
<BR><BR>
PS: No, I'm not a damn Libertarian. I am a Transhumanist, and have my own differences with the Libs, but not on this simplistic level.
My point really was, what happens if you comply with the GPL, but then the copyright owner decides to sue you for violating his copyright?
The GPL isn't just a grant of rights. It's a grant of rights upon condition. There has to be an agreement between the copyright owner and the user, where the copyright owner agrees to give the user these rights, and in return the user agrees to comply with the conditions.
If as you argue, that there really never was such an agreement - all the copyright owner can do is sue for copyright violation, then it follows that even if the user distributes the software in compliance with the GPL, the copyright owner can still sue the user.
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
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License
So what about writing a non-GPL program that links to readline? I am not copying, distributing or modifying readline, so why the prohibition against it?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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)
What enforcability?
Last I heard, no court has ever, ever found against someone (or refused to) for violating the GPL; until that happens, talking about GPL violations is just lip flapping (unless a lawyer's doing it, in which case it's lip flapping at hundreds of dollars an hour.)
I heard RMS speak a few years ago and he bragged about companies releasing source rather than going to court. That proves only that those companies thought that was the most cost-effective thing to do, not that the companies thought the GPL had a shred of legal validity.
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...
The CDROM's were usually document retrieval CD's full of sales lit for such large corporations as Tandem, Northern Telecom and FedEx. I couldn't really tell you which CD's got the GPL'ed code and which didn't; but because we tended to just reuse all the source to all the previous CD's on the next CD, the chance are pretty good that the graphics effects got rolled into an awful lot of programs even when it wasn't actually used.
They also did some consumer titles such as the 2Market Home Shopping catalog CD (with such catalogs as the sharper image with products on the CD) and the CD Version of Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus.
I was pretty angry about them using the GPL'ed code but I really wasn't in a position to do anything about it. It was during a pretty low time in my life and I just needed to keep working.
Medior is defunct now as an independent corporation, but it was purchased by a small networking outfit you may have heard of - America Online who renamed it AOL Productions. AOL inherited all the assets of the company, the source code, rights to everything, most of the engineers and executives. I left just before the buyout.
Eventually AOL Productions was shut down and sucked into AOL. But a lot of Medior people are still working for AOL, including former Medior President and Founder Barry Schuler who is now AOL's President of Interactive Services.
You might drop him a line and ask for the source code for all the CD's that included the GPL'ed graphics effects libraries.
Regards,
Mike Crawford
GoingWare - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com
crawford@goingware.com Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
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.
Ah, but this isn't socialism/communism where people's work is taken for the community, it's a gift economy.
Individuals aren't forced to give up their product for the community. Instead they get something in return. Namely, gifts. So they are working for themselves.
I'm not saying the gift economy doesn't have it's disadvantages, but it has worked well in the zero cost copy environment of the software world, and as far as i know, it could work with real goods.
The beauty of a gift economy is that it removes the "I hate my job of doing something I love" effect and doesn't have to be restrained by force (law) and those not willing to stoop to starving people into paying a better price.
cheers,
sklein
It would simply be your normal fair use rights of copyrighted material, archival copies, parody, certain educational and research use, and derivative works for personal use. For practical purposes, you can do anything you want except distribute copies or derivative works.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
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!"
I also used to work for a company (Eurobase Systems Ltd.) that used GPL'd code in their products without distributing any source or acknowledging the source.
They used some of the source from the GNU C compiler libraries (something like regex.c as I recall).
Not sure if they still do, but certainly up until August 1998 when I left they were doing so.
It'd be a stretch. Since no one is forced to accept the GPL, strictly speaking a violation of the GPL is really only a violation of default copyright law and as such the copyright holder is the only one who can bring a civil case.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
3 b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a mediumcustomarily used for software interchange; or,
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Okay, we've just hit the Nazi threshhold. What was that old Usenet rule? Any thread that goes on long enough will eventually mention Nazis? Anyone remember the name and exact phrasing of that rule?
:)
That would be Godwin's law. If you actually take the time to read the post, you'll see he called ArchieBunker a neo-Nazi, not a Nazi. Which is a defensible position, based on the guy's previous posts, and based on the fact that he lists his homepage as stormfront.org. (Sorry about the link if it's bad; I'm at work and the page is restricted for hate speech.) Then there's his quote, which is beloved by white supremacists of the militia persuasion everywhere, despite the minor detail that George Washington never said it.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
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
Also, Aladdin recently had a run-in with the FSF about including hooks for readline support into Aladdin Ghostscript. An excerpt from the build docs:
Stuff like that is why I'm not a fan of the GPL... however, I hope Carmack puts the smack down on this Slade characterNow, 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....
But then there's enlightened self interest. If the best way to serve yourself is to also serve the community, you'd be crazy not to.
/. logs IPs and a confession of this, along with /. passing his IP on to the FSF, could lead to a nasty legal problem. Anonymous Cowards are only anonymous to the other users. (If you don't think /. logs, if only to stop trivial attacks, then you're very naive.)
And if the QuakeLives thing gives the GPL teeth once Carmack has put his foot down, then we'll be able to attack developers who do steal GPLed source.
I doubt the AC actualy did this, because
But, I'm sure a lot of companies do steal GPLed code, whenever a large block of code is useful (personally I always end up rewriting code I borrow anyways, to make it fit properly). If we get any proof, like perhaps an unstripped binary with the same symbols as similar GPLed code, then we could get nasty. And, just think. If MS (for instance) used GPLed TCP/IP code they'd have just made the whole basic OS open source, if it was proved. That'd be hilarious.
I almost want to get a job there and leave useful GPLed tidbits (obviously marked as GPLed) around, to tempt their programmers to steal them.
heheh.
By this logic, any contract or license is assumed to be completely unenforceable until specifically upheld? The GPL is a pretty straight forward application of copyright law, it doesn't assume any other laws, or constitutional rights, or anything. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.
It might not be upheld completely by a court in the case where MS accidentally (by the act of one programmer) included some GPLed code, the court might allow them to make financial reperations and rewrite the code instead of open sourcing all of Windows... But that'd only be likely is MS could show (without doctored evidence, this time) that the programmer acted without company authorization.
You only need to follow the GPL if you distribute a program based on the GPL (or source for such, etc, but that's automatically following the GPL, so...)
If you use the GPLed derivative yourself, or (I believe) in your own company, you're fine.
I stated clearly: "GPL prevents the use of any traditional business model (other than VC/IPO fed burn rate games)" and I stand by this statement. The companies you see in the paper making money off GPL code do so by selling technical support contracts, or in stock valuation games (distribution sales don't count, see stock valuation games). Cygnus is a great example - do you know how many years they were in business before actually turning a profit selling CVS support?
The GPL CANNOT be considered an an open and unemcumbered license, unless you twist signifigantly the meaning of unemcumbered to mean "it doesn't prevent you from doing anything it doesn't prevent you from doing." Again, semantic games.
GPL is an open source license. It also has the most viral, invasive and cumbersome terms of any "open source" license I've seen. The only place I've seen the license terms of the GPL be truly appropriate is when competing entities wish to collaborate - by making it impossible for either party to benefit _directly_ from the other parties contributions outside of the open collaboration.
GPL is protrayed as having a noble intent, but it ignores the basic fact that programmers do occasionally need to eat. It is possible to have open source and still make money through traditional means. This is why other licenses such as the LGPL and BSD exist, and professional coders like myself will consider the GPL a niche license.
As for commercial developers wishing to use, and to contribute code back into open source, this is EXACTLY my damn point. I work at Cisco, and my department _is_ releasing code into open source. But to make sure that people who use it can freely exchange modifications with each other and ourselves, we use a simple BSD (you agree not to sue us if it doesn't work) license. The GPL is inappropriate, as it would introduce myriad cross-license problems with the mod exchange. GPL 's infective nature means hassles that aren't worth the trouble.
I look at it this way - I give away thousands of lines of code a year - some posted to lists, some on web sites, some to peers at other companies. I've looked at the GPL, and unless me and all my peers convince the front office to stop charging for our products, we aren't using the GPL.
This fundamental problem is why this debate still exists. It works in some areas, it obviously worked great in an OS. But if applications wish to share open source code, and be placed on store shelves, GPL doesn't work.
Sure, I was simplifying.
But, if it was shown that MS had used GPLed code intentionally, I think it could be shown that all the profit from the sales of the products that used the code were appropriate damages. Plus legal fees and all.
If it was enough, the FSF might decide to settle for Windows simply being GPLed.
Either way, it'd be cool to see.
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!
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)
This can be reduced to a proverb: The proof of the pudding is in the tasting
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.
Careful, Brother, you could put someone's eye out with that spoon if you're not careful.
Actually...there was a reason...
I contemplated that...but I also didn't want
to deal with bug reports etc (afterall...no code)
No longer having a windows machine...I just said
fuck it and deleted it.
I was also fairly frustrated at the time.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Because competition and independant development is good. That's why all the childish ranters out there spouting "stop coding on foobar and be assimilated into the Linux way" are so laughable.
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
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.
Bzzt. Wrong answer. Companies like SGI and IBM were using and contributing to the BSD codebase long before Linux ever existed. The reason they are switching to it now is because the see a potential profit to be made because people are willing to buy into a product line because "it's Linux." Not because it has any inherent superiority over it's competition.
About GPL library, the position of the FSF is clear. The LGPL was a compromise and should only be used with libraries that replaced commercial equivalent (like libc) by letting commercial software be build against them (so the clause stipulating that you most provide a way for the user to relink their software against a new compatible version of the library). Libraries like GNU readline that provides a facility not generally available elsewhere should be licensed under the GPL (in the POV of the FSF - see Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library by RMS).
About the libapt case, Jason doesn't provides a special permission to Corel, although Corel press a little the issue. For the author of libapt, the Qt 2.0 library is free enough to be used with his library. So, it added this exception clause because, in the opinion of both Debian and the FSF, the small additional restriction add by the QPL are enough to forbidden the redistribution of software licenced under the GPL.
I hope this explain some issues. I'm glade to see that, even if you're not a fan of the GPL, you still respect its terms and the people who choose to distributed their software (even libraries) under it.
Thanks
Fabien Ninoles -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
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
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.
WTF? It's not about the right to cheat.
True. It's not about the right to cheat OR the right to fix bugs OR the right to tattoo the source code to your ass cheeks.
It's about freely distributable source-code. Period. End of story. No bickering, no "well what are you going to do with it?" no "gimme your name and address first" no "well okay, but you can't do this, this or that". Just freely available source. It's THAT simple.
If your bothered by the fact that yes, Virginia, folks can cheat with your code, then find another way. If you're bright and clever enough to code this stuff, then surely you can find some way to make it your own.
To profit from the GPL you must ADHERE to it. No exceptions.
**>>BELCH
...
**>>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.
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
Yes, I see your point.
However:
1. The GPL disclaims warranties. Now it is not unreasonable to suppose that I have some rights to redress if the software fails to function as specified (e.g. due to negligence on part of the author), and the GPL is trying to take away this right.
2. The GPL covers modifications: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." and "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works."
However, I would think that I have a fair use right to modify the software for my own use, but the GPL claims that pure modifications falls under the scope of the GPL and requires compliance with the GPL.
So the GPL is trying to take away rights that I would normally have.
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
Arms race has nothing to do with it either. The cops that shot that guy were reckless and/or insufficiently trained. They couldn't have seen a gun because the guy didn't have a gun, or anything even resembling a gun. Therefore, they should never have fired a shot, let alone 41 shots. You can't get rid of guns. Criminals, by definition, don't give a damn what the law says. If it allows them to get what they want, they will always have guns. Banning guns won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals any more than banning drugs has kept drugs out of the hands of drug users.
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
Unless readline.h is chock full of macros, I still wouldn't be distributing any readline code if I include the headers. Notice how you said "and use none of readline's original source files". All I am doing is using readline, not distributing it.
A proper header file (is there such a beast?) will only be an interface to the code. So even if I write ``#include "readline.h"'', I am not including any readline code in my resulting binary (excepting any convoluted macros), nor is the header file itself in my code. I've only declared a reference to it. In fact, I never have to see any of readline code. I don't even have to look at the header file, I can use the man page instead.
According to RMS, such linking would not be permitted with non-GPL code (yes, readline is a GPL library). Yet the GPL specifically states in section zero that it only covers copying, modification and distribution. I am still doing none of these.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It is my personal opinion that GPL is no sugar. However it is the best we have now and we should bound to it. "Dura Lex Sed Lex". This does not mean that I am a partisan for "everything GPL". But if a source code is GPL then it is GPL. That is what the damn license is for.
Frankly I consider that Carmack made a not very correct move. It would be better that Quake would be licensed in a more LGPL soul. But well he is the author. The author has the absolute right to its child...
Anyway, Slade is absolutely wrong here. His form "source is still GPL" but "you have to give up your rights under the GPL" is a legal nonsense. He talks about guns. I would prefer to talk about free speech. Imagine that some state claims "you have the right for free speech, but, from this border you have to give up your rights". Because, in any case, source code is usually equaled to free speech, then I think the analogy is more proper.
Slade is obliged to bound to GPL if his source code is GPL-based. It is sad to see how he inverts the terms of the license. His notes about the HOW term can be simply named as demagogy. Because the main sense of GPL is HOW to distribute source code to WHOM. WHOM is all third parties. It can be the US Government, Microsoft, me, you or even penguins (article 2 p. "b").
Besides there is a strange danger in his interpretation of distribution. He turns personal responsability of abiding to GPL to third parties. A strange legal pyramid for anyone who tries to distribute the program (you are in a pirate ship, then you're a pirate...)
To end. On what concerns his ideas that no one needs the code. I love free speech. But that doesn't mean that I have to watch CNN or Washington Post to execute my right.
Wouldn't doubt it. They'd be crazy not to. Even if it wasn't good code, it would still have different ideas which they might find useful.
But unless they actually copy code from it, they're fine. Copyrights only covering the particular expression, not the ideas.
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!
Implied warranties only exist because of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, that only applies if you purchase a copy of the software. If you obtain software from someone at no cost, you have no reason to expect a warranty.
I don't think cost has much to do with it. If a doctor or lawyer provides free services to you, but then proceeds to act negligently, that could be cause for losing his license.
In any case, cost has really nothing to the with the GPL or the issue at hand. What this means is that the GPL is trying to take away your right to a warranty, and thus requires agreement - which puts it in the same position as other shrink wrap licenses.
i.e. If you did not agree to the GPL beforehand, but then bought a piece of software and found the GPL inside, the GPL would be in the same position as if it were a MS Eula, because the GPL is not a pure right granting document as you argued it was earlier - it requires prior agreement, and thus faces the same criticisms faced by shrink wrap licenses.
Can you provide an example of circumstances in which modification of software for your own use would not be compliant with the GPL?
Modification of the software for my own use should be outside the scope of the GPL, just as usage is outside the scope of the GPL. However the GPL is worded in such a way that it claims that I have no right to modify the code besides what the GPL grants me.
Please see my reply here as well.
either claim anything from the software maker given that you don't have any agreement, their is no link between you and the author(s)
What if the author of the software is the person selling you the software? So if you agree to the GPL, you have no warranty, but if you don't agree, you have warranty and protection against negligence by default? The GPL is in no different position from other shrink wrap licenses in this case.
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)
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
The only reason you have implied warranty rights for goods is that they are given to you by the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC does not apply if you get something for free (as in beer), because no sale occurs.
Cost has nothing to do with free software in the GNU sense. And your rights transcend the UCC; as I understand it, in some states, you can sue the manufacturer of a product for negligence.
any implied warranty could only exist between you and the person who sold you the software, not between you and the copyright holder
And what if the person selling you the software were the copyright holder?
Indeed, the GPL would be in the same position as any other EULA
That was not your position earlier. Your position was that the GPL was different from other shrink wrap licenses, and did not require agreement because it was a pure granting of rights. If you think now that this is not the case, all the issues I raised earlier become cause for convern.
Yes, but if the rights for modification granted by the GPL are a superset of the rights for modification that you would otherwise have, saying that your rights of modification are restricted to those granted by the GPL doesn't take away any rights.
The GPL seems to claim that you have no rights to modification at all without the rights granted by the GPL.
Also, fair use does not grant you the unlimited right to modify copyrighted works for your own use.
Does it not?
In the limited case where a GPL'd product is being sold, in exchange for money, and the buyer is not told up front that the product has no warranty, the GPL is in the same boat as other EULAs. That is the one case we've both agreed this is a conflict. It's not a concern because anyone commercially selling should know to say "no warranty" up front to avoid the implied warranty. For example, the FSF's order page says, "All items are provided ``as is'', with no warranty of any kind." The issues you raised earlier aren't a cause for concern because this only affects the warranty sections of the GPL, and only with regard to a commercial vendor.
Yes, so to repeat, the GPL is not a purely right granting document as you have been arguing previously. Since there is a give and take, it is a contract, which requires agreement to be binding. In an earlier post, you stated that the GPL does not require agreement because it is purely right giving, but it seems that you do not think that this is the case now - so the GPL is subject to the issues which I raised earlier (I won't bother repeating them here, please review the previous posts in this thread if you desire). Conclusion, GPL == shrink wrap license.
That is, the GPL may be implying that copyright holders have more authority than they do, but unless the GPL uses that to restrict your rights, your point is moot.
If I bought the software and desire it to modify it for my own use, the GPL claims that modification requires compliance with all the requirements of the GPL - including giving up my right to a warranty.
Ahh, the illusion of the wonderful past!
I wan't trying to use nostalgia.. I was simply stating for the record that my grandfather's generation could do whatever they liked without the increasingly paranoid government stepping in.
most of our freedoms are only as old as the ACLU's choice to defend them
Have you ever considered that the ACLU's interest in has only happened because of escalating threat? They do have the habit of polarizing on one issue or another, but they have constantly been in court over this one since their inception.
protistants would be happy to pass a law saing that all the catholics had to spend sunday in the town jail
I'm sure many Protestants would still be happy with a law like that! Thankfully, the religion issue is less extreme than it has been. We've learned that intolerance is a bad thing. It's about time too! The Bible has said exactly that for how long?
automatic wepons is a minor foot note to the kind of lose of liberty going on in places like the UK
Every time I read about a new British method of stripping away at humanity, I feel sick. Cameras, 'speed-limit' devices, guns.. I'd go nucking futs given time.. I hope most of them agree, and do something about before the Isles become the first practical realization of '1984'. The last British Revolt turned out okay.
people living on Mars in 300 years will be talking about how repressive the U.S. has become
I honestly hope so. Complacency is not a virtue.
.sig: Now legally binding!
There's a few people with [GP] in their nicks that hang around the channel where the QL people and Slade did....
--
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. =)
Regardless of his choices about licensing issues, it's still good to have independant development. Let's take a look at your original post: 1) give up 2)quit this Quake Lives shit and join up with the much superior quakeforge project, the opensource team project to further the quake 1 experience Sure point number one is maybe valid, but then again maybe not. If Slade feels he has a valid position then it's valid for him to fight this. Point number two makes you sound like the typical weenie who thinks everybody should be working within the warm bosom of a molting penguin. id released the Quake sources under the GPL, any work that adheres to it's (probably) legal requirements is going to be open source. It's irrelevant whether the project is "sponsored" by some website that hopes to gain hits in return for providing a little CVS and webspace. The fact that you think "that he can modify the source and improve it suggests that he is a talented coder, and that his skills could be better used elsewhere" just indicates that you really are as much of an asshole as you seem to be. The entire free software movement is about sharing and working on what you want to work on. It's not about being assigned to a particular task by some neo-PHB. Why don't you spend less time worrying about what other people are working on and instead putting your code where your mouth is? Or is it that you can't code and managing and proselytizing is the only thing you can do? Nice self +moderation btw. It would be intersting if /. would add a feature as to the moderation history of posts. Oh is that some kind of attack? Sorry if I post relevant enough comments such that people think it might be worth reading what I write.
I feel that this is a misleading or at least confusing description of what makes a railgun [projectile] go.
Basically you create a solenoid with only one twist, and then crank a large ammount of electricity through it. Well, it wants to fly apart, but only one piece is free to do that (the projectile), so it does.
The ignition slug as you call it is used to become vapour and plasma indeed, but the reason is because metal vapour conducts electricity really good, and because it breaks the rails less than the very hot chunks of metal scraping along them very fast would.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
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?