GameCube Tunneling Software Rivals Clash

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a Warp Pipe website posting, in which the creator of the GameCube tunneling software alleges that "members of [planned GameCube tunneling alternative] Xlink community have exploited the fact that our source code (previously open source) is still sitting our SourceForge CVS servers." The confusing allegations, eventually shown to be unrelated to the Xlink creators, have ended in the Warp Pipe code declared closed source and removed from SourceForge. However, the Beta of the Warp Pipe online-enabling software for the GameCube, which "...will support residential DSL and Cable broadband with either a router or 2 NIC setup", is still due before the end of the year.

Comments

Exploited?

[PeeweeJD]

I can't see how you can exploit source code out of sourceforge. Isn't sourceforge for sharing source code?

Re:Exploited?

[musikit]

yes sourceforge is for sharing source code. publicly sharing source code. this project wanted to move to closed source model and Xlink noticed that they either forgot to close up or couldn't close up their public source on sourceforge. so Xlink could use the code for their product. nothing wrong with this in an opensource model however someone screwed up by leaving the source available on sourceforge.

Re:Exploited?

[arkanes]

Thats because they're either stupid to a degree that boggles the imagination or actively malicious and petty, using SF for free project hosting. I say fuck em. Any code that was posted on SF was released under an open source license (you have to specify the license when you create a SF project, so the fact that it's not specified in the files doesn't matter). Legal threats and posturing just make them look like little kids.

Re:Exploited?

[PainKilleR-CE]

this project wanted to move to closed source model and Xlink noticed that they either forgot to close up or couldn't close up their public source on sourceforge. so Xlink could use the code for their product. nothing wrong with this in an opensource model however someone screwed up by leaving the source available on sourceforge.

It should be noted that XLink wasn't involved at all, someone simply posted a link to the code in the sourceforge CVS on XLink's forums because the WarpPipe people were deleting the link from their own forums. XLink never used their code, as they simply used the code they had already had for their XBox software, with some minor modifications to work with the GameCube.

Re:Exploited?

[Wolfrider]

--The horse is out of the barn. Teh rabbit is out in the open. That huge sucking sound is the sound of all your base belong to us. Make your time gentlemen, they are setting up you - the bomb.

/bows

Shindugga.

errrr

[truffle]

I'm confused, once something is licensed as open source, doesn't it remain licensed as open source forever?

As such, any versions of Warp Pipe develop would need to be open source, as they would be a derivative wor of the previous open source alpha code?

I'm assuming (it's not fully clear) that the code was in fact open source at some point.

Re:errrr

[truffle]

Blah I'm not even clear, no coffee.

I mean by the above, isn't it impossible to revoke an open source license once it was granted?

If that were not the case, then SCO for example could declare any code it owns that it had previously released under an open license, to no longer be open source, and effectively then claim rights on any work based on that code.

So it must be the case that you can't revoke open source status from code (or we're all screwed).

And I'm assuming the alpha code must have been open source as I'm assuming sourceforge requires all code hosted on its servers to be available under an open source license. So, unless someone stole their code and uploaded it to sourceforge, it must have been open source at some point, right?

Re:errrr

[rogue_gambit]

If I am the sole owner of somw code I can choose to license it using any license I choose, and later change the license at will.

However this change can of course not be made retro-actively. So any code released under (for instance) the GPL will always be GPL, and other peoples derived work must also be GPL.

But since I am the owner and therefor licenseholder I am free to change the license.

Re:errrr

[AndyBusch]

Not entirely. See TuxRacer for at least one example of something going closed source. That open source version must remain open source (provided it was something like GPL, and not just a "you can look, but don't touch"-type deal).

However, the copyright holder can do whatever they want with the code, and later versions can be relicensed as they want. For another example, if someone wanted to make a closed-source game based on the Quake source code, they could negotiate another licensing agreement with id, even though the code is GPLed.

In short, if you are the copyright holder, you can have code released under simultaneous licenses. The "viral" quality of the GPL only holds for people who aren't the copyright holder.

Re:errrr

[PainKilleR-CE]

I mean by the above, isn't it impossible to revoke an open source license once it was granted?

A handful of licenses approved by OSDI (which is what is required for free use of SourceForge unless you get approval for something else) allow you to change the license on derived code. This means that the alpha could have been under a BSD-like license, which would mean the code on SourceForge would remain free, but they could change the license for future releases (as they have done).

In other words, just by using SourceForge they've pretty much given away the code that was on SourceForge's CVS, but that doesn't mean they have to continue to release code, or even continue to make the previous code accessable (as long as they stop releasing binaries of the open-source version).

That being said, IANAL, and I don't work for SourceForge, so I'm certainly not an authority on their policies or the legality of this whole situation.

Re:errrr

[solman]

The Warp Pipe guy never intended to put it under an open source license.

He put it on Sourceforge out of ignorance.

You can't accidentally open source something. Even if the Sourceforge contract includes an explicit transferable grant of the right to distribute the source code, there clearly wasn't a meeting of the minds, so it isn't a valid contract.

Re:errrr

[the morgawr]

Unless I'm mistaken, when you create a sourceforge account you must specify the license that the source is covered by. You'd have to be pretty stupic to not understand what that means.

Re:errrr

[Tom7]

Well, that sounds pretty dumb, since one of the prerequisites for getting a sourceforge project approved is that it will be released under an approved free/open source license. They even make you choose the license (with explanations) at the time you sign up.

Anyway, this now goes from cool project to lame prima-donna shit, in my book.

Re:errrr

[Planesdragon]

As such, any versions of Warp Pipe develop would need to be open source, as they would be a derivative wor of the previous open source alpha code?

Nope. The original author, unless they cede copyright to the FSF or a similiar organization, retains the right to re-license the code.

It's even feasible (IANAL-RU?) that the author could disallow the open-source'd code as well. Don't know, not a judge, not a lawyer, can't cite precedent.

Re:errrr

[Bloomy]

The license is listed as "Other/Proprietary License" on the SourceForge project page. If the owner(s) of a project change the license, does SourceForge track the license that applies to each version?

Wonder how well the maintainers of Warp Pipe understand open source licenses. In the first forum link, he says that their "license acts much like a standard BSD license." If that was the case, wouldn't they have even less reason to complain than if it was under the GPL, depending on the degree of the "much like"?

Re:errrr

[passthecrackpipe]

He *is* pretty stupid, and a dumbass to boot. (disclaimer: I don't have *any* gaming console, and don't even know what this stuff does, so I am not on anybodies "side") on his "IPR VIOLATION" post he states: "....this does not give Xlink the right to use our code as it is not under a GNU/ GPL license. Our license acts much like a standard BSD license and Xlink does not have the express written consent of Warp Pipe to repackage or redistribute in any way....

A standard BSD license allows you to do anything you like with the code, including closing the source or changing the license, or even print it out an wipe your butt with it. The guy is just clueless. his thoughtprocess probably went something like:

"Dude! If I, eh, like, eh, OPEN SOURCE my code it wil be like , eh, dude, eh, like, eh, LINUX!!! And I will be TOTALLY K3WL!1!1! And all the chix will dig me!!!"

What an idiot.

Re:errrr

[chromatic]

Copyright holders are not bound by the licenses they choose. If everyone who held copyright to the code in the project agreed to relicense the software for a new release, they could do so. They could even do it for the current release.

There's no changing a license retroactively, though, so anyone who has received the code under an open source license can continue to use it (and, more importantly, redistribute it) under that license.

Re:errrr

[moonbender]

Yep, as someone above pointed out - of course, maybe the Warp Pipe author meant "not at all like" when he said "much like". :P

Re:errrr

[moonbender]

What does "disallow" mean in this context? Other have said, and this seems to be only sensible, that you can't retro-actively relicense a piece of code. If you've given source code out under the GPL, you gave anyone who wants it a license to redistribute the code. You can't just revoke that license. I bet SCO would be happy if you could, though.

Re:errrr

[Planesdragon]

If you've given source code out under the GPL, you gave anyone who wants it a license to redistribute the code. You can't just revoke that license.

I suspect that someone could, as long as no one else contributed code to them. The practicality would make a lot of projects simply not worthwhile to "un-GPL", but, AFAIK (IANAL-RU?), authors can generally renig licensing agreements for, at the least, a return of any payment that they have recieved.

Even assuming that I'm 100% right (I'm probably at least partly wrong, not being a lawyer), SCO wouldn't be helped by this at all. They weren't the author of UNIX, and Linux has far more authors than just SCO.

WarpPipe is so wrong with their licence

[diablero]

About a month ago, when they released alpha1, the binary was with a GPL licence. I asked them to release the source. They didn't do that. Instead they changed the licence to a closed one.

the binary is still at http://diablero.free.fr/warppipe/

They are so childish with the project, it's quite sad :(

Re:WarpPipe is so wrong with their licence

[Anonymous Coward]

The source was available for a little while. I actually have a copy, but it is some of the worst C code you will ever lay your eyes on.

The Warp Pipe project does appear be behaving in a rather childish manner. They started out in the open, but then for some reason they decided to go closed source (their choice I suppose) but instead continued to use SourceForge. The fact is that early code released by the project remains under the GPL license, but the code is so awful that it is really only useful for the fact that it reverse engineered some things. I wouldn't go near that code with a 10' pole.

CVS still available, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/cubeonline2 3-cvsroot.tar.bz2

what a bunch of morons

[Anonymous Coward]

They release their project under the GPL on sourceforge, but don't want to comply with their own licence. So they make it closed source, try to suck the public into thinking it's a BSD-type license and yet still leave their code on sourceforge. Now when someone comes along and points out in a public forum that you can check out code from cvs on sourceforge, they call that a violation of IP. LOL.

Must be fashionable to declare IP Violations

[JonnyRo88]

It just seems more and more fashionable lately to declare that people are violating your I.P. Although I have never heard of a sourceforge project complaining that people downloaded their source. before.

Do the Warp Pipe people plan on making a business out of their product? Or are they just horrified of competing forks? Did they close it because they are worried about people tweaking their copies to cheat at games? This is the only concievable reason I could think that they would care, but who knows.

Re:Must be fashionable to declare IP Violations

[calebtucker]

I've been following the warppipe forums, and it seems like Chad, one of the devs, is just acting plain paranoid and childish. He's cited some forum posts as "proof" that they stole his code, but when I read the posts, I didn't see the proof.

Re:Must be fashionable to declare IP Violations

[PeeweeJD]

they claim that they are never going to do this for money...

anyways, I was reading a flamewar over on an IGN message board between the guy who made that post on xlink's forum and one of the developers on warp pipe. The WP guy said that they wanted to do binary only releases and did not know the source would be in the open. They wanted to do a "Free Beer" type software, not "Free Speech".

Re:Must be fashionable to declare IP Violations

[raygundan]

He does seem to be a little bit paranoid. It looks like a forum member from Xlink's site dl'd their code and posted about it, and so he repeatedly blames Xlink from stealing his code and integrating it into their own. This is like blaming slashdot for me shoplifting. Sure, I'm a member of the site-- but I'm not slashdot! And no, slashdot doesn't have the (metaphorical) candybar I stole.

The whole mess is confusing and sad. I don't really care, one way or the other-- as long as somebody's codebase lets me play MK:DD online, and the Warp Pipe guy quits posting his made-up accusations on their project's front page.

Re:Must be fashionable to declare IP Violations

[HoppQ]

I've been following the warppipe forums, and it seems like Chad, one of the devs, is just acting plain paranoid and childish. He's cited some forum posts as "proof" that they stole his code, but when I read the posts, I didn't see the proof.

Maybe Chad has been smoking pipe. Or maybe Chad hasn't been smoking pipe, which is why he's so twitchy and aggressive.

Cultural Vanity

[swdunlop]

We have seen this sort of behavior in certain fields of software development as some traditionally jealous and extremely hostile development cultures try to grasp the tenets of open source development. Most of these people are sharing their source code as a way to further boost their egos by showing how l33t their poorly hacked together code is, not because they want to contribute to a community in building a solid piece of software.

Usually these developers come from the highly competitive demo scene; it's remarkable seeing how many half-baked graphic and audio libraries are out there, semi-open, non portable and brittle; it appears that the warp pipe developers have come from that same jealous, highly volatile culture.

Re:Cultural Vanity

[Anonymous Coward]

it appears that the warp pipe developers have come from that same jealous, highly volatile culture.

You mean the same culture like the gas from my ass?

Re:Cultural Vanity

[Anonymous Coward]

to further boost their egos by showing how l33t their poorly hacked together code is

"poorly hacked together" is the operative phrase here. This is some of the worst code I have ever laid eyes on. It would be considered piss-poor for a first year Comp-Sci student. Calling the people who wrote this stuff "developers" is a farce.

Their behaviour (someone stole GPL code you have hosted on SourceForge - hello?) is an even bigger farce.

The whole Warp Pipe project started out in such a promising manner - now it is just a joke.

Re:Cultural Vanity

[Anonymous Coward]

I too have looked over the code and it's pure shit. I'd seriously fire a developer for writing crap like that.

NOT XLINK

[raygundan]

Just for the record, Xlink didn't do ANYTHING. A member of Xlink's forum (kinda like you and i are members of slashdot) did it, and posted in their forum about it. This makes xlink about as guilty as slashdot would be if you got arrested for drunk driving tonight.

Re:NOT XLINK

[musikit]

my mistake. next time i will RTFA fully. the principal still applies AFAIK though.

How childish

[Anonymous Coward]

Behavior like this is an embarassment to the open-source community.

WARPIPE CAN LICK NUTS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to use their source to make a app called WarpCrap and give it away for free just to make them realise what morons they are. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Point of making it Open Source ?

[Jesrad]

"members of [planned GameCube tunneling alternative] Xlink community have exploited the fact that our source code (previously open source) is still sitting our SourceForge CVS servers."
Isn't the point of Open source that everyone can make use of it and generally enhance software (provided they comply with the GPL) ? Seems to me they really did NOT want to make their project Open Source and keep it for themselves.

Re:Point of making it Open Source ?

[Dachannien]

GPL isn't the only license possible for open source software. And permitting free distribution is not the only reason one might want to use open source (though it is the best one).

A developer may want to make the source available so that users know that the developer is being honest in his creation of code that doesn't include backdoors, virus-like behavior, or other bad things. If the license agreement says that you can compile the source once you've paid for it or have agreed to other terms, but you aren't permitted to modify it, then that's it - you aren't allowed to modify it.

OTOH, if the code were GPLed at one point and made available to the public, then this guy is pretty much screwed.

A bunch of 5-year-olds!

[jmason]

I took a look -- it's crazy.

One group seems to have written this 'Warp Pipe' tool, using Sourceforge infrastructure, declaring it under a BSD license (as far as I can make out from the comments) when they set up the SF project.

Another group then starting working off that (supposedly open-source) codebase. The first group are not happy about this, and have decided it's now proprietary and want to remove rights to use that code.

(Either that, or they think users of a BSD-licensed package needs 'express written consent of Warp Pipe to repackage or redistribute in any way'.)

Apparently, they didn't *actually* specify license terms in the source; but they must have claimed an open-source license in order to use Sourceforge. So at some point, they were a little 'unclear' about the license.

All very amateurish...

BTW, the sf.net project page is still there: here's a link: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cubeonline23/

And CVS: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/cubeonline23 /WarpPipe/

Disappointing.

[mcc]

That's too bad. I was going to pick up a BBA to use with Warp Pipe and Kirby's Air Ride when I had some money, but I'm not really interested anymore. At least half the fun of this for me was going to be the opportunity to poke at and help tweak (if there was any way i could) Warp Pipe itself..

Was the Warp Pipe source code EVER, at any point, made available with a GPL license on it? If so, doesn't that mean that if anyone still has that code, that GPL license cannot be revoked, and someone *cough* could put it up on sourceforge and fork it?

This now means we have two competing closed source projects. This annoys me just a little bit, because I suspect that had not Warp Pipe initially announced it was open source, someone would have begun a competing open source project that did the same thing. Instead, Warp Pipe announced as open source, then did this bait-and-switch thing *less than a week before the release of Super Mario Kart*, ensuring no open source project will have even a chance to get *started*.

Re:Disappointing.

[chadlnx]

Although I respect your point of view, we announced that we were closing our project over a month ago. If there were more developer interest, we might have remained open source. However, we have a very well balanced team and we work well together.

Will WP be a commerical product - NO.
Will WP always remain free - YES.

We were plauged by the same problems on our forum when we announced that we were going closed source. The problem is that popular developer support only comes after much of the code has already been written or after our project had gone closed source. And again, every single person who contributed to the project agreed to go closed source. Nobody was left out in the cold.

Re:Disappointing.

[mcc]

Although I respect your point of view, we announced that we were closing our project over a month ago.

Aha. In that case, I am rather out of it. :)

Thank you for your response, the motivations at least make much more sense now.

Re:Disappointing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read all their forums. The way they handle questions and their attitudes regarding other devs is very back.

They appear to think they are the best programmers in the world, and juding by their code, they don't have a leg to stand on.

Re:Disappointing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing your 'team' appears to work together at is being pricks in your forums. If you were not such assholes, you might have gotten more dev support.

Also, please check the patent status of the compression method you use, it is not free to use in all parts of the world and I am sure you wish to respect others IP.

Attemping To Clear Things Up

[chadlnx]

First off, Warp Pipe takes full responsibility for our oversights. We were under the impression that since we disabled the "browse cvs" function and changed our project from GPL to a closed source license 2 months ago, that our source was protected. We were wrong.

We also were under the impression that since Source Forge allows you to change your project to a proprietary license, that closed source projects were also allowed. We were also wrong about this, and as soon as we were notified, we pulled the binary releases and started to terminate or relationship with Source Forge, as the code up on CVS represents code that has been protected by a non-GPL license for over a month.

The person who posted the CVS link claimed he wasn't aware that we pulled our release (even after users were complaining about the release missing on our forums). He also was aware that the code had no license attached because it was not meant for public distribution via CVS. He also knew we went closed source over a month ago. This is why I bring up the question of ethics. Yes, we were wrong in assuming that Source Forge supported closed-source projects. However, we were (and still are) in the process of handling this issue with Source Forge. And we could have done so privately without our code being distributed to the public. Something we didn't want to happen.

Also, our decision to go closed source was made by everyone who contributed to the project and we have every right to do so. Nobody was left out in the cold. Every contributor made the decision and they are still contributing to the project. Since this code does not have a license, they should not assume that it is protected under the GPL. As a member of the team who owns the IP, it is not protected by the GPL. You are free to browse, but we do not sanction any forked effort. Please respect our work and our decision to keep our work and source our own. Our whole goal is to provide a great product for the GCN community. If you wish to create your own project, please do so. However, we respectfully ask you to leave our code out of it.

As for the Xlink team, we have made amends. I had a long chat with the Xlink project leader and he has assured me that he respects our IP and he will have nothing to do with it. We discussed some problems we both had tunneling our respective consoles and shared a few good ideas to boot.

So, in the end, everything has been cleared up and this Slashdot posting is a recap and blowup of old news. We take responsibility of our oversight, and we are moving forward. We just ask those of you to respect our IP. If you want to use our code, do the right thing and obtain permission.

Re:Attemping To Clear Things Up

[flat235]

As the lead dev of XLink, I'll put my 2 cents in - whether you people care is your choice. As Chad just said, things between our two groups have been especially heated over the last couple of days - but it is now, in my opinion, resolved. I reacted so strongly because I got the impression that we were being accused of using someones elses code in our project - which we have / will not. I dont give a rats ass about what license agreement WPP uses - it's their code, and their choice. I, as I am sure you, first assumed that the closing of source was the first step in commercialising the project - something which would have prompted XLink to compete ferociously with WPP - as we are, and have always been free and "ad" free - something which not many other projects are - including SlashDot. We do what we do, spending the money and time which we spend, because we like to do it - nothing else. I have recently spoken with Chad at length, and am completely satisfied that the decision to close source is not a prelude to commercialisation - and would ask others to accept the WPP teams word on this. It would also be of importance to notice that WPP went closed source before XLink even announced GCN support for our product - hence it is not a "reaction" to our proposed "competition". As concerns the SF misunderstanding - thats all they were - misunderstandings. SourceForge is a superb service, which serves millions of people every day. However, people make mistakes - we've all done it - and if the WPP team want their source closed from now on, that should be their choice, and I would politely ask the people here who have suggested forking the old source on SF under a new project name to accept that a mistake was made, and leave it alone. Finally, I think both teams involved will create excellent products - both of which will be free. What upsets me, is that here, in one of most popular roots of the OSS community, people have such a commercial perception of everything. We dont make our code open source - the reasons are our own. You either use XLink, or you do not. The choice is entirely yours. I would suggest that you perceive at OSS and GPL in the way it was designed to be perceived - as a mechanism to facilitate the sharing of concepts and implementations, as per the wishes of the original author. Remeber the mantra - "It's all about choice"..... TD & The XLink Crew

Re:Attemping To Clear Things Up

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also all about paragraphs.

Re:Attemping To Clear Things Up

[DAldredge]

Having seen your code, I can fully understand why the Xlink project wish to have nothing to do with it.

Judging from the behavior of your dev team on your discussion boards, you appear to be a bunch of frustrated teens. I mean, as of 24-48 hours ago, you were refusing to even say what GUI toolkit you were going to use. Then you locked the thread, which appears to be your main method of ignoring questions.

Wow. . .

[M3wThr33]

"So, in closing, nothing has changed. On behalf of Warp Pipe we were wrong for thinking that SF supported closed source projects."

Someone TOTALLY missed the whole point of the OSDN.

Please make up your mind! Quotes from other posts

[DAldredge]

"This is just one of the things that makes open source great. As long as we are focused, we can pull out a great solution which will benefit us all in the long term."

Warp Pipe Project - GameCube Online
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71554& cid=6468 738