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?

[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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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.

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*.

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