Slashdot Mirror
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.
I can't see how you can exploit source code out of sourceforge. Isn't sourceforge for sharing source code?
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 :(
-- Et Dieu dit "M-x lumiere" et la lumiere fut. --
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.
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.
My sig can beat up your sig.
I took a look -- it's crazy.
3 /WarpPipe/
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/cubeonline2
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.