Slashdot Mirror
Nexuiz Founder Licenses It For Non-GPL Use
King InuYasha writes "Nexuiz founder Lee Vermuelen, along with several other core developers, have licensed the Nexuiz name, Nexuiz.com domain, and DarkPlaces engine to Illfonic in a deal to get Nexuiz on consoles. However, the kink is that the engine has been licensed for non-GPL usage. That is, Illfonic has no intention of contributing their code back to the main GPL Nexuiz project. As a result, Nexuiz has been forked into a new project called Xonotic. While the main Nexuiz site doesn't mention that Illfonic has no intention of contributing back, the Xonotic project FAQ explains what's going on. Additionally, the Xonotic project states that Illfonic 'may be in violation of the GPL as most contributors to the Nexuiz codebase have not relicensed their work for inclusion in a closed-source project.'"
I was surprised when I heard about this. I'll definitely be following it closely.
You are not the customer.
The people who contributed their code to Nexuiz under a Freedom license have every right to be pissed if their code is then sold off against their wishes. If the Nexuiz developers want to do so then stop stealing and re-write what isn't yours. The GPL isn't a charity to be exploited - it is a philosophy that says cooperation enriches everyone. If you don't agree with GPL code: DON'T USE IT and write your freaking own. Leaches.
Shh.
...that the situation with the licensing isn't all that clear. There _might_ be GPL violations. No prove yet afaict. I'm part of the Xonotic project anyways. And moving away from alientrap was the right thing to do. The project is more open now. No single point of command, etc..
As far as I know (IANAL, IAAAC) the legality of this depends largely on one thing: did the code contributors reassign their copyrights to Nexuiz / the code maintainer, or did they retain it?
Without John Carmack and LordHavoc (Darkplaces engine developer) giving permission, they're in a huge mess. I wonder if they are using anything slurped up from other Quake engine projects? Even if the submitter of the code signed off, doesn't matter if they aren't the original author.
Relicensing your code is fine, doing it to others... Well, people get in trouble with that with stolen commercial code as well as GPL. It's dishonest, no matter who it's done to, if it's not done with permission (either direct from all authors or through the terms of the license), they're opening themselves for a world of hurt. And destroying their reputation, as well.
If the only thing that is truly being closed up is the interpreted gamecode and they are developing new artwork, there's nothing to see here...
As a person who follows gaming pretty closely, I have no idea what this is or why anyone should care.
Google answers:
Nexuiz is a first-person shooter which started as a Quake modification in the summer of 2001
Glad to see they're keeping the convention of hard-to-pronounce sci-fi names.
One different than the one I do.
Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Nope, id is happy to provide commercial licenses to replace the GPL in their open source offerings: http://www.idsoftware.com/business/idtech3/
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
This demonstrates an abuse of open source philosophy. It's an example of deliberately starting an open source project with no intention of keeping it open source: the intention is to milk the unpaid participation of others until the project reaches a certain critical mass - profitability - and then cordon it off. So here we have an open source project that isn't really, to go hand in hand with a "green revolution" that isn't really (because it's all just marketing)?
So, will id Software sue Nexutz for GPL violation?
How? It is just like if someone gave away popcorn for free and they are now charging them ten cents. They were the producers, they can change the licensing terms. Anyone is free to do what the GPL allows for the GPL'd licensed source but for the non-GPL'd you follow the proprietary license.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Remember that licenses are private permit to do what was otherwise unlawful, and yes it is unlawful to slave-make software to give for free without charge because it doesn't pay the bills. Communism and capitalism are slavery in the hands of someone working ill will on another. Those that whine about property only anger because they didn't get a tax from it's use, where in that regard there is much slavery in government and tenant positions.
leave me alone to make my own choices.
PS: money talks, bullshit walks, shit comes from my mouth, and light from my ass.
Doesn't Nexuiz have code from Quake 3 when it was open sourced? Wouldn't that mean that if they close sourced the engine, id could sue them?
It seems they'd have a lot more to lose by stealing id's code and then being sued for money rather than merely stealing the code from people who worked on it after it was open sourced and then being sued to release the code.
Especially the part where it says they are relicensing code contributions without the consent of the contributors.
cat
Nexuiz is built on Darkplaces, which is built on GPL'd Quake1 engine. Are they allowed to do this, considering it's based on a GPL code that isn't their own?
And there you have it folks, tyranny is freedom! Without the freedom to establish tyranny, nobody is free.
(I know, I know - don't feed the BSD trolling)
They did not create all of this code. Darkplaces is a Quake1 derivative. They also took community contributions of code. Unless copyright was signed over they cannot keep that code.
Software Freedoms. If I get a closed-source copy of this binary the freedom to redistribute this derivative source has been violated.
Shh.
If you want to be safe, don't use GPL license for your software, you're going to have to deal with a bunch of pains in the asses in the future if you ever want to do anything different from a license perspective.
But if you have copyright assignments from all contributors, it's still perfectly safe to use code in a non-GPL program because you own the copyright. FSF demands such "contributor agreements" because it sometimes revises the licensing policy for particular programs.
So here's what you probably meant: If you want to be safe, don't use GPL code written by others in software that you may want to take proprietary. Instead, make sure you either own the copyright or have a fairly permissive license (e.g. BSD, MIT) from the copyright owner.
Mod parent up. Nexuiz uses the darkplaces engine, which has parts copyrighted by id Software under the GPL. (Quake/QuakeIII)
Example is http://svn.icculus.org/twilight/trunk/darkplaces/conproc.h?revision=1889&view=markup&sortby=date
Ofcourse he can't sell it. He can probably sell the trademark/domain/name etc....
Stifling a yawn, our hero leaned forward, looked him straight in the eye, and uttered the thought that everyone in the room was thinking, "Hmm."
If you wanted true freedom you shouldn't've used code licensed under the GPL. The GPL's interpretation of "freedom" is freedom for EVERYONE, not just for YOU. So while you have free use of the code in question, everyone else has free use of any changes you may make to it. The idea is that if we leave it up to peoples' good wills to ensure freedom, we'll all live in slavery, so we'll legally force everyone to let everyone else be free. Seems to be working out OK.
You must not live in the US, home of the free, where your freedom does have restrictions.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I believe he's using the conventional definition of freedom. I don't know what definition you're using...
$ make available
Ah, no it isn't. It's more like there is a group of people giving away popcorn because they believe it's important to give it away. Then a few people in the group make an arbitrary decision to start charging for the popcorn without the entire group's agreement.
If it had been a single developer who created the project and was the only one who had written any code then your analogy would be correct. It's not what has happened though.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
I believe that the DarkPlaces engine is based off of the original quake engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DarkPlaces
How? It is just like if someone gave away popcorn for free and they are now charging them ten cents. They were the producers, they can change the licensing terms. Anyone is free to do what the GPL allows for the GPL'd licensed source but for the non-GPL'd you follow the proprietary license.
Only for the code you own yourself. If others contributed, you have no right to relicense that part of the code - you need their agreement that you can do that.
There are a lot of quake game engines, most of then have a single person behind. Behind DarkPlaces is Lord Havoc.
We normally see the other route, ... a closed source game (Quake engine from Quake) open source his engine. A open source game is created from a closed source game (FreeCiv from Civ ). This route is "new", a open source game spawns a closed source game.
There has ben some discussions on the forums, but It has been mostly about the use of the name. Is like how Firefox started as Phoenix so got renamed to Firebird... (only to be renamed again to Firefox!). But this time Illfonic let the community continue using the name.. . Of course, some people really dislike the very idea :-/. To this date, not contributor has claimed steal code or something like that.
Vermeulen is a hardworking individual, and has push this game (nexuiz) for more than 9 years now (And If you have work on a open source project, you know how hard is to get people moving forward). I have only good things to say about Lord Havoc and the very high quality of his code. He control all the code of DarkPlaces to be of the best quality possible, this mean rewriting things to get to his standard of quality. Is this rewriting all code that probably has made possible to closed-source the engine.
HOW?
1) You get the original source code from the Id Software FTP, and a license for it (probably legacy, since is not for sale now).
2) You put all that code in the CVS. This code is the original, and you have a license for it.
3) Lord Havoc commit all his code changes to this CVS. Since he own his own changes (he is the author of these changes) he can do it.
4) The resulting code is both authored by Id Software and Lord Havoc.
5) This code is licensed by Lord Havoc to Illphonic (Illphonic already have a license from Id Software).
6) If theres some code from other authors, Illphonic acquire rights from these authors.
7) TADA!... you have a closed source engine you can use to create games for XBox 360 and Playstation 3 (I suppose lots of changes are needed to achieve this compatibility, but you have the basics of the engine).
The authors of a work can "relicense" his work. This why Id Software can release the quake source engine as gpl AND a different license. Lord Havoc is the same as Id Software, so is doing the exact same thing, releasing his work on a different license.
-Woof woof woof!
That's not the conventional definition of freedom. That page attempts to define "free works", which is not the same as "freedom".
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
You're right. Only BSD-style "do what you like, but don't sue us" licenses mean true freedom (unless you consider the right to sue somebody who did the work for you a necessary freedom). However, it is completely fair to say that the GNU GPL encourages continued freedom of access and use. If you invite someone into your house, you don't expect them to sell your stuff. If you violate the spirit of kindness that someone has shown to you, then you should be criticised.
--
I don't think that referring to somebody's own definition of "freedom" is helpful here. The bone that YesIAmAScript is picking with the GPL is that you are denied the freedom to keep derivatives closed-source.
--
*ALL* freedom comes with restrictions. Sorry, that's a part of the nature of the universe. You can't even explicitly define a freedom that doesn't have restrictions.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Is anyone really all that interested in a game that started out as a Quake mod in 2001? Anyone other than open source bigots who are excited that they can play a game and it's totally free?
Yeah, theft of other people's hard work is indeed just like communism.
That's why the property rights of the owners of the code need to be upheld and the GPL must be respected.
Then don't use it. Anywhere. The Freedom to rip it off is not included. It's is - as someone else mentioned - Freedom for EVERYONE not Freedom for YOU.
Shh.
Actually nexuiz uses darkplaces which is derived from id tech 1.
Might we both be wrong? Id Tech 1 is Doom. Id Tech 2 is Quake and Quake II. Both have been on consoles before, under the non-free license.
"If I invite someone into my house I don't expect them to sell your stuff."
That's a terrible analogy. They are only selling copies and derivative works of my stuff.
Anyway, I was merely trying to point out how the poster used the term Freedom incorrectly. The rest of it isn't worth arguing really. The author of code has the right to dual-license it under the GPL. If they are changing the license on code they didn't write also, then it's a GPL violation and they'll have to stop. Because the GPL doesn't give you the freedom to use code you receive under it in that fashion.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
One different than the one I do. Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
Freedom always comes with restrictions if it is just and equal, because your freedom to do something often implies a restriction or cost for me. The GPL ensures that all the contributors have a common set of freedoms, but those translate into restrictions as well.
The Apache and BSD licenses ensure that all the contributors have a different set of freedoms, and a different set of limitations placed on them.
YesIAmAScript is picking with the GPL is that you are denied the freedom to keep derivatives closed-source.
If you distribute your derivatives under a closed-source license, you limit my freedom to study and modify the code you have written. Hence, I have less freedom than under the GPL.
To be completely free is to be a slave to one's own temptations. Likewise, to protect the freedom of the community, restrictions are voluntarily accepted by participants. Similar to how you may want to stab people, but get together with a bunch of other people and make it illegal since you don't want to get stabbed.
That said, I personally wouldn't use the term "free" to describe the GPL. It seems to me more like a self-interested unit for the benefit of its members. If you work at a for-profit, you can generally reuse internal code for company projects. Think of this as a company for tinkerers. I'm a big fan of the GPL, but I'm not sure free is the best word choice.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
All freedom comes with one crucial restriction: you cannot use your freedom to take away someone else's.
Ironic, isn't it? But not invalid.
In the specific case of the GPL, it grants everyone the freedom to copy the modify the software, so long as you do it in such a way that it doesn't take away someone else's right to do the same. The BSD license however, gives you the ability to copy and modify the software, and the ability to forbid someone else from doing the same thing. Is that more free or less free?
Making money off the backs of others is the American way.
Lord Havoc will help then, and agree to this.
Without John Carmack and LordHavoc (Darkplaces engine developer) giving permission, they're in a huge mess.
What? will the police storm his offices?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwNSzoe28MQ&feature=player_embedded
hehehehe...
-Woof woof woof!
How? It is just like if someone gave away popcorn for free and they are now charging them ten cents. They were the producers, they can change the licensing terms.
Sure. IF they were the producers.
But what if I gave YOU butter for free, but under a license (i.e. the GPL) which improves your popcorn. And you in turn gave it away for free along with the popcorn you produced. (which is allowed).
Then you decide to start charging 10 cents for the popcorn, and are still including my butter. That's not ok. It violates my license.
You are allowed to change the license and re-license the stuff YOU produce, but in this case, and in most oss projects, the individual contributors retain copyright, and as a result the project 'founder' cannot simply relicense it, because he only owns copyright on his actual code. He can change its terms, but not the terms of contributed code. Separating the two is not easy, and the end result may not be desirable... like popcorn without butter.
According to the FA, the controversy seems to concern two different but interrelated issues:
Trademark assignment and copyright assignment
The first is probably more clear cut than the second one. Trademark is controlled by the person(s) it has been assigned to. As long as Mr. Vermuelen holds the trademark to the name Nexuiz, or as long as there is no trademark assigned to anybody for the name Nexuiz, Illfonic is most likely clear on this matter.
The second, and most controversial issue is that of the relicencing of the Nexuiz/DarkPlaces codebase. Even though, according to the Nexuiz forums, Illfonic seems to have struck a deal with the primary developers of Nexuiz and DarkPlaces, I'm not sure if that would be enough. DarkPlaces is arguably not such a big change over the original GPL'd Quake engine codebase, and even if it was, I'm not really sure if copyright can be reassigned without some kind of consensus amongst most (major) developers. Does each contributor hold the copyright for his work under the GPL or do the contributions end up under a single copyright holder?
Regardless of the legal issues, this is a really crappy way to treat your community and developers. They have every right to feel betrayed. This forum thread is a great read, and proves that the community is sane about their demands towards Illfonic, Mr. Vermuelen and LordHavoc.
You don't understand. What I am saying is that the GPL does not allow full freedom compared to something which allows derivatives to be closed-source. Obviously a closed-source license gives you less freedom. This is not news to anyone.
--
That undermines others freedom to use my code in a non-gpled software.
Also as with a piece of art, viewing and studying it is a privilege granted by the author not a right, you are under no obligation when you use closed source software.
You have less freedom under the GPL to do what you want with code. And you gain the ability to tell others what they can do with the code under the GPL.
Neither of these is a proper subset of the other, so it's difficult to say you have "less freedom than under the GPL".
My point was the author of the comment called the GPL license a Freedom (italics theirs) and it is not a license of freedom, like all licenses, it's a license of restrictions.
The GPL is only a freedom license when compared to closed-source license. Compared to other, freer licenses, it's really concerned about creating a commons than it is about freedom.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
We can argue about degrees of freeness, but the fact that there were debates about the use of drivers (wireless I think), from BSD into Linux, I think it is fair to say there are restrictions implied in BSD too.
Note, I think it is 100% fair to say that BSD is more free for the recipient than GPL.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I never understand this argument. People always talk of freedom without personal pronouns, which makes the argument moot. There's no such thing as 'freedom', there's only my, your, our freedom. The BSD protects someones freedom pretty damn totally, and the GPL protects everyones freedom at the cost of basically not allowing you to distribute binaries without source. Trying to compare these in 'freedomness' is moronic: it's literally comparing apples and oranges.
Now I don't know if 'freedom' is shorthand for either of these, but if it's a measure of importance (which is more important, my or our freedom) I'd argue our freedom is more important (thus, the GPL). Just like how one mans ability to rule himself (monarchy) is less important than our ability to rule ourselves (democracy), even if it is at a small cost (I actually can do less than a king).
Mhm? There's an update up on the Nexuiz news page: "There appears to still be some confusion over this change. I would like to make more things clear: *Illfonic has obtained the rights to the Nexuiz's engine code, along with a license for the Quake1 engine. The engine has been licensed as non-GPL for Sony Playstation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, these are very closed platforms and the game had no chance of reaching them under GPL. *The Nexuiz's engine's prime developer (LordHavoc) is currently working on the Illfonic console version. The Nexuiz codebase will benefit from Illfonic's additions *IllFonic actively promotes the GPL Nexuiz for all operating systems."
Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
Tell me about this land that you come from.
It would appear to be a place without laws.
Dollars to donuts these idiots did not buy one. Even if they did without LordHavoc's signoff they are screwed.
Assuming the LordHavoc who posted earlier in the thread is the real guy, it's pretty funny that you keep on questioning him. That linked post sure makes it sound like he's okay with the whole thing.
I've always viewed the GPL as democracy for software. It is an inclusive license not a divisive one. The restriction it does have against close-sourcing is there to preserve the, as you say, commons. Without preserving itself the GNU philosophy values of GPL code would be ripped off even more than now and incorporated into closed-source offerings without credit, recognition of ownership, or the Freedom to cooperate. Closed-source offerings that steal GPL code don't often recognize the irony that they are saying it is ok to steal their code as well. The basis for all licenses right now is copyright. I don't think it is ok to steal GPL code and by saying that I also don't think it is ok to steal Microsoft Office. If it is legal to steal GPL code then the same logic says burn a copy of Microsoft Office for WINE.
Shh.
Open source games is the topic.
Could you list 4 open source FPS games? other than Open Arena, Alien Arena and Cube, please.
-Woof woof woof!
The GPL is about freedom for the USERS, not for the developers. So that USERS of the code, always have the freedom to modify (or find someone that can modify) the code to suit their needs as USERS.
You're right. Only BSD-style "do what you like, but don't sue us" licenses mean true freedom
No, they do not. When someone takes code licensed under the BSD license and distributes it binary only, they limit everybody else's freedom to study, modify, enhance, and interoperate with that code. That is less freedom than under the GPL, not more.
Oh. Do you not believe you are free unless you have the right to keep slaves, then?
Bruce Perens.
As much as I love playing Nexiuz I can't really support this move. It's off my PC and will never return. I'm sure no-one really cares, but I do, and I guess that's what it's all about in the end - what I can live with.
If PS3 is closed - then DON'T RELEASE TO IT...
Back to BZFlag...
> You can't even explicitly define a freedom that doesn't have restrictions.
for software, that's contributing code to the public domain.
One different than the one I do. Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
Freedom always comes with restrictions if it is just and equal, because your freedom to do something often implies a restriction or cost for me. The GPL ensures that all the contributors have a common set of freedoms, but those translate into restrictions as well.
The Apache and BSD licenses ensure that all the contributors have a different set of freedoms, and a different set of limitations placed on them.
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
They're going through all of this work for nothing. Games of this style do not sell well anymore. It's a niche genre at best these days. It's not the late 90's or early 2000's.
Ask Epic how Unreal Tournament 3 did. People don't seem to want the arcade style Quake/UT shooters anymore. If they want to succeed they need to update other things besides the engine... The only non-realistic online shooter that has done well at all in the past few years is Team Fortress 2. Good luck competing with that.
The general argument over the restrictions in GPL that bother people revolve entirely around the fact that GPL tries to make everything else exactly like itself.
If you want to use GPL you have to be GPL, nothing else is acceptable! No exceptions, and my god will the uber geeks with no life go off on you if you make one little mistake. You won't even know someone found a snippet of GPL code in your stuff before you've been DDoSed off the Internet.
GPL people are almost in entirety fanatical idiots. There are a few people and companies that aren't, but they are few and far between and for every good thing they do, there are 50 idiot things that GPL fanboys do to scare everyone else off.
Even Microsoft will let you use their code with other peoples code under different license agreements, they may not let their code be open, but they don't prevent you from using it just because you want to use some other open source block of code. Conversely, with GPL not only does all the code have to be open, it pretty much HAS to be GPL or a GPL derivative.
When Microsoft is more open and less restrictive than you are, then you need to take a deep breath and think before the next time you brag about how open or free your virus of a license is.
GPL isn't a license, its an infection, and thats the sticking point.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
" But what if I gave YOU butter for free, but under a license (i.e. the GPL) which improves your popcorn. And you in turn gave it away for free along with the popcorn you produced. (which is allowed). Then you decide to start charging 10 cents for the popcorn, and are still including my butter. That's not ok. It violates my license." The gpl does allow for commercial use, it just doesn't allow the product using the code to be proprietary. So selling the popcorn would not be in violation of the license.(well, assuming it covered popcorn :P)
You don't seem to understand that you're beating a horse that's so utterly dead that people don't even realise it's a horse anymore.
Everyone here knows what GPL is. We can stop explaining and arguing the the different features of the license in every story that even remotely touches the the subject.
Mozilla had the same problem when it switched to the tri-license: some parts were not covered by the NPL, only the MPL, and the project leaders had to track down all contributors or rewrite affected modules.
Not really. The only restriction is you can't make him nonfree. If I give you code and tell you it's free but must remain free...that's the GPL. If I give you code and tell you you can make it nonfree as long as you credit the people that wrote it...that's BSD.
So it's not free unless you can close it off making it nonfree? They are totally free to change the license on the part that they wrote to anything they want. They don't have the right to make other peoples code closed. This isn't really a freedom issue.....it's a ripoff issue.
While you are essentially right, I think you are missing a crucial point.
What is essential is the freedom of the code itself. It's freedom to exist and not be locked up. Like the important part of freedom of speech is not the freedom of every single person to speak, but rather that of every message having the right to exist and be heard.
Perhaps we should start speaking of "free as in bird" instead of free as in speech.
The bird (i.e the code, the message, the information) can be had for free, but you can not cage it, or it's offspring.
That's how the GPL is more free the BSD or public domain.
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
Oh, come on, does one have to be completely unambiguous here? Are you just not using context when you're reading at all? Let me try to clarify:
The point is that GPL, Apache, and BSD are all "symmetric" with respect to their contributors. And because they are "symmetric", all of them just come down to just drawing the lines differently between freedoms and limitations. None of them can give you more freedom than any other.
You may not care about the freedoms that the GPL gives you and that the Apache license doesn't, but lots of other people do.
Technically, that's true. *I* do not have *complete* freedom unless I can do anything I wish, including holding slaves.
:)
But I accept certain restrictions on my freedom in order to maintain freedom for others; this is part of the social contract. What this argument boils down to is what level of restrictions we'll accept in order to maintain a common baseline threshold of freedom for each individual.
It seems parent to your post believes restriction of individual freedom, even if it serves to preserve individual freedom at large, is wrong in principle. I'm not surprised to see this kind of argument on slashdot
Anyway, keep up the good work.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
look at the post times numbnuts, this comment was posted 10 minutes before he showed up. It was me doing what all slashdotters do, speculating.
Indeed. However, one wonders just what the price is for such licensing. A few years back it was still in the six figures for Q3:A. I'd say that we're probably talking 30-75k for what Illfonic would need to get signoff on from ZeniMax on the DarkPlaces pieces they've rights control over.
That's still quite a bit of scratch there- and it doesn't get into any of the rights for the contributors to the game engine. Each one would have to release/license rights accordingly to allow no GPL snags to exist for Illfonic.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Even if it was that, I'd love to see his signed off on license documents from iD that'd have allowed him to make Nexuiz a commercial game like is claimed on that post. If he didn't have them, he's NOT licensed to make a closed commercial game there with the codebase he's using.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I've only ever released code (that wasn't done for hire) straight to public domain, but doesn't it really come down to a few points?
The GPL folks get over the top sometimes, but I'll take them over the BSA and their supporters any time I have a choice.
Remains to be seen. All depends on whether Illfonic has a paid-up license on the affected code that belongs to ZeniMax.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
From approximately 1999 through 2002, I worked on the Quakeforge project. Amongst other things, I added some special effects, gzip file loading, and maintained ports to Irix, Solaris, and PowerPC Linux.
The greatest problem that Quake has is legacy. This is an old code base with numerous forks and a great amount of code sharing between projects. Closing the source to a Quake engine is like opening the source of a commercial Unix, you've got code from all over the place and you're not sure where it came from.
When I first heard that Darkplaces / Nexuiz was closing the source, I spent half a day reviewing their source to determine if any of my own code had been included. That search resulted in a determination that the project definitely contained my code at one point, but I could no longer recognize any offending bits. Still, I'm not entirely certain that my code has been entirely removed. The work on ports was particularly concerning to me as non-portable code can exist throughout a code base, I could potentially have a single character infringed. ;-)
At the end of the day, however, I'm not really against this as long as they can account for the code and settle with the independent contributors. They have at least appeared to resolve this amicably with the contributors, unlike the ill-fated QuakeLives project which, in 2000, very clearly violated the GPL, prompting outrage within the Quake developer community and within id software itself.
The gpl does allow for commercial use, it just doesn't allow the product using the code to be proprietary. So selling the popcorn would not be in violation of the license.(well, assuming it covered popcorn :P)
Touche.
Right the problem isn't that the person started charging 10 cents for popcorn and butter. Its that he also required the recipients of the the popcorn and butter to agree that they had to eat it themselves and weren't allowed to share. He can theoretically impose such a restriction on his popcorn, but not the butter.
You are confusing freedom and sovereignty, as no doubt are others in this discussion. Your sovereignty is reduced if any action is not available to you. Sovereignty is a one-to-many relationship, freedom is maximized to the extent that all persons are free and that persons are not allowed to act as sovereigns over the rest. Thus, law providing fairness, for example the sharing implemented in the GPL, both increases freedom and limits a sovereign.
Bruce Perens.
Agreed. The GPL is not free, it's ultra left-wing communist.
Seriously, would it kill you to spare 5 words to even briefly describe what Nexuiz is? Just a single word ("game") would have put this into context for me without having to follow a single link.
All code in the public domain or under a BSD license is equally free and cannot be "locked up". The GPL differentiates itself with regards to derivative works and it is less free as a result.
Apache/BSD gives you more freedoms than GPL does and mandates fewer restrictions. Those are simple facts that all but fanboys can easily understand.
We can argue about degrees of freeness, but the fact that there were debates about the use of drivers (wireless I think), from BSD into Linux, I think it is fair to say there are restrictions implied in BSD too.
Note, I think it is 100% fair to say that BSD is more free for the recipient than GPL.
Right, BSD licensing does not give the freedom to license BSD code under a different license just because you make modifications to it. No license allows that, so you can't really call it a restriction. You can license your own modifications under any license you like however, unlike the GPL.
http://astutehosting.com/
You're confusing me with an "us." To me theft is theft and I call it what I will. There is no "us." Trying to average out all slashdot comments into a abstract individual will inevitably lead to schizophrenia in whatever that definition ends up being.
Shh.
Wait, from my understanding of this, all the cool crap going on at nexuiz.com is going to be for consoles only? What the hell? Maybe I'm misinformed but this looks a lot to me like some bozos taking an open source GPL'd engine and turning it into a closed source commercial product. I had to go check out wikipedia's page on the GPL to make sure I was remembering my licenses correctly. This really does look like a leeching off of a community effort. I don't really know how much of the Nexuiz codebase belongs to contributors, but I'm secretly hoping it's enough that these Illfonic guys don't get a free ride...
Unless you happen to be an end-user. Then you can go pound sand.
I assume you are trying to point out that the GPL, which is held as a model of freedom, places restrictions on what can be done with the result. I also assume that this makes no sense to you, and that by pointing this out you are pointing out an apparent contradiction.
In context of this article, you are using freedom out of context, and "free works" is in context.
The people who contributed their code to Nexuiz under a Freedom license have every right to be pissed if their code is then sold off against their wishes. The purpose of the GPL is to ensure your own freedom. You release code, and people can't just do anything they want with it. It also allows the freedom of other people who want to help fix it, to submit patches back to the source.
GPL was not intended to be public domain, which is an entirely different option available to developers. I could write something and release it as public domain, but then people can say they wrote it, or patch it without telling me or sending me fixes, or add malware into it and ruin my reputation.
"Freedom" is a heavily overloaded word, and you have to be clear about the usage. You seem to be either confused, or intentionally using the word out of context. Either I hope I have un-confused you, or have called you out as a troll, whichever is more appropriate.
Yeah, that's the funniest thing about all of this... in the end it's going to result in a crappy FPS based on obsolete technology that no one will ever play.
If it ever comes out, maybe I'll pick up a copy in the bargain bin at Gamestop as a piece of Internet flame-war history...
No it is not, the GPL is forcing users(with users defined as people who actually have an use for the code) to release their derivative works under a crappy license.
The GPL is not only unfree, but it is also a pain in the ass for anyone distributing anything(including private mindless mass sub-users). Making a copy of a GPL BIOS for a friend, makes you no less of a criminal than copying an Apple BIOS. You have to "release" him the code and the license or face an expensive lawsuit.
They haven't come after you yet so you think you are safe? I trust them as much as I trust Microsoft with their Mono.
Like the freedom of speech the FSF purports to like so much, software freedom means you cannot say what others must do with it. I am all for software freedom. I think that knowledge has to be shared for the humankind to advance. But the GPL is yet another boulder in freedom's path. It blesses the same immoral copyright laws that cause most knowledge to be lost for all except the rich and privileged.
At this point they could as well merge with the Media Mafia and rename it to the Disney Public License DRM-certified freedom.
That said, that doesn't mean I think this violation should be unpunished. The conditions were clear before the fact. The violators must be punished. And hopefully the next time they will contribute to an actually free project.
10 little-endian boys went out to dine, a big-endian carp ate one, and then there were -246.
True freedom means I can cap your ass with a Glowk fotay and no one cares except someone bigger and meaner than me.
Speaking of the submitter, we have kids young and lame enough to use the nick name King InuYasha?
Get off my lawn!
No they don't unless, as well as distributing it binary-only, they also destroy all traces of the code. When Microsoft adopted the BSD TCP/IP stack in Windows, the stack did not suddenly vanish. It continued to be maintained an improved, but Microsoft was stuck with their old version because they didn't participate in this process. Eventually, they did a complete rewrite. The only things people couldn't study were Microsoft's changes and, judging by what happened when they tried to migrate Hotmail from FreeBSD to Windows NT, I don't think we missed out on much...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Any and all definitions of "freedom" come with restrictions.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
"Freedom" is a heavily overloaded word, and you have to be clear about the usage. You seem to be either confused, or intentionally using the word out of context.
I do not know how heavily overloaded "freedom" is, but I do know that the GNU project has redefined "freedom" so that they get all of the cachet from using the word, yet none of the particularities of, you know, letting something be free.
After all, if GNU definition was so blindingly obvious, GNU wouldn't have a track record of obsessing and telling everyone else what it means.
The price is clearly stated on the linked page, $10,000 USD.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
BSD license is true freedom.
Yeah, the freedom to deny others' freedom. That's great. I really, really like a great deal of BSD licensed projects. I really, really hope there is always someone willing to distribute the source in addition to however else they may distribute it, so that others can enjoy the same freedom to stand on the work of others. But it's not guaranteed in any way. Some projects are a single person's decision away from becoming effectively non-free because nobody has the responsibility to keep them free, even if they use, distribute, and profit from them extensively.
The context of the post reads as if they replaced all GPL Quake code with original code, rather than relicense it.
I just assumed it was going to be a Sony Station/360 Arcade game.
Technically, no. The definition is free to do with YOUR code what YOU please, but for other's code, you are not free do trample their freedoms to satisfy yours.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Then you decide to start charging 10 cents for the popcorn, and are still including my butter. That's not ok. It violates my license.
Sure it's okay... someone just used your butter recipe to produce their own. You still have your original butter and using the recipe you can make as much more as you want. And for those who don't want to follow your recipe, you can sell a butter churning service to crank out butter based on the recipe and profit that way. Why would you want to restrict the ability of people to use a recipe given that their use doesn't deny you any of your butter?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Then don't use it. Anywhere. The Freedom to rip it off is not included. It's is - as someone else mentioned - Freedom for EVERYONE not Freedom for YOU.
So Firefox doesn't support freedom because the Mozilla Public License allows closed-source derivatives?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
You are confusing freedom and sovereignty, as no doubt are others in this discussion.
Wait a minute. I thought this was an anarcho-syndicalist commune!
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Explain. All people involved in an Apache or BSD licensed project have the same rights and freedoms.
Oh, come on, does one have to be completely unambiguous here? Are you just not using context when you're reading at all? Let me try to clarify:
The point is that GPL, Apache, and BSD are all "symmetric" with respect to their contributors. And because they are "symmetric", all of them just come down to just drawing the lines differently between freedoms and limitations. None of them can give you more freedom than any other.
You may not care about the freedoms that the GPL gives you and that the Apache license doesn't, but lots of other people do.
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary. The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license. Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so. GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing.
I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
One must find a balance between making money from one's skill and improving the world around him. Take for example a client server model. The client is open source but the server is proprietary. Is this evil? Does it depend upon the spirit in which the coder is making his plans? What if the server is declared to also become open source after one year? One could keep the existing business model in tact, while pleasing and contributing to the community from the beginning and even more after one year of profits.
How is that? You can still go to whatever BSD site they got it from and do whatever the hell you want to it, you just don't get to force them to share their changes. That is the only real difference you know: With BSD the author says "do whatever the hell you want with it, if you want to share? Cool. If not, that's okay too" while the GPL says "Sure you can have this but you WILL share or else!"
In BOTH cases you get access to the original code, but in the first you may or may not get changes, such as the changes Apple or MSFT has made to any BSD code they are using, whereas with GPL you WILL hand over all the code or get a visit from a lawyer. in either case the question is moot because the bozo in TFA has NO RIGHT to take the code of others and re-license it on ANY terms, period. So whether he went closed or BSD or whatever really don't matter, a thief is a thief.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you choose a GPL base, and make modifications, you are under no obligation to share back your code - until you distribute. And even then it doesn't have to be in a patch format....
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
It allows more freedom than copyright law itself does that makes it a "Freedom License".
The typical "UnFree" License tries to extend copyright law to remove freedoms from the user of the software that the law itself would otherwise allow.
That's not the important part of freedom of speech. What good is the right of a message to exist and be heard, if nobody is allowed to speak it? Examples where this occurs are libel, lèse-majesté, incitement to commit crimes, and even treason.
The important part of freedom of speech isn't the message, it's the fact that anyone (ie not just "authorized" people) can actually speak the message with impunity.
Similarly, a program that's allowed to exist on a USB drive, but isn't allowed to be actually run or even modified by anyone, is not much good. You need to explicitly give everyone the freedoms listed in the GPL in practice, at least if you want a free society.
and they are getting forked up now.
But Mozilla "owns" the source code. They request contributions of code be signed over to them to be in the official tree... that way they can legally prove they "own" every line, and can adjust the license at will. Each contributor gets the choice UP FRONT to agree or not to sign off to Mozilla.
This is the same problem the Linux Kernel has moving from GPL2 to GPL3. Linus specifically didn't include an "or later version" clause, and some contributors are even DEAD. There's no way to change the license... Unless this game had code assignment too, I can't see how they can do this.
Looks like it does, according to an update: http://alientrap.org/nexuiz/news
But Mozilla "owns" the source code.
How, exactly, is your reply a relevant response to the fact that the Mozilla Public License allowed closed-source derivatives and thus Firefox doesn't support freedom? Did you read the context of the thread I originally replied to suggesting that the GPL, which prevents closed source derivatives, is necessary to preserve freedom?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Only when your particular tunnel vision makes you see only what just you at the moment can do with the code you just got. When you account for the fact that the other licenses you're alluding to do not give other people downstream any freedom to do with software what they want the picture changes. The GPL doesn't impose restrictions, it imposes a lack of restrictions that other licenses don't.
It is blindingly obvious (to me at least) that the GNU definition means more freedom for me, in practice.
So while BSD developers should of course do whatever they want, I'd like to thank developers who opt for the (L)GPL.
Loolz
So while you have free use of the code in question, everyone else has free use of any changes you may make to it.
Wrong. Only if you give them the resulting binaries do you have to make them a written offer to give them the code through the same means they received the binaries with.
Right, BSD licensing does not give the freedom to license BSD code under a different license just because you make modifications to it. No license allows that, so you can't really call it a restriction.
Putting something into the public domain does allow re-licensing. And yes, the public domain _is_ a form of licence.
Because your freedom seems to come with restrictions.
Your freedom to walk down the street unharmed restricts me from punching you in the face.
Total, absolute freedom might work in the self-regulating anarchisms Robert A. Heinlein wrote about, but even there, people were restricting themselves. By their own free will, granted; but still.
The moral: There are _always_ restrictions. And that is a good thing. Which particular set you prefer... Now _that_ is open for debate :)
If the various authors waived their rights (where possible. Impossible in Germany, for example) or similar when contributing, Nexuiz is within their rights.
If a single commit was made under the GPL exclusively, they need to ask the contributors to re-license, to re-implement or omit the relevant parts or they must not re-license the whole thing.
I don't know about the project's internals so I can not decide either way, but theory behind this is trivial.
I'm pretty sure I could write a license that says you can re-license this code however you want.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
There is no freedom without restrictions. My right to punch you stops where your nose begins. My right to free speech stops where your right to not be libeled and slandered begins. Your right to do as you please with my property ends where my right to do with I please with my property begins.
Freedom without respect for the rights of others is lunacy. It leads to very bad ends. It ends with total lawlessness and might makes right.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
The question here is not which license is better (more free). The question is, can you relicense other people's work or no.
In Mozilla's case, the original authors renounced their copyrights, so it is fine.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Sorry, that comes with two kinds of restrictions:
1) as the donor you must have the right to so contribute it (e.g., owner of the copyright).
2) as the recipient you must not apply for a copyright on it.
I'm sure there are others, but those just appeared in my mind instantly.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The question here is not which license is better (more free).
If you read the thread, that is exactly what is being discussed. It may surprise you to learn that sometimes Slashdot discussions deviate from the topic introduced by the article.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary.
The availability of the source code guarantees that the software itself, including its binaries, continue to be available.
The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license.
Bullshit. The GPL ensures continued availability of the source code, which is a huge advantage for end users.
Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so.
You mean like Microsoft and Apple, who have taken a lot of BSD source code and made proprietary, often incompatible versions? No thanks.
GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing. I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
Spare me your biased, ideological drivel.
Apache/BSD gives you more freedoms than GPL does and mandates fewer restrictions.
The freedom the GPL cares about is the freedom to access the source code of any application you use. Apache/BSD do not guarantee that freedom, the GPL guarantees it at least for software that falls under the GPL.
The freedom you care about about, namely that you can take someone else's open source software and make proprietary versions of it, is not a freedom I care about. I may grant you that freedom if it serves my purpose, but other than that, you can just get lost as far as I'm concerned.
Unless if you have coding skills sufficient to make a useful contribution and have the time and energy to do so, you should not give a rats ass as the consumer of the binary.
The availability of the source code guarantees that the software itself, including its binaries, continue to be available.
The GPL does not give you any additional rights as the end user than a binary under the BSD license.
Bullshit. The GPL ensures continued availability of the source code, which is a huge advantage for end users.
Most BSD licensed product remain fully open source because it is in their best interests to do so.
You mean like Microsoft and Apple, who have taken a lot of BSD source code and made proprietary, often incompatible versions? No thanks.
GPL tries to impose a philosophy whereas BSD relies on the free will of others to do the right thing. I prefer the BSD volunteer approach to the trap of the GPL.
Spare me your biased, ideological drivel.
Speaking for bullshit and ideological drivel, source code does not ensure the continued availability of binaries or source code. You are compelled to publish your source code back to the community but nobody is compelled to release binaries or make source code available outside of a repository. For end users, having to source code available is effectivity the same as having nothing available when said users would have to know how to compile the code including modifying any necessary make files for their platform after the first figured out how to access the code from the repository. There is nothing compelling the maintainer to continue publishing the repository as running servers costs money.
Most BSD code does remain open but it also allows incorporation of the code in closed source implementations. The advantage of this is that "open standards" like TC/IP receive consistent and widespread adoption. End users tend to benefit more from "open standards" than "open source" although BSD licensed open source can lead to quick adoption of open standards.
Guess which one helps prevent vendor lock-in? Answer: Open Standards. The end user gets to choose open source and/or one of many closed source implementations of the "same" standard.
Open Software can be proprietary if that software implements and protocol or file format without documenting it for others to re-implement and the code has a viral software license. No commercial closed source developer will touch the code for fear of contamination while a BSD licensed product can be open source and and become an open format/standard with both open and closed source implementations.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Popcorn? Butter? I'm confused...
THIS! IS SLASHDOT!!!
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
someone is correct. if the program was done as a "community" project without copyright assignment then we have a standard GPL violation here once this software goes on proprietary game discs and they don't cough up the code. The issue is not the license that's already done, but if the project got copyright assignment from contributors or not... They sure as heck don't have ID's assignment if any original Quake code is still there ID's agreement specifically doesn't allow what they're doing in addition to being GPL.
It comes back to the pragmatic vs. theory... are contributors "donating" their code, or do they retain their copyright even for a small piece. This goes all the way back to when Paul and Bill were dumpster diving for Basic code.