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.'"

22 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Freedom by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do youself a favor and use a license for your code that actually does have an open spirit rather than a built in virus.

      Exactly! If this project had only been BSD licensed, the developer could have just walked away with the code and never contributed anything back. Or heck - anyone could. Businesses should take note. Develop with BSD licenses so your competitors get your work for free! That's obviously the best way to do things and avoids all this "virus" GPL stuff.

  2. What's really happening here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:What's really happening here? by LordHavoc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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, publishers would not touch it.

      IllFonic actively promotes the GPL Nexuiz for all operating systems.

      The console game code is being started fresh now that GDC is over, no GPL claims can apply to it.

      Note: Nexuiz 1.0 was to be a commercial game in the first place, but was GPLed for the enjoyment of everyone, this deal pertains to the name and concept, not the community enhancements that occurred after the original release.

      --
      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." - James Klass
    2. Re:What's really happening here? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So all Quake code and community contributions have been removed?

    3. Re:What's really happening here? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is a good question, however, I would assume that it would be if the project itself is operating under the GPL, at least in the case of patches/changes to existing source code files. Since the only way for the user to have legal access to the source code to make the changes would require that person to agree to the GPL and this release their changes under the GPL, the "default" release for any said patch/change would thus be GPL, for anything else would mean they were in violation to even create the patch/change, as there was no non-GPL version for them to gain access to the source code before this change occurred.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  3. WTF is Nexuiz? (since the submitter didn't bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google answers:

    Nexuiz is a first-person shooter which started as a Quake modification in the summer of 2001

  4. Re:id's code is GPL too by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
  5. Reading is good... by coolgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Especially the part where it says they are relicensing code contributions without the consent of the contributors.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
    1. Re:Reading is good... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Other stories about this have stated that contributors to the engine had to assign copyright, in which case there might not be a problem.

      Most of the files in the current head of their Subversion repository have an Id Software copyright notice. The company doing the PS3 game has a license from Id, so appears to have their bases covered on that front.

  6. Re:You must have an different definition of freedo by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)

  7. Re:I hope... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Doesn't this contain Quake 3 Code? by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

    Id Software offers both free and non-free licensing terms for Id Tech 3. It could be the case that the non-free version of Nexuiz uses the non-free version of id Tech 3.

  9. Re:You must have an different definition of freedo by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:I hope... by teg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Some real info: by Tei · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are a lot of quake game engines, most of then have a single person behind. Behind DarkPlaces is Lord Havoc.

    • Lord Havoc plan to commit to the GPL DarkPlaces version all the features that are worth it. This excluse any SDK bit, since the PS3 SDK EULA don't able to share that part. This mean that even if Illfonic will not contribute, Lord Havoc will, and that is what is important.
    • Illfonic have a license to use the engine from Id Software. And a license from Lord Havoc. If theres part for other people, will be removed/replaced by Lord Havoc code. The result will be a fully legal and Illfonic licensed closed source version of DarkPlaces
    • The new version of Nexuiz for consoles seems awesome. This is only good news for Nexuiz, that will get more exposure, more code ,...

    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!

  12. Re:You must have an different definition of freedo by headkase · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  13. Re:You must have an different definition of freedo by pydev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Is this legal? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, that's why they also got a license to the Quake1 engine:

    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.

    From here.

  15. Re:You must have an different definition of freedo by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  16. Re:You must have an different definition of freedo by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Interested in seeing where this goes by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 3, Funny

    GPL exists to encourage code re-use, so the obvious, and unfortunate, conclusion of this line of thought involves one cup and 2 girls.