DarkPlaces Dev Forest Hale Corrects Nexuiz GPL Stance

Prove it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-23 23:02 · Score: 0

Oh wait...

CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Rogerborg · 2010-03-23 23:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because otherwise, you know, derivative work, and a thousand years bad juju.

Given what they just tried to do, and the casual disregard they had for licensing until they got caught in the act, I'd say the burden of proof lies with the re-implementors.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by sourcerror · 2010-03-23 23:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, you'd have to go to court to force them to show their code, and compare. (I'd doubt they were willing to disclose by themselves.)
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-23 23:31 · Score: 0

illfonic released gameplay video of ps3 nexuiz at GDC and you can clearly see that game is using code from nexuiz 2.0+ version
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-23 23:34 · Score: 0

I don't know anything about this game or the company. Nor do I particularly care. But, outside of some "bad juju" from the slashdot and like minded communities, what is the downside to them? Has there every been anything approaching an actual lawsuit of a company for a GPL violation? Even if a major, major player like EA Sports or whatever came out and used GPLd code to save half the development time on their leatest sports title, what could possibly be done about it other that generalized bitching and whining from the "community" and a (likely small) boycott? GPL is a dog without teeth, and for a small unknown game publisher, it's a dog worth ignoring, I suspect.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Mathinker · 2010-03-23 23:58 · Score: 1
> a thousand years bad juju
I also dislike unethical behavior, but I look at it this way:
- If the game flops on consoles, no one is "profiting" from violating the GPL.
- If the console version becomes widely popular, lots of people will look for the PC version, and find the open-source project, and hopefully learn something about open-source.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-23 23:59 · Score: 1, Informative

I don't know anything about this game or the company. Nor do I particularly care. But, outside of some "bad juju" from the slashdot and like minded communities, what is the downside to them? Has there every been anything approaching an actual lawsuit of a company for a GPL violation? Even if a major, major player like EA Sports or whatever came out and used GPLd code to save half the development time on their leatest sports title, what could possibly be done about it other that generalized bitching and whining from the "community" and a (likely small) boycott? GPL is a dog without teeth, and for a small unknown game publisher, it's a dog worth ignoring, I suspect.
The FSF could sue them.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by shentino · 2010-03-23 23:59 · Score: 1

While it's true that in general the bigger you are the easier it is to trample on the legal rights of those smaller than you, there have been a few GPL cases where the GPL was indeed upheld.
At least one case in Germany IIRC, and likewise a couple more in the United States.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Raumkraut · 2010-03-24 00:00 · Score: 1

Just from my recent memory:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
And there was a case won in Germany a few years ago IIRC, though the details escape me.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-24 00:12 · Score: 1

For me at least, the whole point of the GPL is preventing people from closing the source in the manner attempted here.
Different people have different reasons for using it, but my own, as I explained before on here is that I expect a payment in exchange for the use for development in some form. I accept payment in the form of code contributions, or I might be willing to relicense in exchange for money. I consider usage by the end users to be value neutral. It's not bad of course, but it doesn't do me a whole lot of good on its own either, as I'm not into it for the popularity contest.
I've had code that I contributed picked up by other people and improved on. Some of it I plan to pick up again, and improve further, and so on. This is the thing I'm interested in. Just having it appear in some console game without getting any improvements doesn't interest me.
If I agreed with your rationale, I'd release code under the BSD license, but I very intentionally don't.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Rogerborg · 2010-03-24 00:13 · Score: 1

By the same token, if I pirate a game for personal use, nobody is "profiting" from my violation of the creators' copyright and license.
How you look at it may depend on whether you contribute to open source projects. It's easy to be unconcerned if its someone else who's having their work misappropriated.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by impaledsunset · 2010-03-24 00:21 · Score: 3, Informative

The GPL says that you're free to study the source code for any purpose.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by nedlohs · 2010-03-24 00:42 · Score: 1

Only if the FSF owned some of the copyrights.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by marcansoft · 2010-03-24 00:45 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet they'll violate the GPL to some extent, and I'm willing to bet they won't get caught, at least the way things currently stand. Why? PS3 DRM. Theft of artwork is easy enough to prove on a closed console title, but good luck getting a decrypted binary and statically analyzing it to prove portions were taken from the GPLed code, when the platform hasn't been broken yet (no, geohot's partial hack doesn't qualify as a break).
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by LordLimecat · 2010-03-24 01:06 · Score: 1

The FSF can certainly provide a legal team for the contributors.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Rogerborg · 2010-03-24 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

[citation needed]. Seriously. The word "study" does not appear in either GPL version 3 or GPL version 2.
So, what does the GPL actually say, and how does that effect the issue of creating a derivative work?

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-03-24 02:01 · Score: 1

Exactly how do you see source code from a gameplay video?
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-03-24 02:03 · Score: 1

If the console version becomes widely popular, lots of people will look for the PC version
Why do you assume this?

and find the open-source project, and hopefully learn something about open-source.
Doubtful. The vast, vast, vast majority of people won't know or care that the programs they use are open source. They will know it's a "freeware" program and that's the limit of their knowledge.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 02:31 · Score: 0

According to TFA, Hale re-licensed his own code, and code of the devs who agreed to have their code re-licensed, for commercial use, to Illfonic. No foul there, *so long as that's true*.
Handing off the name, "Nexuiz" and the associated domain might be a foul, depending on who/what had legal ownership of it.
As long as the Illfonic product doesn't incorporate code or art from people who did NOT relicense it for their use, I don't see a problem.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by quadrox · 2010-03-24 02:38 · Score: 1

I see your point and respect your opinion on this. In fact I found your post quite interesting, because it made the whole GPL philosophy thing more clear for me.
Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that your view on the matter is somewhat narrow minded, for lack of a better word. I dislike the GPL because it is not important for me to get contributions back on exactly the same project that I am working on. If I write something that is useful to you, and you write something that is useful to me, then we have both become richer for it.
Whether a third part uses the project as well is - as you say - of neutral value to me. And I don't see how that changes whether the use consists of incorporation in a closed source product or simple end-user use.
I have already spent time writing the code, why should I care if somebody uses it for their own? As long as there are other people like you or me who also make their code available, we have both gained something.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by tlhIngan · 2010-03-24 03:15 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet they'll violate the GPL to some extent, and I'm willing to bet they won't get caught, at least the way things currently stand. Why? PS3 DRM. Theft of artwork is easy enough to prove on a closed console title, but good luck getting a decrypted binary and statically analyzing it to prove portions were taken from the GPLed code, when the platform hasn't been broken yet (no, geohot's partial hack doesn't qualify as a break).
Unlikely.
First, this project already has garnered an "this game used to be open source" mentality. People will be looking through the binary for GPL violations.
Second, what does DRM have to do with it? Unless the executable's encrypted (they're usually just signed, instead), it just involves someone dumping the disc to an image file and analyzing that. Sure they put wierd tracks and other crap to make it less easy, but it's not too difficult. You're free to buy the game on release, even if you don't have a PS3, stick it in a blu-ray drive and attempt to read it/dump it/etc. No PS3 needed for static analysis.
Third, GPL violations in closed source code has been spotted before. We had someone rip off PearPC. Microsoft ripped off that DVD library. And many others.
It's too high profile for someone to steal GPL code in the re-implementation.
Hell, if they did that, the company behind it will be in a LOT of hot water. Using open-source code violates many developer agreements for consoles, be it Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft. It's not that they don't understand the licenses or that "BSD is safe", but they don't want any unthinking developer from possibly compromising the entire system because some library had the AGPL or other "must be fully open" type license. At the very least, there'll be hefty fines for violations.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by tlhIngan · 2010-03-24 03:29 · Score: 1

For me at least, the whole point of the GPL is preventing people from closing the source in the manner attempted here.
True, however for a game, this can be quite limiting as it restricts consoles from being able to play. Good or bad, consoles do move a lot of games and it's a pretty good way to get your games in stores rather than an obscure website that no one knows about (even if it's Free and free).
Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft developer agreements state that no open-source code is allowed, period. This causes some interesting results like having to relicense BSD code under a proprietary license, and using well-known game engines to ensure that no open-source code is actually involved.
Heck, I'm sure the penalties for violation are pretty severe, including a monetary penalty, source code audits, and probably even recalls (all paid by the developer). Which can be expensive since they have to refund people at full retail price, which is more than they sold each unit.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-24 03:33 · Score: 1

I see your point and respect your opinion on this. In fact I found your post quite interesting, because it made the whole GPL philosophy thing more clear for me.
Good to know :-)

Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that your view on the matter is somewhat narrow minded, for lack of a better word. I dislike the GPL because it is not important for me to get contributions back on exactly the same project that I am working on. If I write something that is useful to you, and you write something that is useful to me, then we have both become richer for it.
Well, I'm a big proponent of being true to your own desires, to put it in some way. I think people shouldn't try to seem to be more altruistic than they really are. So if deep down I really want to get something in exchange for my trouble, I should make sure I get it. If compliance is voluntary then somebody will eventually not comply, I'll be annoyed and spend a while grumbling at "those ingrates", and that's not really fun and quite preventable. So I figure I can avoid that by just making my terms clear upfront, so that there are no annoyances and no misunderstandings.
If the BSD license works well for you, well, good for you. But it just doesn't fit my personality.

I have already spent time writing the code, why should I care if somebody uses it for their own? As long as there are other people like you or me who also make their code available, we have both gained something.
Well, I don't completely reject the idea of contributing something BSD licensed. But that's going to be limited to bug fixes pretty much.
Now, if I'm starting a large project I'll have to think first, whether my idea is workable, whether it makes sense to spent time working on it, and so on. And the above considerations will be part of that. If it doesn't work out, I just won't start coding in the first place, or find a GPL licensed alternative to contribute to instead, for instance. For my own projects, the GPL is the automatic default. The way I see things, using the BSD doesn't gain me anything, and the GPL provides chances of things going my way. So that's the one I'll go with.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by X0563511 · 2010-03-24 03:44 · Score: 1

He can see it in the pixels.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Ash+Vince · 2010-03-24 03:49 · Score: 1

Whether a third party uses the project as well is - as you say - of neutral value to me. And I don't see how that changes whether the use consists of incorporation in a closed source product or simple end-user use.
The answer to this is that it does not. Unless you believe that open source code is better for everyone as it contributes something back to the community.
The GPL (3) is not just about stopping people closing code that was previously open source. It is also about encouraging you to release your code as open source if you use other open source code in your product. This is about the idea that if you benefit from there being large amounts of open source code on the web then you should be forced into giving something back as well.

I have already spent time writing the code, why should I care if somebody uses it for their own? As long as there are other people like you or me who also make their code available, we have both gained something.
The answer is it makes no difference to you apart from on a principled level. If you have spent time on something, why should someone else be able to sell it at a profit and not pass any of that profit on to you? Even if they do a large amount of extra work, should they be able to take the small amount of work you put in and get that for free?
BTW - I am not the worlds greatest GPL advocate. I personally prefer the BSD licence that really does give more freedom to the end user. Unfortunately that freedom does include the freedom for them to build a closed source, for profit product out of your hard work.

--
I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by marcansoft · 2010-03-24 03:53 · Score: 1

People will be looking through the binary for GPL violations.
Not if it's encrypted.

Second, what does DRM have to do with it? Unless the executable's encrypted (they're usually just signed, instead)
No, they're usually encrypted. DRM is security through obscurity, and a big part of the obscurity is not letting potential attackers see any of the code (lest they find vulnerabilities). Case in point: The Wii's security lasted until someone managed to get a RAM dump with decrypted code and keys. At that point you still couldn't run code (signed executables), but nonetheless the security quickly came crashing down as soon as bugs were found.
As far as the PS3 is concerned, look up their Secure ELF format. PS3 binaries are encrypted.

Sure they put wierd tracks and other crap to make it less easy, but it's not too difficult.
That was last generation. This generation, it's all about encrypting and signing the crap out of everything. They still like to futz around with the disc format, but that's just for physical anti-piracy.

You're free to buy the game on release, even if you don't have a PS3, stick it in a blu-ray drive and attempt to read it/dump it/etc.
As far as I know, blu-ray drives will not read PS3 games. You can dump them from PS3 Linux though (AFAIR), but that gains you little because the executable is still encrypted and signed.
Wii games are even worse - they encrypt and sign every single disc sector (they use a hash tree to do the signing efficiently). Wii piracy via modchips (drive exploits) came long before anyone was able to take a stab at the software architecture. People had been pirating Wii games for a year and you still wouldn't have been able to spot a GPL violation, because piracy consisted of passing around 4GB encrypted blobs with no ability to touch anything. Of course, after the keys were recovered, this all changed.

Third, GPL violations in closed source code has been spotted before. We had someone rip off PearPC. Microsoft ripped off that DVD library. And many others.
I'm not aware of GPL violations being ever spotted on a console title with encrypted executables.

It's too high profile for someone to steal GPL code in the re-implementation.
Maybe, but I bet the safety provided by the console DRM is tempting for those who might want to do it. At the very least, I wouldn't be surprised if some GPLed components made it in, due to carelessness if nothing else (and they may well be careless, knowing that they won't be caught easily).

Hell, if they did that, the company behind it will be in a LOT of hot water. Using open-source code violates many developer agreements for consoles, be it Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft. It's not that they don't understand the licenses or that "BSD is safe", but they don't want any unthinking developer from possibly compromising the entire system because some library had the AGPL or other "must be fully open" type license. At the very least, there'll be hefty fines for violations.
True, but this is a weird case where a GPLed game is being transmuted into a non-GPLed console game. It's easier not to touch GPLed code when you're writing a game from scratch; it's harder to ensure that you've taken all of the GPLed code out when you're reimplementing the GPLed bits from scratch.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by dlapine · 2010-03-24 04:00 · Score: 5, Informative

From paragraph 0 of the GPL v2, thanks for the link, btw.
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
So the GPL doesn't limit your rights for things outside of copying, distro and mods.
Section 4 then steps in-
"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
GPL code doesn't have additional restrictions on it. Once you accept GPL as the basis for your work, you don't get to distribute the modified work with extra terms. So GPL code doesn't have restrictions on things other than copy, distro, and mods. And since it expressly doesn't restrict you in areas other than those 3, you're free to examine and study it to your heart's content.
So there ya go- have fun studying, examining reduplicating the functionality, style and format of the code in question. Just don't copy the code verbatim, or in such as a fashion as to be considered a direct copy.
A reasonable person could see the GPL as encouraging the re-use of ideas, whether by modifying the original code and redistributing it, or by re-implementing those ideas in new code.

--
The Internet has no garbage collection
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Kjella · 2010-03-24 04:03 · Score: 2, Informative

That it's not an EULA and so I don't even have to accept any terms at all to read the source code, unless there's an exclusive right in copyright law. The only question is whether the work is derivative or not, and if it isn't the GPL can't apply. If it is derivative, the GPL and all its terms does apply but again it's got nothing to do with the GPL per se, just the scope of copyright law. Since they seem to have secured the rights to the name and most of the overall look and feel, that sounds like and uphill battle unless there's evidence of copy-paste.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-24 04:42 · Score: 1

True, however for a game, this can be quite limiting as it restricts consoles from being able to play. Good or bad, consoles do move a lot of games and it's a pretty good way to get your games in stores rather than an obscure website that no one knows about (even if it's Free and free).
I'm quite aware of that, and still choose to use the GPL anyway. Also as I said, the number of end users the application gets isn't something that interests me a whole lot.

Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft developer agreements state that no open-source code is allowed, period. This causes some interesting results like having to relicense BSD code under a proprietary license, and using well-known game engines to ensure that no open-source code is actually involved.
I consider this a very good thing, as it creates a chance for me to make money by relicensing. All the more reason to use the GPL..
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 05:20 · Score: 1, Informative

The word "study" does not appear in either GPL version 3 [gnu.org] or GPL version 2 [gnu.org].

The FSF does define the freedoms that their licenses are intended to protect here. The first freedom is to run the program, and the 2nd is to STUDY it. So if the argument ever turns from specific wording to "intent" of the license, I think this is clearly documented.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by b4dc0d3r · 2010-03-24 06:29 · Score: 1

A clever tactic. Find the documents but don't read them, just search for a single word and when it's not found declare victory.
It's not like you have to wade through piles of links and judge whether the sources are biased. There's one GPL2 license, and there's one GPL3 license, and if you wanted to make sure you had the right one you could go download the source and snag the license directly.
Did you simply not understand it? Or did you read the preamble and decide you'd let someone else read it to you?
For future reference, the correct options in such a situation are:
1) Read and study the document, don't find it, assert that the statement is unsupported, and challenge the person to find evidence to support it.
2) Ask the person to support their statement because you have not taken the time to read it.
You chose option 3: Assume that since CTRL-F didn't work, the person is just making stuff up. It's right there in section 0, you only had to read 165 words. Or if you just read the preamble, These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. That should be enough to suggest that you're not going to find a ban on just reading/studying it.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by quadrox · 2010-03-24 06:30 · Score: 1

Of course, if it's just a feeling of injustice with respect to close-sourcing something open, you should use the GPL. I even share that feeling to some amount, but I reject it for being irrational (and I don't mean to brag about how rational I am because I am not).
It's not like I hate the GPL or anything, I just think BSD licenses or public domain licenses suit my ideals better. But to each his own.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by quadrox · 2010-03-24 06:33 · Score: 1

I don't think we're disagreeing very much with each other, so I'll keep it short. You said:
"why should someone else be able to sell it at a profit and not pass any of that profit on to you?"
To which I reply - why should they not?
(personal profit aside, we all want more money :))
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 07:02 · Score: 0

Actually, dear anti-true-freedom fanatic, the burden of proof is upon the accusers not the defenders, at least if you want to avoid being called fascist or something like that.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by Mathinker · 2010-03-24 07:42 · Score: 1

If the console version becomes widely popular, lots of people will look for the PC version
Why do you assume this?
If a lot a people want to play this game (since they know people playing the console versions, or they hear about it on game sites on the web), then it's certain that not all of them will own consoles (or the "right" consoles). In addition, most people don't carry full-blown consoles around with them when they travel, but they often do carry laptops, and I'm sure at least some of those people who like the game on a console might look for a version they could play "on the road".
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-24 08:15 · Score: 1

Of course, if it's just a feeling of injustice with respect to close-sourcing something open, you should use the GPL. I even share that feeling to some amount, but I reject it for being irrational (and I don't mean to brag about how rational I am because I am not).
Why do you think it is irrational?
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by harlows_monkeys · 2010-03-24 09:58 · Score: 1

Because otherwise, you know, derivative work, and a thousand years bad juju
You don't need a clean room implementation to avoid a derivative work. You merely need to avoid copying protected elements from the first work.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by quadrox · 2010-03-24 18:14 · Score: 1

Well, because I don't lose anything if someone else close-sources my project. My project is still open, other people can still contribute to it - I have lost nothing.
In my view - if people want to contribute something they will, and if they won't they just won't. After all I don't go around feeling bad about any end-users just using my project because as you said before, its value neutral to me. If somebody else incorporates my source in their closed-source project that is exactly the same to me, it's just a different form of end-use*, I have lost nothing.
*I know that strictly speaking the term end-use isn't appropriate in this situation.
Just to clarify, if I have put something out there with the clear intent to get something back, it WOULD be immoral and unjust if they just closed-sourced it - and I would not call it irrational to feel that way. But since I have decided from the beginning that such a thing won't hurt me and made it clear that you can use this in any way you like, it's a different thing.
I'm just tired of needing small bits of code to do obvious task X in relation to a project and then having to worry about all that licensing shit. In the end I end up implementing it myself, because I just don't want to bother with that. And that really ruins the idea of F/OSS for me. Either you share your code or you don't, I just don't want to deal with the licensing mess, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a developer.
I have not released many projects, but I have released some minor stuff, and I always use public domain for it. I don't want other developers having to worry about licensing and credits if it's just a stupid algorithm for a well known problem.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-24 23:57 · Score: 1

Well, because I don't lose anything if someone else close-sources my project. My project is still open, other people can still contribute to it - I have lost nothing.
Ok, then where does the feeling of injustice come from?

In my view - if people want to contribute something they will, and if they won't they just won't.
This doesn't make sense to me. It's like you're claiming that no matter what you do, people will do whatever they want anyway. But things just don't work this way, for legal reasons for instance.

After all I don't go around feeling bad about any end-users just using my project because as you said before, its value neutral to me. If somebody else incorporates my source in their closed-source project that is exactly the same to me, it's just a different form of end-use*, I have lost nothing.
Sure, but you've lost the chance to gain something. Why give for free something to precisely the people who could easily afford to pay, and who almost certainly won't if you don't require it?

I'm just tired of needing small bits of code to do obvious task X in relation to a project and then having to worry about all that licensing shit. In the end I end up implementing it myself, because I just don't want to bother with that. And that really ruins the idea of F/OSS for me. Either you share your code or you don't, I just don't want to deal with the licensing mess, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a developer.
See, we have different ideas about what FOSS is for.
For you it seems it's about your personal convenience -- don't want to bother with licensing. That's fine and understandable, but there's no real reason for me to care about your convenience if I don't get anything in return, no matter how much you don't like it.
But, for me FOSS isn't really about that. It's about the project. The chance of getting money is certainly good, but I'm not in that much need of it. What I really want is to ensure the existence of my project independently of me. I want to start something like the Linux kernel, which has code from dozens or hundreds of contributors, and isn't owned by anybody and can't be closed, sold out or relicensed, and will go on so long people are interested in working on it.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-25 01:16 · Score: 1

To which I reply - why should they not?
This question is irrelevant until "why should someone else be able to sell it at a profit and not pass any of that profit on to you?" is answered.
Why? Because if I hold the copyright to a piece of code you want to use contrary to my license, I'm the one who has what you want and makes the rules. It's entirely up to you to produce a convincing reason why I should let you do what you want. I don't really need to provide any explanations. I don't even need to acknowledge your existence, I could simply ignore you and whatever terms I offered in my license will stand without me needing to defend them in any way.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by sourcerror · 2010-03-25 04:13 · Score: 1

He's got inverse-matrix eyes.
(Cypher: All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead. )
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by quadrox · 2010-03-25 06:02 · Score: 1

Well, it's pretty much the same situation with illegal music downloads. There are *some* people who would never pay for a given piece of music - they just wouldn't. I don't want to specify how many people are like that, but I don't think you would disagree that they do in fact exist.
If such a person downloads the music illegally, he has clearly taken something without giving back. I don't think I'd have to explain where the feeling of injustice comes from. I sort of feel the same way about it.
However, if you look at it from the other perspective... The artist/publisher hasn't lost anything, because that person would not have paid anything regardless. So why should he really care?
And yes, to a certain extent I am claiming that people will do whatever they want (when it comes to legal stuff anyway, which is where the music download analogy has its limit). There are of course limits to this, but I feel it's a good generalization.
That nexuiz console project for example - they would either have taken the code or not - they would never have complied with the GPL or they would have done so from the beginning. So the GPL neither gained the developers anything or cost them anything, the matter is strictly value neutral.
For me FOSS is about sharing code. I give something, somebody else gives something else. Just like in a friendship, I don't want to keep track of who owes who how many favors, you just help each other out as you can. Sure, the balance will never be completely even and some people will abuse that. But in contrast to favors, code is an unlimited resource that doesn't diminish just because somebody helps himself to it.
And I don't see how your project is in jeopardy because it's not GPL'ed. people who care about FOSS will contribute anyway, and those who don't, won't. But your project is no worse off for using a BSD/PD license.
The ONLY problem I can see is a legal one - a closed source project taking your code and accusing you of copyright infringement. While that is indeed an issue, for smaller projects I consider it to be a minimal risk.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by quadrox · 2010-03-25 08:18 · Score: 1

I certainly don't mean to imply that it's not your right to decide. I'm merely questioning the point in making the decision not to allow it. What do you gain by not allowing it, and what do you lose by allowing it? My answer to both questions is "absolutely nothing" - so what's the point?
I don't want you to change your position, it's your business deciding which philosophy you want to follow. I only want to explain my point of view, I hope you understand it better now.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-25 09:21 · Score: 1
I certainly don't mean to imply that it's not your right to decide. I'm merely questioning the point in making the decision not to allow it.
What do you gain by not allowing it,
Potential code contributions, or money.

and what do you lose by allowing it?
Potential code contributions, or money.

My answer to both questions is "absolutely nothing" - so what's the point?
It's not nothing. Example situation: Company/Programmer wants to improve on my code.
1. Programmer will release the source in any case:
  GPL: Programmer uses source, I get improvements.
  BSD: Programmer uses source, I get improvements.
2. Programmer does not want to release the source:
  1. Programmer is willing to pay for relicensing.
    GPL: Programmer uses source, I get paid.
    BSD: Programmer uses source, I get nothing.
  2. Programmer is not willing to pay
    Programmer decides that not being able to use the source sucks, decides to release source after all
    GPL: Programmer uses source, I get improvements.
    BSD: Doesn't happen, so programmer uses source, I get nothing.
    Programmer really doesn't want to pay or release source
    GPL: Programmer can't use source, I get nothing.
    BSD: Programmer uses source, I get nothing.
3. Programmer will only use source internally
  GPL: Programmer uses source, I get nothing, but this may change if the company decides to distribute the program.
  BSD: Programmer uses source, I get nothing, this is most likely a permanent condition.
So, the tally:
Favourable situations with the GPL: 1, 2.1, 2.2.1, half of 3: 3.5 points.
Favourable situations with the BSD: 1: 1 point.
Therefore it wouldn't be very smart of me to go with the BSD.
Yes, the 2.2.2 point is a losing scenario for the GPL as well, but what will happen is not certain until it actually does. It's clearly not the only outcome possible, and going with the BSD removes outcomes 2.1, 2.2.1 and 3.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-25 09:46 · Score: 1

If such a person downloads the music illegally, he has clearly taken something without giving back. I don't think I'd have to explain where the feeling of injustice comes from. I sort of feel the same way about it.
However, if you look at it from the other perspective... The artist/publisher hasn't lost anything, because that person would not have paid anything regardless. So why should he really care?
This is a bad analogy though. With the GPL all of that would be perfectly fine. The only thing that wouldn't be is remixing/sampling the song.

That nexuiz console project for example - they would either have taken the code or not - they would never have complied with the GPL or they would have done so from the beginning. So the GPL neither gained the developers anything or cost them anything, the matter is strictly value neutral.
That's an outcome that couldn't have been known a priori.
I always carry an umbrella with me, so that if it does rain, I don't get wet.
Your argument is akin to "Well, you took the umbrella with you, and it didn't rain, so you shouldn't have taken it". True in that one case, but if you make a general rule out of that you'll always get wet when it rains.

For me FOSS is about sharing code. I give something, somebody else gives something else. Just like in a friendship, I don't want to keep track of who owes who how many favors, you just help each other out as you can. Sure, the balance will never be completely even and some people will abuse that. But in contrast to favors, code is an unlimited resource that doesn't diminish just because somebody helps himself to it.
For me, friendship is about reciprocity. A one sided relationship is doomed to fail, and involves one side exploiting the other. One sided relationships should be terminated when it becomes clear they're not favorable, and shouldn't be entered in the first place when possible. It's not about keeping accounting to the nearest cent, but both parties have to benefit, or there's something wrong.

And I don't see how your project is in jeopardy because it's not GPL'ed. people who care about FOSS will contribute anyway, and those who don't, won't. But your project is no worse off for using a BSD/PD license.
Please see my other post on this.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by quadrox · 2010-03-25 17:49 · Score: 1

I knew it was a bad analogy with respect to the legal issues, I even commented on it myself later on :)
About the friendship part: I don't disagree with anything you are saying, my point is simply that you don't keep a ledger where you enter each favor and before you help out your friend you check whether he has been doing you enough favors first. If you've become friends in the first place, odds are that you already have established that the relationship is going to be reciprocal, but as you said yourself, it's not about accounting to the nearest cent.
That is my view on FOSS as well. There is no point in trying to make sure that the person who uses your code is going to contribute back exactly the fair amount. In the FOSS community we should all be friends, I give something, you give something, and somebody else gives something else. As I stated earlier, If I create something useful to you and vice versa, we have both become richer for it - regardless of whether your contribution is on the exact same project I am working on. And this also works in chains where e.g. A helps B, B helps C, C helps A.
Just like friendships, the FOSS community depends on the whole thing to be reciprocal - not on a project to project basis, but on a sort of overall contributions basis. However, in contrast to a friendship, it doesn't hurt to give some outsider access to the code as well - he wasn't a part of the friendship in the first place and quite likely never intended to be. In a friendship that would leave you with a loss, in the FOSS community it doesn't (because you still have your code).
Now to your listing in the other post, very nicely done.
I contend that cases 1 and 2.2.2 are by far the most common cases - there are exceptions, but in my view they are so rare that it doesn't help to worry about them. Furthermore - you left out a very important case:
1.2 - The potential contributor (code/money/whatever) is scared of the GPL and doesn't even bother to check for other options. He might have been willing to contribute (parts of) his code back or pay money, but he is afraid of the viral GPL license. I have personally seen this happening at my workplace and also on other projects which I know about through my workplace. I try my best to explain it (because I do care about FOSS), but it doesn't always help.
In my view, case 1.2 far outweighs any of the cases that are not 1.1 (your original 1) or 2.2.2.
Re:CLEAN ROOM re-implemented? by vadim_t · 2010-03-26 02:10 · Score: 1

That is my view on FOSS as well. There is no point in trying to make sure that the person who uses your code is going to contribute back exactly the fair amount. In the FOSS community we should all be friends, I give something, you give something, and somebody else gives something else. As I stated earlier, If I create something useful to you and vice versa, we have both become richer for it - regardless of whether your contribution is on the exact same project I am working on. And this also works in chains where e.g. A helps B, B helps C, C helps A.
Well, I've got a different outlook here. For me friendship is a 1 to 1 thing, not 1 to group. So like you said earlier, "you already have established that the relationship is going to be reciprocal", and the GPL is my way to perform this.
Also IMO friendship isn't something you try, it's something that is, meaning it's just a label you can start applying once the whole reciprocity thing happens.

I contend that cases 1 and 2.2.2 are by far the most common cases - there are exceptions, but in my view they are so rare that it doesn't help to worry about them. Furthermore - you left out a very important case:
I disagree somewhat, IMO 1 is difficult, and happens very rarely under the BSD, and the most common results are 2.2.2 for both GPL and BSD.
Why? Because contributing takes effort. You can't just tar the source tree up, drop it in the project's -dev mail list and be done with that. I've only heard of that working once. Generally the bigger the project you contribute to, the stricter are the requirements for acceptance. Things rarely get into the kernel on the first try.
If you're in a company you have two main problems:
1. You don't own the code you write, your employer does. You can't release it neither under the BSD or the GPL without prior authorization. So if you want to release anything, you have to convince your employer why.
With the GPL arguments in favor of it are "we have to" (license mandates it), "it's more convenient that way" (maintenance) and "we intended to in the first place" (intentional contribution to the project). A legal obligation is a legal obligation and easy to understand. Hopefully agreed to before work started, though. Problems include the whole "virality" thing.
With the BSD arguments in favor lose the "we have to" part. Problems include your competitors getting all your improvements for free, building upon them, and not returning the favor. So if you release something that's almost perfect doing 95% of the work, somebody else polishes up the remaining 5% and makes a lot of money, that's kind of annoying.
2. You don't decide how to use your time, your employer does. You can't spend a few days polishing the code for contribution without authorization. Again you need to convince your employer. Reasons work out pretty much the same as in the previous case.
This is of course optional in both cases, but you'll need to do it if you really want to contribute, as opposed to satisfying the GPL obligation.
From my own work experience I find that even if releasing changes is possible it often won't happen unless required by the license. You need to have the talk with the boss, the boss has to talk with their boss, time has to be spent on cleanup and packaging and so on. This easily takes days, and usually there's plenty other things to do and a deadline is looming. And for many companies the maintenance argument isn't persuasive because they're doing a one time thing. Once done it's done, and any changes are only made to the shipped version.

1.2 - The potential contributor (code/money/whatever) is scared of the GPL and doesn't even bother to check for other options. He might have been willing to contribute (parts of) his code back or pay money, but he is afraid of the viral GPL license. I have personally seen this happening at my workplace and also on other projects which I know about throu

Sad by s1lverl0rd · 2010-03-23 23:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Money that could have been used to do proper marketing, QA, etc for the game is now wasted on reimplementing it from scratch.

Sad panda :(

Re:Sad by pydev · 2010-03-23 23:28 · Score: 2

What's sad about it? If platform licensing models like Xbox, PS/3, and iPhone were to catch on, you could kiss open source development good-bye. And there is a big risk that the consumer market will drive us into that direction. We need to fight that any way we can.
And if the GPL makes it more costly to do marketing and QA of software for those platforms, I think that's great. That is exactly what the GPL is intended to accomplish.
Re:Sad by TheKidWho · 2010-03-23 23:46 · Score: 1

If platform licensing models like Xbox, PS/3, and iPhone were to catch on
I've got some bad news for you, they have caught on and are more popular then open source models.
Re:Sad by KDR_11k · 2010-03-23 23:52 · Score: 1

They could have just kept the codebase open... If the console companies didn't demand closed source. I think the blame lies with them, not the people who expect the GPL to be followed.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Sad by pydev · 2010-03-23 23:56 · Score: 1

I've got some bad news for you, they have caught on
We can still get fully programmable standard PCs without gatekeepers. One of the reasons for that is because a lot of software can't run on those other platforms. And the GPL helps keep that so.
and are more popular then open source models.
If you believe that, you're a bit out of touch with reality.
Re:Sad by ildon · 2010-03-24 00:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

and are more popular then open source models.
If you believe that, you're a bit out of touch with reality
You've got to be kidding me. Console games almost completely crush PC games in market share these days, with the only thing keeping PC games afloat being The Sims and WoW. And that's before you include the iPhone as a "console".
See: http://www.theesa.com/newsroom/release_detail.asp?releaseID=44
Re:Sad by dougisfunny · 2010-03-24 00:37 · Score: 1

I believe he was referring to software, not just game software.

--
This is not the funny you're looking for.
Re:Sad by TheKidWho · 2010-03-24 01:06 · Score: 1

There are actually quite a few popular PC games besides the Sims and WoW. Most of them are sold via digital distribution however.
I predict Starcraft II will see a large resurgence in PC gaming, mainly because the game is awesome (In Beta!)
Re:Sad by ildon · 2010-03-24 02:56 · Score: 1

Look at the numbers for 2008. 700 million vs. 22 billion. We're talking orders of magnitude. Even if you say that that ignores online casual gaming and digital downloads, and free games, there's simply no way the numbers could possibly catch up. And there's no metric by which you can convert these numbers from "income earned" to "number of users" that does not still have consoles completely crushing PC games (and the majority of those methods are not easily quantifiable the way revenue is).
And let's not ignore the fact that the original quote was "open source models". If you actually go into open source games you're looking at something like 0.001% of users (to be generous).
Re:Sad by TheSunborn · 2010-03-24 04:08 · Score: 1

There must be something wrong the those sales stats. I simply don't belive the 29.1 million units number of pc games. I mean the sims alone should have beaten that with >100 millions sales worldwide.
Re:Sad by Beelzebud · 2010-03-24 04:10 · Score: 1

Yeah the horror! If you want to make a game, for profit, you have to code it yourself! Sad indeed.
Re:Sad by TheKidWho · 2010-03-24 04:27 · Score: 1

I don't know to be honest, but 95% of the PC games I've purchased in the past 3 years have been via steam or some other digital distribution source.
Re:Sad by ildon · 2010-03-24 05:41 · Score: 1

The "100 million sales" Sims data is over the course of like 9 years.
Re:Sad by pydev · 2010-03-24 07:11 · Score: 1

Console games almost completely crush PC games in market share these days,
You're absolutely right that for games, consoles with their restrictive licensing models are widely used. My point is that that isn't the case for desktop computing yet and we need to keep it that way. The GPL is one way of doing that.
Re:Sad by pydev · 2010-03-24 07:19 · Score: 1

How hard will it be for them to stop it running of they havent signed the digital cert?
Technically? Easy. Legally and from a business point of view? Nearly impossible. They'd lose a huge amount of software for their platform, among other things because such software licensing is incompatible with the GPL.

Then why take the name? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-23 23:11 · Score: 0

'Twasnt even a very good name anyhow.

Re:Then why take the name? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-23 23:33 · Score: 0

'Twasnt even a very good game anyhow.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Then why take the name? by Raumkraut · 2010-03-24 00:39 · Score: 1

Agreed. At least with Xonotic most people have a chance of being able to pronounce it correctly.
"Nexeeus" my arse.

Re:GPL freaks by KDR_11k · 2010-03-23 23:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

To be fair those freaks were the contributors who wrote the code under the expectation that the codebase will remain free throughout all revisions. When I intend for my work to be used in ANY project, including closed source ones I mark it PD, not GPL.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

who cares by jlebrech · 2010-03-23 23:25 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Warsow is much better!

Re:who cares by apharmdq · 2010-03-24 06:23 · Score: 1

I prefer Warsow as well, bit I see it as potentially having a similar problem to Nexuiz. The ownership of the game name is under the control of one person, and while the code for the game is open source, the media is under a more restrictive license. (The reason for this license is that some media contributors were unwilling to have their work under a share-alike license, so the dev team was forced to adopt the current license to appease them.)
This means that should the owner decide to sell off the game like Nexuiz's owner did, the Warsow community may have a similar problem. It may be even MORE challenging, since any fork of the game would require completely new media, as only the code could be forked. Fortunately, the owner of the Warsow name is actively involved in its development, and seems to be a pretty decent guy in general, so it's unlikely this situation would come to pass. Still, there is that potential danger, which does make some of the community a bit nervous over the state of the game . . .
For that project, I'd recommend they change the media license and remove those parts of the media that certain developers are unwilling to allow under a share-alike license, perhaps putting it in a separate "restrictive" download pack. Not only would this remove the risk of going the route of Nexuiz, but it would appease both the share-alike community and the devs that want a restrictive license.

the problem are Xbox and Sony by pydev · 2010-03-23 23:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

The only reason the GPL version of Nexuiz can't be used on Xbox and Sony is because those platforms have draconian licensing requirements.

The fact that the GPL makes it impossible to deliver the code on those platforms means it is working as intended. As an open source developer, I have no interest in supporting those platforms; if those kinds of platforms catch on, all software development is in deep trouble.

Re:the problem are Xbox and Sony by pydev · 2010-03-23 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've got some bad news for you...
General purpose, programmable machines without gatekeepers are still the primary way people compute at home and at work. We need to keep it that way.
Re:the problem are Xbox and Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 02:50 · Score: 0

Still, platforms like the Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and iPhone have already "caught on."
Re:the problem are Xbox and Sony by cptnapalm · 2010-03-24 03:29 · Score: 1

How the hell did this get marked troll? This is true and anybody who actually *likes* computers has a vested interest in keeping it this way.
Re:the problem are Xbox and Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 03:29 · Score: 0

Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and iPhone are just limited toys, (well the iPhone is also a limited mobile phone). You get a bit of *expensive* disposable entertainment but little of value.
Re:the problem are Xbox and Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 06:59 · Score: 0

You're apparently having a bit of a problem with linguistic context: although lots of people are using them, they are secondary machines, so they haven't "caught on" as primary computing platforms, which is the context we're talking about here.
Re:the problem are Xbox and Sony by LanMan04 · 2010-03-24 07:54 · Score: 1

if those kinds of platforms catch on, all software development is in deep trouble.
Yeah, I heard that video game thing might not be a flash in the pan after all...
Just kidding. Point well taken. :)

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.

"To The Community for the Benefit of Everyone" by RobotRunAmok · 2010-03-23 23:30 · Score: 1

I've no doubt that will work out just fine. It always does.

Re:GPL freaks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-23 23:50 · Score: 1, Informative

uhm, not. they wouldn't even contribute in the first place if it was not a gpl source base, and the game would not probably exists in the form it is right now.
they choose gpl, they gather the contribution under the premises of making it better fir everyone in the community, then try to change the licence and keep the proceedings for themselves going after xbla and ps3n - it was obvious that contributors who originally put their effort in the "community" are now pissed at them bagging their work up and changing the licence so that any other couldn't benefit anymore from the advancement in the source code.

Re:GPL freaks by plasticsquirrel · 2010-03-23 23:53 · Score: 0, Troll

The Free Software Foundation basically started the community and created the GPL for it. In fact, in many cases, using the term "Free Software" is implying that someone sides with the FSF and GPL over other open source licenses. The GPL takes a hard-line stance against other licenses that would allow the code to be swallowed up and packaged into proprietary software. This is the natural policy for developers who want the code to always remain open.

--
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems

Code Changes... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-23 23:55 · Score: 0

So how does this affect pieces of code that is perfectly optimized the way they are? Let's say you have a function/method that does something really well (like calculating a score), what can you really change except the function/method name and variable names? Some methods can be so small that they only contain two or three lines of code (looking at some of my own projects) so to "rewrite" it you will actually have to build in some inefficiencies... which is not cool... But perhaps them closing up is less cool...

Re:GPL freaks by Animaether · 2010-03-24 00:03 · Score: 1

under the expectation that the codebase will remain free throughout all revisions.

'the codebase'? I don't know why you would have that expectation.

You can have that expectation with regard to your own contributed code if you contributed that under the GPL license.

But if - and I'm not saying that's what THIS company did, but none of the sources seem to be particularly unbiased in this - a company decides that they want to make a version of the product under a different license which is incompatible with the GPL, decide to write to all of the developers asking if -their- code may be re-licensed, and let's say 80% agree to this leaving the company with having to re-write (see some earlier comment about 'clean room' and another about viral natures and whatnots) the works contributed by the other 20%... then I don't think that 20% can cry foul in any way.

Maybe that's something that will be addressed in a future version of the GPL, though ;)

Re:GPL freaks by selven · 2010-03-24 00:11 · Score: 4, Informative

using the term "Free Software" is implying that someone sides with the FSF and GPL over other open source licenses.

No, the term "free software" implies the four freedoms, nothing more, nothing less. There's lots of pubic domain and BSD-ware which is called free software (eg. Chromium, Postgres, BSD itself). If you're trying to draw a line between free software and open source, the line has already been drawn.

Re:GPL == Viral Clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 00:28 · Score: 0

Rapidly losing? Got a citation for that? I deal with more GPL software than ever before.

Not Unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 00:38 · Score: 0

This is a very unfortunate outcome...

For you it is, for those developers it's simply what's right.

Who cares? by Rik+Sweeney · 2010-03-24 00:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's just going to be another uninspired, derivative, run-of-the-mill arena shooter you played to death 10 years ago.

--
Summation 2

Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 02:07 · Score: 0

Yeah, I have to agree. I enjoy playing Nexuiz, but I sure as f*ck wouldn't pay for it.
Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 03:07 · Score: 0

Yes, it would be much more original if it were a side scrolling platformer with blobs fighting wars in it (like we played to death 20-25 years ago).
It doesn't even have achievements!
I love your games too, BTW. ;)

Dual License? by s0n0fagun · 2010-03-24 00:55 · Score: 1

I do not see the problem in offering dual licensing. It would solve this debate and all this discussion once and for all.

Why keep the name? by mangobrain · 2010-03-24 01:08 · Score: 1

If it already has replacement art and audio, and now it appears will have replacement code as well, at what point does it stop being the same game? Nexuiz may be popular by FOSS game standards, but realistically I don't think it's popular enough that the branding will give the console releases any significant head start. If anything, now that their original dual-licensing plans have been foiled (regardless of whether that is for better or worse), IMHO they would be better off distancing themselves from the original and the surrounding controversy.

Give the domain back, come up with a new name, move on, end of story.

Re:Why keep the name? by Jason+Quinn · 2010-03-24 02:02 · Score: 1

This is the classic Ship of Theseus problem applied to source code. What I still don't understand is how it can be verified that the code has been "re-implemented" by scratch if it is closed source. My guess is that's a very liberal interpretation of "by scratch".

RTFA by mangobrain · 2010-03-24 01:12 · Score: 1

Essentially, they tried that and it didn't work. Hale doesn't have copyright on all the code in current GPL Nexuiz, and wasn't able to obtain it from all contributors. IANAL, but as I understand it the rule of thumb is that you can't re-license something if you aren't the copyright holder.

Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 03:45 · Score: 0

I thought there was a clause in the GPL detailing the difference between a contributor and the original author of a GPL product. The original author ultimately decides how to license the creating. From what I read, Dark Places tried to change the licensing agreement and exclude the source code changes made for consoles.
Re:RTFA by mangobrain · 2010-03-24 07:31 · Score: 1

In version 3, sort of, but it's to do with people contributing code based on patents owned by them. Basically, if I own a software patent and contribute some code falling under the patent to a GPLed program, I grant the licensees of that program "a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version".
The only mention of relicensing is that if you start off with something licensed under "GPL plus other restrictions", but which permits relicensing (vanilla GPL 3 does not, AFAICT), and then create a derivative work by adding material from some other GPL 3 work, the end result must not include the first work's additional restrictions in its license (since that would constitute relicensing material from the second work, which may not be permitted).
Nexuiz appears to be licensed under GPL 2, not 3, which contains none of the wording I'm referring to above.
It's not unheard of for projects to require that contributors assign copyright to some central entity as a pre-condition for contributing. Alientrap are probably wishing they had done this (it would have to have been there from day one).

Re:GPL freaks by Andy+Dodd · 2010-03-24 01:16 · Score: 1

That's the thing - the original troll poster is calling that 20% "GPL freaks ruining everything".

Let's face it - this is about the only way it could have worked out. It's not like Mesa where the contributors agreed to a relicensing because it was from GPL to another open-source license - it was an attempt to take a GPL work closed, and if I were one of those contributors, I would have been in that 20%.

It is too bad that the licensing for console SDKs prevents them from ever being used for a console port of a GPL game, even if the porter is a full-blown console licensee.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

"Slow-paced bullet-oriented shooters" by Andy+Dodd · 2010-03-24 01:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Interesting comment LordHavoc makes about the state of console gaming.

Honestly, attempting to bring a fast-paced shooter like Nexuiz to a console is going to fail and fail miserably - there is a reason "slow-paced" shooters are more popular on consoles - fast-paced shooters require a fast and precise control mechanism (mouse + keyboard), console control mechanisms are neither of these. (Which is why I don't play console-based shooters.)

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

Maybe Linus sould get critiziced for "making anoth by Tei · 2010-03-24 01:24 · Score: 1

I mostly agre... Is true, this type of gameplay was popular 10 years ago.
Nowdays? no soo much.. and on the console is almost nowhere to be seen.

People is free to make whatever want, and this type of comunities want Quake3-like games, so thats what you get. If you don't like that, get a compiler and make a fork.

--

-Woof woof woof!

Re:GPL freaks by MMC+Monster · 2010-03-24 01:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

If 20 % of the code could not be relicensed, then that 20 percent has to be re-written from scratch in a clean-room style.

Anything else, and the contributors of that 20% should cry foul.

Remember, if there's one line of proprietary code in the linux kernel, Microsoft can cry foul. Why not expect the same for people in the closed source world?

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.

Digital Downloads and things by Tei · 2010-03-24 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

The PC market is much bigger. The problem here is that is moving to digital, where is invisible to the usual metric systems. Also is "multishape", games like FarmVille get 80 millions. How much million play most console games? on the PC, you have to count webgames, flashgames, casual games, indie games, open source games... not everything shows on a phisic shop, since most are online transactions.

--

-Woof woof woof!

Not really by mand1nga · 2010-03-24 01:33 · Score: 3, Informative

He can't really say that the original plan was to contact every developer, the deal was made in complete and absolute secret. Not a single developer knew about the Nexuiz deal, not a single notification was sent, most of us knew about it when we saw the the homepage was changed, only providing a small link to "Nexuiz GPL" at the bottom.

In my opinion there is no way to consider that this deal was morally right, there was people who were contributing code on a daily basis for *years*, the least you will expect is to get some sort of notification if someone is about to make money out of your hard work. In other words what they done is just stealing.

And of course they must rewrite the whole Nexuiz codebase now, that's the only way for them to prevent getting sued. Not to mention that after the deal was made public there was no dialog *at all* between Lee Vermeulen (the owner of Nexuiz) and the developers, there was no attempt at all to fix what they done (again, stealing), mostly because you actually need to talk in order to fix things.

That was the very reason because the Xonotic project was born, we as developers just can't trust Alientrap (which is only Lee Vermeulen) anymore.

It's sad that LH now makes it look like thanks to the unreasonable (ex)developers of Nexuiz now there will be no improvements flowing back to GPL Nexuiz. I don't know you but I'm getting used to his bursts of insulting statements.

Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 03:35 · Score: 0

In my opinion there is no way to consider that this deal was morally right, there was people who were contributing code on a daily basis for *years*, the least you will expect is to get some sort of notification if someone is about to make money out of your hard work. In other words what they done is just stealing.
Wasn't there a lot of drama about a year ago, over Nexuiz losing its only real developer/ contributor (code) due to an obnoxious and demanding community?

Re:GPL freaks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 01:37 · Score: 0

Let's face it - this is about the only way it could have worked out. It's not like Mesa where the contributors agreed to a relicensing because it was from GPL to another open-source license - it was an attempt to take a GPL work closed, and if I were one of those contributors, I would have been in that 20%.

Hi. Different AC here. I think you are probably right about this being the only way it could have worked out since there were inevitably going to be some contributors who would not relicense their code. From the quotes in the interview it sounds like these were the contributors who started making a stink about GPL violations even though it isn't clear if there had been any such violations yet.

It appears that Hale was intending to contribute some of the changes/improvements from the console version back to the community in the event of a successful relicensing. However since the relicense attempt didn't work out it looks like any improvements that result from the necessary rewrite of code that can't be carried forward will not be contributed back to the GPL version.

While the original contributors who were unwilling to relicense their GPL contributions were well within their rights, making a stink about violations merely as a result of being asked about relicensing does sort of come across as skulking about whilst croaking "My precioussss!!! Filthy, tricksy Hale-Bagginses tried to steal my precious."

Re:GPL freaks by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-03-24 02:00 · Score: 1

Remember, if there's one line of proprietary code in the linux kernel, Microsoft can cry foul.

The Linux kernel does contain proprietary code in it in the form of firmware blobs. And Microsoft couldn't say shit unless it could be proven to be their own code and they didn't allow redistribution and use of said code.

"all" they share is the name... by Edam · 2010-03-24 02:07 · Score: 1

To make this perfectly clear – the game is being reimplemented from scratch; all they share is a name

Isn't this one of the main bones of contention though? The www.nexuiz.com URL no longer takes you to the GPL project it used to, it displays a page about Illfonic's new console game and there's a tiny link in the corner of the page that takes you to the original project page!

Couldn't they have used a different name for what is, essentially, a different game?

--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." -Pravin Lal

Re:"all" they share is the name... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2010-03-24 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

To make this perfectly clear – the game is being reimplemented from scratch; all they share is a name
Isn't this one of the main bones of contention though? The www.nexuiz.com URL no longer takes you to the GPL project it used to, it displays a page about Illfonic's new console game and there's a tiny link in the corner of the page that takes you to the original project page!
Couldn't they have used a different name for what is, essentially, a different game?
Sure, but why? The nexuiz name has brand recognition and so they can use that to help make the console game standout amongst other, similar games.
Which brings up an interesting point on the GPL - while the code is free the name may not be; resulting in an a FOSS project creating a valuable brand that then can be taken private. A rather novel way to get startup funding; I wonder when someone will want to extend the GPL to include the project name and any associated marks?

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:"all" they share is the name... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 03:06 · Score: 0

How dare you say that, this "tiny" link on nexuiz.com, as you called it, is the way to show support and respect that illfonic is giving to open source game.
Re:"all" they share is the name... by Beelzebud · 2010-03-24 04:09 · Score: 1

Do you honestly think Nexuiz has 'brand recognition'?

This style of game doesn't sell well on the consoles at all. Unreal Tournament has real brand recognition, and it was an utter failure on the consoles. People have moved on from run-and-gun deathmatch.
Re:"all" they share is the name... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:42 · Score: 0

Ideally, the project name should still be trademarked, which would make any protection granted by the GPL superfluous. Probably for the best, as protecting project names via Trademark and/or Licenses would place a bit of a burden on a person/company when attempting to determine if a given name is available or used/protected.
Re:"all" they share is the name... by Andy+Dodd · 2010-03-24 06:11 · Score: 1

It has brand recognition within the open source community. It isn't going to have heavy brand recognition within the general console community.
As far a how much brand recognition means vs. codebase - look at Ethereal/Wireshark. The trademark for Ethereal didn't follow the lead developer, so the "main" branch became Wireshark. I'm not sure what, if anything, the owner of the Ethereal trademark wanted it for, but they either haven't bothered to actually do anything with it, or utterly failed, because Ethereal's reputation was more closely tied to its codebase, and so pretty much everyone moved to Wireshark as soon as they found out that the lead developer of Ethereal had renamed his branch to Wireshark.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

Shocking!!! Shocking!!! by tjwhaynes · 2010-03-24 02:32 · Score: 1

I am deeply disturbed by this turn of events. For years I have relied on TimeDoctor.org to provide a couple of laughs a year and NOW ... DAMMIT ... they have DARED to have actual meaningful content on the website. I shall NOT be returning!

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

--
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.

Re:Shocking!!! Shocking!!! by Time+Doctor · 2010-03-24 07:17 · Score: 1

I am deeply disturbed that you got two laughs/year out of timedoctor.org

--
Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!

Re:GPL freaks by azmodean+1 · 2010-03-24 03:40 · Score: 1

Let's face it - this is about the only way it could have worked out. It's not like Mesa where the contributors agreed to a relicensing because it was from GPL to another open-source license - it was an attempt to take a GPL work closed, and if I were one of those contributors, I would have been in that 20%.

It appears that Hale was intending to contribute some of the changes/improvements from the console version back to the community in the event of a successful relicensing. However since the relicense attempt didn't work out it looks like any improvements that result from the necessary rewrite of code that can't be carried forward will not be contributed back to the GPL version.

While the original contributors who were unwilling to relicense their GPL contributions were well within their rights, making a stink about violations merely as a result of being asked about relicensing does sort of come across as skulking about whilst croaking "My precioussss!!! Filthy, tricksy Hale-Bagginses tried to steal my precious."

So Hale *says* they are going to contribute back *some* of their changes to the community in an effort to get the developers to play ball and give away the rights to their code. Does this really sound like a good deal to you? That's the whole point of the GPL, you get to use the GPL'ed work in exchange for not locking your contributions to it down when you distribute them. Why would someone give up the legal protections on their work in exchange for a vague promise that an unspecified amount of changes would be contributed back to the community?

The company has NO incentive at that point to actually DO what they've promised, so it is very likely that as soon as it got inconvenient/expensive to keep contributing, they would just stop or strongly curtail their contributions. I'm not saying that they would be wrong to do this mind you, what I am saying is that companies are in general NOT altruistic, so it's generally going to be a bad idea to make any kind of deal with them that does not involve external coercion of some kind (in this case the threat of a GPL violation lawsuit).

One thing this made me think of, in a way advanced DVCSs (git, darcs, generally I'm thinking of patch-oriented version control systems) are two-edged, because they DO allow a much greater ability to pull code back out of the project if you were to have the rights to most, but not all of the codebase. Also they tend to track attribution of patches more accurately than say svn. Wonder how hard it would be to craft a, "remove every patch attributed to author x" command in git...

I say two-edged, because this kind of thing would also be useful in forking a project with mixed licensing in an attempt to make it "freer" (whatever that means from the perspective of the forkers) or to try to work around pantent-encumbered code.

Absolutely - but they shouldn't cry foul if... by Animaether · 2010-03-24 03:50 · Score: 1

Absolutely - but they shouldn't cry foul if indeed the code from those 20% -was- re-implemented in a proper manner.

Basically, if I contribute to a GPL project and then later on somebody manages to convince the other developers to allow them to re-license the code, then I shouldn't throw a hissy fit going "If I knew you guys were going to allow it to be re-licensed, away from the GPL philosophy, I would NEVER have contributed my code!"

I could, and some developers *might*.. but, again, there's no real -expectancy- that just because the project is GPL today it will forevermore be GPL.

So to be clear: by Luke+has+no+name · 2010-03-24 04:05 · Score: 1

Nexuiz as it exists (GPL cross platform FPS, v 2.5.2) will continue to be developed by the community.

The 'new' Nexuiz is a closed source, re-implemented version of GNexuiz that only shares the name and the 'style' of the original.

Correct?

Re:So to be clear: by butalearner · 2010-03-24 05:18 · Score: 1

Nexuiz as it exists (GPL cross platform FPS, v 2.5.2) will continue to be developed by the community.
The 'new' Nexuiz is a closed source, re-implemented version of GNexuiz that only shares the name and the 'style' of the original.
Correct?
For the most part. Most of the Nexuiz developers have left, forked the code and started Xonotic, as the previous Slashdot article (linked in the summary) says. With the core developers gone it is likely that GPL Nexuiz will fade away.

Re:GPL == Viral Clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:20 · Score: 0

Forget the license, what about the game? Why would anyone want to pick Nexuiz? It's the most unoptimised and uninspired FPS out there. I have a PC that is capable of running Bioshock 2 at maximum settings, so why does Nexuiz crawl (and still look like ass) when I turn up even half of the detail options? Gameplay? Nope, it's just another cookie cutter, endless kill spree game with no distinguishing features. Creativity? Nope, looks like a generic FPS from about 10 years ago.

I honestly don't know why anyone would choose Nexuiz over far superior games like Warsow and World of Padman.

There are other options by Requiem18th · 2010-03-24 04:27 · Score: 1

Rather than relicensing to proprietary or BSD, an exception can be made to the GPL allowing the game to be compiled with a closed SDK, lots of GPL'd code have exceptions for such cases.

--
But... the future refused to change.

Re:GPL freaks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 04:33 · Score: 0

I like pubic domain stuff too. Especially hot teen pubic domain.

Love the Anti-GPL rhetoric by Requiem18th · 2010-03-24 04:46 · Score: 1

I wanted to contribute back but the license requires me to! Would you please allow me to not give anything back so I can start to generously contribute back?

*sigh*...happens every time someone complains about the GPL...

--
But... the future refused to change.

Re:GPL freaks by Kjella · 2010-03-24 04:50 · Score: 1

Pardon me, but I just have to laugh at this gem that manages to claim that "free software" is so much clearer than "open source software"

However, the obvious meaning for the expression open source softwareand the one most people seem to think it meansis You can look at the source code.

The term free software has two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea of free speech, not free beer will not get it wrong again.

I just have to ask, why? Free speech is a permission to express yourself, like how the is the GPL different? Can't you express yourself under any open source license? And most speech isn't very copyleft-free, under the Berne convention everything copyrightable is copyrighted unless specifically released. About the only good thing it does is say that it doesn't mean free as in beer - an expression I doubt is very popular among English-speaking in muslim countries - but not much anything else. Try saying to random semi-technical people "Imagine what you think of if I say free software, free as in speech not free as in beer". I think you'd get very strange answers that has very little to do with the four freedoms. I think OSS is much simpler to explain as it is essentially public code everyone can use for any purpose. I've not yet met anyone that has used more than 30 seconds to understand the concept, "free software" on the other hand...

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Wait, let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 06:35 · Score: 0

People would *pay* for a version of the game that is inferior to the free one? Of course I'm referring to the fact that anyone can create mods/maps for the PC version of the game and there are hundreds of maps floating around. Can you do that on the console version?

Read Bullshit by HermMunster · 2010-03-24 06:40 · Score: 1

If they are cloning the game from scratch fine. Wish they could come up with their own ideas and game designs.

But I read bullshit in this. There's no need to share the name if the product is completely different. What's the point? NO matter how you look at it there is no real major points. Change the name already and move on with their new venture.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Why is this necessary? What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 06:59 · Score: 0

Couldn't the Nexuiz developers just sell the game while it is GPL on the consoles? They could include the source code on the disk too. The buyer wouldn't be able to modify the game code and run it on the console, but that's not the developer's fault. That is the fault of the sheep consumer who buys defective hardware (game consoles) that they do not have any control over. This is just another example of "Tivoization".

Re:Why is this necessary? What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 12:33 · Score: 0

Not when Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo (don't forget them) have anti-copyleft stances. There's no chance a GPL game can ever happen.
Its unfortunate the Nexuiz community have to be zealous rebellious Stallmanian babies with a thumb in their bum not realizing the positive benefits the console version would have brought them, all in the name of 'capitalism'. But eh, I think it'll be better off from scratch without all the retarded jetpacks, catgirls and hook racing that killed the game years ago. The Xonotic community can go shove it, they're the ones that spun all this up with their GPL crusading lies.

get your quotes straight! by pydev · 2010-03-24 07:14 · Score: 1

And let's not ignore the fact that the original quote was "open source models"

The "original quote" talked about software in general, not just games.

And you can be certain that open source software has made a big contribution to keeping desktop machines general purpose and programmable.

(If your interpretation of a statement contradicts the facts, you should realize that often the problem is with your interpretation, not with the original statement.)

No, problem is on SDK side by Mathinker · 2010-03-24 07:46 · Score: 1

No, you didn't understand. The problem isn't on the GPL side, here. It's on the console SDK side (which is why the poster to whom you replied explained that even BSD licensed code is a no-no).

Re:GPL freaks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-24 09:20 · Score: 0

Well you know... Its not like FSF has a divine right to decide what is and what isn't free software, because the word probably was around before the FSF(software being completely free was a common practice in many research labs of the 50's & 60's), so their definition is just that and nothing more.

I for one consider the GPL the less free of all free software licenses, the viral clause in derivative works, and the lack of a clean definition of derivative, does not appeals to me.
And I'm beginning to get tired of FSF really, yes I don't agree with people violating free software licenses but not everyone has to share your definition of freedom and your definition of everything else, you're becoming like evangelic Christians trying to convert me everyday because they think they have some absolute truth.

Re:GPL freaks by misiu_mp · 2010-03-24 09:51 · Score: 1

So they should give all their rights up in return for a promise? How about you sign a job contract binding you to work 80 hours a week for 5$ an hour in return for a promise of really big bonuses. Promises dont count. Contracts and licenses do. Besides, llfonic's representative clearly stated they had no plans to contribute anything back.

This game is a joke anyway. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-26 18:12 · Score: 0

Gee, so let's get this straight, the accusations were baseless, yet they had to go and redo everything from scratch? That's just complete publisher speak-BS. Either way, this project will completely fail. The darkplaces engine is an overrated, bloated pile of crap. What makes anyone think that a subpar fps game will succeed on a platform that is inherently not good for this kind of fps game?

Slashdot Mirror

DarkPlaces Dev Forest Hale Corrects Nexuiz GPL Stance

131 comments