Slashdot Mirror


Urban Terror Code Stolen

New submitter herbalt writes "The code of the free FPS game Urban Terror (a standalone game based on a Quake 3 mod), has been stolen. The development team, Frozen Sand, at first stated their Git Repository had been hacked, but later issued an announcement stating the perpetrator of the leak was a member of the development team. Frozen Sand also states they have found chat logs indicating there had been 'a plot to get B1naryTh1ef to steal the code so they could sell Urban Terror under a different name on Steam.'"

264 comments

  1. Well what do you know.... by metrix007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had thought it was open source all this time. Huh.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    1. Re:Well what do you know.... by RobertLTux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the CODE for the game could be open source but the ASSETS could not be. Plus its very skanky to jack somebodies code and then sell (for profit) the same game and not credit the original authors.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    2. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      even weirder is that B1naryTh1ef would be stealing the source code.

    3. Re:Well what do you know.... by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a good reason to change the assets to something they can ship under a free software license.

    4. Re:Well what do you know.... by schneidafunk · · Score: 1, Funny

      Agreed. That's the real kicker, the "hacker's" note that he left behind said it was to open source it, but in reality he was just trying to sell it. FTA:

      umad?
      turns out u guys dont own us
      the community fights back
      we wont take your s***
      u ban us from ur game
      u hide your codes
      u run
      stop
      its time for the community to take over
      you let idiots like elf and raider run your servers and you expect security
      you expect me to run away from a home ipd box
      i lold.
      you wont figure out how i got in
      you wont rid yourselfs of me
      guess what happens next
      you loose control
      no more dictatorship
      no more closed source
      only community
      only success
      no more fs
      goodbye fs
      we wont miss you

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    5. Re:Well what do you know.... by TWiTfan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This all sounds a lot like a publicity stunt, to garner attention for the game, to me.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    6. Re:Well what do you know.... by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      It's not for me, I think it's they that will be better of by doing it.

    7. Re:Well what do you know.... by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, that was literate. Any attempt to match wits with such an individual would be foolhardy.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Well what do you know.... by rwise2112 · · Score: 5, Funny

      even weirder is that B1naryTh1ef would be stealing the source code.

      Yeah, that's clearly a job for S0urceTh1ef!

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    9. Re:Well what do you know.... by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, that was literate. Any attempt to match wits with such an individual would be foolhardy.

      "Clearly, he has a dizzying intellect."

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    10. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Open source fanboys are all the same... "make it open source, make it open source."

      People who advocate open source advocate open source. A subset of them are who you might refer to as fanboys. Your statement is nothing but empty tautology.

    11. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what fashion?

    12. Re:Well what do you know.... by GoatCheez · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have to agree. Stealing the source to sell the game on Steam? In what world does anyone think that they could get away with that? Even major corporations aren't that stupid. It's literally the dumbest idea I've ever heard. When a thief steals something that isn't money, they have to sell it "underground" or just keep it for their own personal treasure. They don't sell it in an auction or through an ad in the paper because it would be obvious they stole it and the stolen goods would be returned, and the thief would gain nothing. How would the thief in this case think that they would never get caught? Change the color of some textures? Fucking asinine.

    13. Re:Well what do you know.... by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And what if they don't want to open source their assets?

      They don't have to. No one is forcing them to do that.

      Your "desire" to see them "succeed" sounds eerily similar to blackmail: "That's some nice source code there, you should probably just make it open source, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it."

      If you cannot fundamentally respect their rights to license their work as they see fit - even if you don't agree with their choices - then you have exactly zero standing to complain when somebody else disregards your wishes as to how source code YOU wrote will be released and licensed. If you don't agree with someone's choice to not open source their assets, you do not automatically gain the right to take a copy. Don't like their license? Do without, or write your own open source alternative.

      I cannot wait to see the day when thugs who feel they have the right to take anything they want at any time they please are shunned out of any civilized company - as they should be.

      I think it's better for them and for all other software developers to produce free software. I don't understand how you can think that's blackmail, it's not like I'm in a position to make them do anything.

    14. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I remember it's not open source. They use a modified version of Quake3 engine, but not the open source version. Carmack gave for free the permission to be able to do it.

    15. Re:Well what do you know.... by malkavian · · Score: 2

      Yes you can.
      "Pirating" something on the personal scale would be to take a copy of the program for your use without permission.
      Taking the source to sell elsewhere is commercial piracy, which is rightfully pilloried everywhere (I don't think I've seen many, if any, posts here defending commercial pirates; most of the replies I've read have flat out called for a lynch mob. They're in the same social category as spammers).

      What you're effectively saying in your post is "You can't commit theft while with the same breath defend copyright infringement". Which, being completely separate things, you can do without the slightest hint of hypocrisy.

    16. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Sabertooth to Wolverine, there's always a S0urceTh1ef somewhere in the origin story of every B1naryTh1ef.

    17. Re:Well what do you know.... by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Well for one they don't have to worry about someone stealing their source code. But over all the free software development methodology tends to lead to collaboration which in turn lead to innovation. I'm sure they have benefited from this since they based their own work on free software, which is a good first step toward fully embracing the free software methodology.

    18. Re: Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. The machine code might have been hand toggled in at the main panel. I've known people who could do that.

    19. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a 4-digit, you seem pretty new. Slashdot will in fact defend anything because they desire the Internet to be a lawless libertarian utopia. That includes commercial piracy, hacking, child pornography, extortion, and (if open source developers are involved) murder.

    20. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh, and here I thought culture and knowledge was a human right. Since not, stop speaking English please and you're not allowed to use any math.

    21. Re:Well what do you know.... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Yep. It used to be Open Source and used a modified open source Quake 2 fork, but the new version is closed source. The licensed the commercial version of Quake 3 so they could use anti-cheat and such.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    22. Re:Well what do you know.... by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

      If his coding skills are of similar quality then this game must be extraordinary indeed.

    23. Re:Well what do you know.... by Hypotensive · · Score: 1, Funny

      Trying to sell something that can be got for free is unlikely to be highly profitable.

    24. Re:Well what do you know.... by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      I loaned my buddy a copy of my C.H.U.D DVD several years ago, It was stolen from him. So if he gave you his T.V., and you lived in a higher Crime area than him; chances are much greater the T.V. would be stolen while in your possession, whatever that means. I suppose you can't determine anything without factoring in an infinite number of variables; with each variable risking either a collapse, or a fortification of your theory.

    25. Re:Well what do you know.... by krovisser · · Score: 1

      Just because someone is a hypocrit, doesn't mean their argument is invalid. It just means you shouldn't trust them.

    26. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Malkavian. You are wrong. In the eyes of the law, it is very clear. Stealing for profit is stealing. Stealing for your personal gain is also stealing. It's not a very difficult concept to grasp. You're just justifying what's convenient for you.

    27. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he gives you his tv, he doesn't have a tv anymore. Which could be argued to be a good thing, btw. If he opens his code how does that make him lose it? Your analogy falls on its face, rather painfully.

      {{citation needed}}

      My arse. You look in that 25 GB pile of junk that is an installation of a "modern" version of Windows, and tell me what's "innovative" about it.
      Shut up, and go away moron.

    28. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inconceivable!

    29. Re:Well what do you know.... by Americano · · Score: 2

      Culture and knowledge are human rights. You're free to develop your own culture and knowledge, and license the use of the culture and knowledge you develop:

      Some people will choose to license their written culture and knowledge very permissively, and share freely - think "public domain."
      Some people will choose to attach some conditions to their culture and knowledge that are intended to encourage sharing - think "FOSS licenses"
      Some people will choose to set terms and conditions that greatly restrict sharing of the work - think "traditional copyrights, all rights reserved, pay me lots for a single copy of this that you can't redistribute."

      What do all 3 of these schemes have in common? They're all based on the underlying principle that a creator is entitled to control the distribution and sharing of his or her work.

      That you *disagree* with the choices some people make about how to share their works does not entitle you to a free copy whenever you want it. If you disagree with the licensing of someone else's work, you have 2 options if you wish to remain ethical:
      1) Contact the owner of the work you wish to license, and negotiate new terms with them;
      2) DO WITHOUT, and work to create your own alternative.

      If you violate others' copyrights based on the expedient principle of "but I want it! the pony! buy me the pony, daddy!" then you can expect your own copyrights to be infringed upon too, and you will have absolutely no standing to ask for redress when you've destroyed the protections copyrights afford you.

    30. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The standard version of UrT runs on the GPL ioquake3 engine, but the UrT-specific game logic is written for the quake3 VM and comes in compiled VM bytecode. The source for this code is not available publicly.

    31. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would downvote this? It's just the simple truth. thieving, pirate trash, that's who.

    32. Re: Well what do you know.... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Really? I've known people who could use butterflies.

    33. Re:Well what do you know.... by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's pretty good for a 10 year old mod, actually. the shotgun is nerfed to uselessness, but otherwise it's balanced.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:Well what do you know.... by AlreadyStarted · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trying to sell something that can be got for free is unlikely to be highly profitable.

      Bottled Water.

    35. Re:Well what do you know.... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      How exactly would it be possible to *steal* code to an open source project? It's presumably available free for the asking to anyone who wants it, right? Of course you could illegally release a derivative work honoring your license obligations, but that has nothing to do with theft, and certainly nothing to do with hacking a Git repository.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    36. Re:Well what do you know.... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      that should be
      > illegally release a derivative work without honoring your license obligations

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    37. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't have my permission to write on this board. You did it anyway. Therefore you are still nothing but a common thief. That it didn't involve taking anything is irrelevant.

      Do you see the flaw in your reasoning?

    38. Re:Well what do you know.... by Immerman · · Score: 2

      >If you give me your TV you don't have to worry about me (or anyone else) stealing it?!

      Irrelevant, a TV is a physical object and thus obeys different laws.

      If I have a recording of myself singing my own composition, and give you a copy, then we both have a copy, and you have no incentive to steal mine.

      The essence of open source is that I give my work away freely. I may put limits on what you are legally allowed to do with it, but actually getting the thing is something I encourage and do not charge for in any way. You can't very well steal something that is being given to you freely.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    39. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your response is culture based on my culture, I say you are not allowed to use my culture to create your own culture and have no violated my "rights".

    40. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think all developers should release free code?

      They should write programs because.

      Just because.

    41. Re:Well what do you know.... by jythie · · Score: 1

      'better' is a relative term. A lot of people feed their kids due to being able to sell software. I can agree there is a place for OSS, but to say that it is better for 'all' software to be open demonstrates a very narrow view and inability to see beyond your own lifestyle/community.

    42. Re:Well what do you know.... by Khyber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Stealing the source to sell the game on Steam? In what world does anyone think that they could get away with that? Even major corporations aren't that stupid. It's literally the dumbest idea I've ever heard."

      Never heard of Zynga, I see.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    43. Re:Well what do you know.... by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      Very few software developers actually sell software. Most software developers are paid to build custom software used by the same company that they are employed by or by some other company under contract.

    44. Re:Well what do you know.... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The licensed the commercial version of Quake 3 so they could use anti-cheat and such."

      Umm, Quake 2 had punkbuster.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    45. Re:Well what do you know.... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I guess the mod code belongs in the assets category if someone is confused.

      why they would do that I don't fucking get. unreal engine is pretty cheap, they could make it more modern and the urban terror code that is urban terror itself? not much to it, really. not much at all.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    46. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you still have the orignal. It can NEVER be theft. No matter how much you want it to be and keep repeating that.

      If you still have it. It can not have been 'stolen'.

      Now you might be able to say for example in this case they stole some of the distribution rights. But the original item is still right where it was. IE not stolen.

    47. Re:Well what do you know.... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I thought only the commercial, proprietary releases of Quake had punkbuster built in. The open source versions did not, because it was licensed for Quake, but they didn't own the rights to release it as open source.

      The previous release of Urban Terror on the open source Quake fork did not have anti-cheat. When they got a commercial Quake license, they could use the anti-cheat.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    48. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to say that it is better for 'all' software to be open demonstrates a very narrow view and inability to see beyond your own lifestyle/community.

      As does the opposite say of you. By the mere fact that commercial software exists, hundreds of thousands of companies have been created purely to COPY other software word-for-word and prop it up as original work to be sold. There would be no incentive for greedy people like whoever stole this code to even be a part of the software development process in any way, shape, or form if it had not been turned into yet another laundromat for "venture capitalists"...

    49. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cannot fundamentally respect their rights to license their work as they see fit

      How did this become a right? How about my right to do what I like with code that's sitting on my computer?

    50. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't see the big problem - was it a secret that they were working on it? Copyright law still applies. Just like it applies to many other games that are found on piratebay (and still make money).

      I think it's only a problem for them if it's NOT on piratebay. Or you just have one seeder and a handful of leechers... ;)

    51. Re:Well what do you know.... by Americano · · Score: 1

      How did this become a right? How about my right to do what I like with code that's sitting on my computer?

      Fundamental property rights have been acknowledged by courts for hundreds of years - the product of my labor is my property, and I have some fundamental ownership of the product of that labor. I am then free to enter into mutually-consensual trades with other people, whereby they trade some product of their labor that I want, in exchange for some product of my labor that they want, and we both are enriched by the trade.

      If you want a piece of code that does what my code does, you can:
      1) Write your own - my copyrights certainly don't prevent you from doing that, and you're welcome to build your own!
      2) Negotiate a license for a copy of the code I created, and ensure that the negotiations include license to do "whatever you like with the code."

      Your right to do "whatever you like with the code" is dependent on your having "acquired a copy of the code through legal means." If you violated my copyrights by taking a copy of the code against my wishes, then what you are asserting here is that your "rights to defraud" somehow trump my copyrights. I'm pretty sure you'll have trouble finding any courts that would uphold that right of yours.

      Want ultimate control over whatever is on your computer? Simple choice, pick one: write your own; negotiate a license you can agree to and abide by it; or do without anything whose licensing terms you can't agree to.

      Any other choice simply undermines your own copyrights - which I bet you'll waste no time asserting the first time someone takes your GPL'ed code and does something in violation of the GPL with it.

    52. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stunning logic.

      A is not innovative, therefore B is.

    53. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but the world can see the flaw in yours.

    54. Re:Well what do you know.... by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Trying to sell something that can be got for free is unlikely to be highly profitable.

      Bottled Water.

      I am not aware of free bottled water. Water from the tap or from a river may be free, but the bottled stuff that I have seen costs money.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    55. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The selling of an open source code base would require building and distributing binaries. That would be the bottling in the bottled water analogy. I should probably only have to say woosh, though

    56. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh, and here I thought culture and knowledge was a human right.

      Considering something cannot by definition be "culture" until it's part OF a culture, i.e. published and part of public life, I'm not sure why you'd think that.
      As for knowledge, you're missing part of your sentence. You're claiming that knowledge of what, specifically, is a "human right"?

    57. Re:Well what do you know.... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Until you are not an anonymous coward, STFU

    58. Re:Well what do you know.... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      And that makes it different how exactly?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    59. Re:Well what do you know.... by Karrde712 · · Score: 1

      Trying to sell something that can be got for free is unlikely to be highly profitable.

      http://www.redhat.com/ - A $1 billion a year revenue company

      --
      You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.
    60. Re:Well what do you know.... by jythie · · Score: 1

      I think it dovetails nicely actually. I think one area where many programmers run into perspective issues is that most of them, as the person said, develop custom software for internal use, so their work and livelihood receives nothing but positive benefits from OSS and are often even free to contribute back since it does not impact their job. So sometimes they forget that there are other types of programmers out there that do develop packages for external sale.

    61. Re:Well what do you know.... by jythie · · Score: 1

      So.. there would be no incentive for theft if no one was allowed to have property? While technically true, that really throws the baby out with the bathwater.

    62. Re:Well what do you know.... by drkim · · Score: 1

      Inconceivable!

      You keep using "you wont rid yourselfs of me."

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

    63. Re:Well what do you know.... by drkim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trying to sell something that can be got for free is unlikely to be highly profitable.

      Tanning Salons?

    64. Re: Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murder? No, even the most rabid of /. libertarians disapproved of Hans Reiser.

    65. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is support free?

    66. Re:Well what do you know.... by Americano · · Score: 1

      Sure, I'll be happy to. But first, please show me the specific pieces of culture that you have created - and thus own copyrights for - which you feel I've infringed upon.

      You know, since you can't copyright the generic concept of "culture" - but you knew that already.

    67. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He gets to pretend he's sticking it to the man instead of screwing some poor schmoe out of a meal.

    68. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should anyone have an account here? It's about the message not the messenger, right?

    69. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't get everything that Redhat provides (enterprise support, SLA etc) for free.

    70. Re:Well what do you know.... by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

      So.. there would be no incentive for theft if no one was allowed to have property? While technically true, that really throws the baby out with the bathwater.

      I'd argue it isn't a baby, it's a baby doll that your delusional wife is insisting is her kid.

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    71. Re:Well what do you know.... by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

      Fundamental property rights have been acknowledged by courts for hundreds of years - the product of my labor is my property, and I have some fundamental ownership of the product of that labor. I am then free to enter into mutually-consensual trades with other people, whereby they trade some product of their labor that I want, in exchange for some product of my labor that they want, and we both are enriched by the trade.

      Exactly, and so once you sell that code to me, just like if you sold me a horse or a cart or an axe, you have no right to tell me what I can and can not do with it, right?

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    72. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is illegal and a violation of the Q3A SDK itself because that only permits mods based on the Q3A SDK code (such as Urban Terror) to be used with only a full commercial version of Quake III Arena.

    73. Re:Well what do you know.... by Americano · · Score: 1

      I have every right in the world to attach stipulations to the sale of a horse, or a cart, or an axe if I wish. I can even ask you to make it all official-like by signing a legally binding contract with me, guaranteeing, for instance, that the horse will not be used for farm labor, and will be guaranteed at least 4 carrots a day with his feed, because he loves those carrots. I can't force you to accept these conditions post-sale, certainly, but before the sale is completed? I'm allowed to ask for just about anything I want, and ask you to sign a contract agreeing to it.

      You are, as well, free to decline to enter into that contract with me. You may be looking to buy a horse to hook to a plow for plowing the fields of your farm, so the conditions I've attached to the sale aren't acceptable to you. Or maybe you're allergic to carrots, and having them in the house would pose a risk to you or your family. In which case you are *free* to refuse the contract as written, and negotiate with me for different terms ("I'll have the neighbors give him carrots once a week, on the day that I'm out of town. And I'll only use him to plow 2 small fields."), or simply seek to buy a horse from a different seller.

      What you are not free to do is roll up in the middle of the night with a horse trailer and take the horse. And yes, the analogy is imperfect, because we're talking copying, not exchange of physical goods - but I'm not the one who brought up physical goods in a discussion about copyrights.

      However, the principle does apply to copyrighted materials: If you do not agree to the conditions attached to the sale, then do not agree to the sale, and find an alternative seller whose terms you can agree to. I'm not sure why this seems like such a foreign concept to people - certainly there are tons of examples of how the sale of goods and services work with which you're familiar... why does this one, in particular, seem to be such a foreign notion?

      The "it's free to copy, so you haven't lost anything by me copying it," argument is nothing but vapid post hoc justification for taking something that doesn't belong to you. The "if you sold it to me, I can do anything I want with it, forever and ever, amen," is just willfully ignoring the explicit terms and conditions of the sale you engaged in.

      Let's look at it from a different angle: what prevents me from grabbing some GPL3'd source code, stripping out all license notifications, adding a bunch of proprietary customizations to the code, slapping my own name in the headers, and selling it as "Americano's Super Duper Awesome Appliance," and making billions while contributing exactly zero code back to the FOSS community?

      What's that you're shouting? "GPLv3 has an Anti-Tivoization rule, and you can't do that!"?

      Well, who the fuck is the FSF to tell me what I can and can't do with my legally acquired copy of that source code?!

      (See now why you need copyright, and anything you do to undermine copyright is only going to hurt you in the long run? Just because something's easily copied doesn't mean you have an absolute right to do whatever you want with a copy of it.)

    74. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U mad, bro?

    75. Re:Well what do you know.... by GoatCheez · · Score: 1

      Zynga never actually stole all of the assets and represented it as their own. Even they are smart enough to know how dumb of an idea that is. Zynga will consistently steal the ideas for games however, which while still despicable, is much more legal. They've still had to settle with people despite walking that tightrope - but they have been able to afford to do so.

    76. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Developing intellectual property is a privilege. One that is afforded to you by living in a society recognizing the value in having such things. Claiming that this is some sort of inalienable right has always been bizarre to me. You're obliging others to abide by something that only benefits the creator (copyright law). Why should a society put their time, effort, and money into a system that then can be readily used against them (as we see happening regularly in patent and copyright law) or offer them little to no benefit?

      Copyright is being abused. The laws need drastic changes. I think it's valuable that we recognize the contribution made by the person, but I think we've gone too far into protecting them. Effectively forever copyright is absurd. If that's what folks seeking copyright protection want, they should be paying for it. Not getting everyone else to protect their "property", then charge us to consume it.

    77. Re:Well what do you know.... by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Very few software developers actually sell software. Most software developers are paid to build custom software used by the same company that they are employed by or by some other company under contract.

      But almost all game developers sell their software (or "in-game purchases" for the F2P games), because video games have no other viable business model. A good video game is often involves massive work on its code, art, music, gameplay, and story. Aside from asking for donations, how do you imagine such workers will be compensated for their efforts?

    78. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Zynga steal source code or did they implement their own version of an idea?

    79. Re:Well what do you know.... by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      zynga are scumbag parasites and marketing spies, but copying ideas is not despicable.

      ideas can not be owned, so they can not be stolen.

      a *specific* implementation of an idea can be patented as an invention, and a *specific* expression of an idea can be copyrighted. the idea itself can not be restricted.

      this is what is wrong with the 'intellectual property' meme - it encourages dumb people to think of ideas as some form of property, and conflates the entirely separate and unrelated legal concepts of copyrights and patents.

      it's like the grown-up, adult-like version of two kids arguing "i thought of it first" about something that every kid has thought of for thousands of years, but with attack lawyers. and hordes of internet morons having their 2c worth, of course.

    80. Re:Well what do you know.... by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 0

      Umm, I don't think you are understanding the meaning of this.
      You CAN get water for free. But you stick it a bottle and people pay for it. The originating comment was saying you could not make money from something that can be gotten for free.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    81. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you being obtuse on purpose, or what?

    82. Re:Well what do you know.... by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

      There's no point arguing with an idiot. The idiot won't understand when he has lost.

      -- hendrik

    83. Re:Well what do you know.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can sell things with contractual conditions. This would be a considerable drag on your sales.

      First, something with conditions is inherently worth less. If I buy a horse with no intentions of using it for farm labor, and with every intention of feeding it well, your conditions would become problems if either I needed money and wanted to sell the horse in an agricultural community, or if carrots became very expensive and difficult to get. Second, the act of signing a contract puts me at some legal risk, even if I perform the condition. What if you suspect I'm not providing the requisite carrots, and take legal action? If there were no contract, you'd have no standing to sue, and even if I handily win the lawsuit it's going to be stress, time, and expense to me. Third, if the horse is ever transferred from me without the contract (possibly in a bankruptcy), you've got no way to enforce your rules. Fourth, the signature requirement makes the sale clumsier. I can't just pay you with Paypal and have you mail the horse and then get the plates for it*, I have to have an exchange with an actual signature.

      Now, apply this to creative work. If you need to sell your music with contractual ties, you get the above problems and more. You can't let me hear it for free unless I first sign an NDA, and it's impractical to get NDAs from anybody who might receive a radio station. My fictional fifteen-year-old daughter can't buy it on her own. As a result, people will buy music they can get without binding contracts, and if all music is only available under similar contracts the Justice Department is going to investigate you and friends for restraint of trade. (You also have to individually negotiate each contract or make very, very sure it very clearly says what you want - it is then a contract of adhesion, and the courts will settle any ambiguity in the purchaser's favor.) With this model, if even one copy gets out not under contract, or one person breaks a contract and makes copies, everybody can get free legal copies of your music. (If Joe violates his contract with you, and I get an uncontracted copy, you can sue Joe for breach of contract but you can't sue me, because I have no legal obligations to you.)

      So, instead, we pass a copyright law. The Constitutional purpose, in the US, is to induce you to write music, not to grant you some sort of moral right. If the Founding Fathers had considered copyright to be some form of ownership, they wouldn't have bothered to give Congress specific powers to allow such monopolies. There's nothing in the Constitution specifically permitting laws in defense of property.

      Now let's take the GPLv3 scenario. In a regime with copyright laws, you've violated the license and commercially redistributed large numbers of somebody else's copyrighted code without a license. You're in trouble. In a regime without, there's nothing to prevent somebody from buying an ASDAA, copying the executable software and distributing it freely, and reverse-engineering your changes to add back into the original code. You're not able to sell it for big bucks because you're undercut by free copies. The GPL was originally intended as a judo-like tactic, using copyright law against the idea of copyright. While it serves some other of Stallman's goals, its essential purpose is to prevent copyright restrictions from being slapped onto code.

      *My knowledge of horses is not great. Work with me here.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    84. Re:Well what do you know.... by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      Plus its very skanky to jack somebodies code and then sell (for profit) the same game and not credit the original authors.

      Yeah, we called that "Tron."

    85. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, that was his point.

    86. Re:Well what do you know.... by grab.the.reinz · · Score: 1

      (River - Free) Water to (Bottled - Paid) Water (Site - Free) Game to (Steam - Paid) Game Steam is just a bottle. Need anyone else to spell it out?

    87. Re:Well what do you know.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that the discussion about being OSS or not doesn't matter because they get paid to make the software (regardless of what happens with it later), rather than making the software to later try making some profit with it.

    88. Re:Well what do you know.... by Dbryce · · Score: 1

      Zynga made the graphics for the Ville game much better than the Sims Social and their platform base was much stronger. That EA lawsuit really crippled them. Zynga is not the company it used to be. It's a shame, they had a very loyal customer base but not enough manpower behind them to keep on top of bugs and customer support issues.

  2. Stolen or copied by ardmhacha · · Score: 0, Troll

    If Frozen Sand no longer have the code for Urban Terror then it has been stolen. If they still have the code then it has been copied.

    1. Re:Stolen or copied by Nukenbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until someone comes up with a single word that means "copied against the will of the code's owner", people will use the word stolen. Get over it.

    2. Re:Stolen or copied by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Copyrightinfringement. There. No spaces, like German. Is that alright with you?

    3. Re:Stolen or copied by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      "Pirate" works pretty well, and it's been used in this context for at least 4 centuries

    4. Re:Stolen or copied by ardmhacha · · Score: 1

      As Frozen Sand have admitted that the culprit was someone on their own team then "leaked" or "pirated" would work well.

    5. Re:Stolen or copied by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Until someone comes up with a single word that means "copied against the will of the code's owner", people will use the word stolen. Get over it.

      "copywronged"?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Stolen or copied by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      How about "jacked?" I always favored that term in regards to digital theft.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re: Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Somali pirates board ships to make copies of the cargo?

    8. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until someone comes up with a single word that means "copied against the will of the code's owner", people will use the word stolen. Get over it.

      Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Amthink. The Newspeak word is leaked, Citizen!

    9. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Forgery"

    10. Re: Stolen or copied by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Gee, it's almost like sometimes people use the same word in different contexts or something. Like, "jerk" can be both a noun and a verb. And as a noun, it can be used to describe an action, or to describe someone who pretends they don't understand what pirating (of intellectual property) is. The word has been used for centuries to describe the ripping off of another's creative work.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re: Stolen or copied by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Some words have more than one meaning.

      For example, Somali pirates don't cover ships in wooden boards, nor do they offer them a food and lodging.

    12. Re:Stolen or copied by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      While I agree to a point, I have to... point out... another phrase you should probably be up-in-arms about: "You stole my idea!"

      Kind of hard to -take- an idea from someone, after all...

      --
      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...
    13. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jawoll!

    14. Re: Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the English language dumbfuck.

    15. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Frozen Sand no longer have the code for Urban Terror then it has been stolen. If they still have the code then it has been copied.

      Language evolves. Sometimes evolution doesn't go the way you planned, no matter how "logical" or "right" you think you are. Get used to it.

    16. Re:Stolen or copied by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Alright now one for the important part. Distinguish between me copyrightinfringementing my friend's copy of the mp3 he bought last night and the article's copyrightinfringementing to sell for profit in large quantities.

    17. Re:Stolen or copied by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Freejacked?

    18. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reproduction. All children are born thieves.

    19. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree to a point, I have to... point out... another phrase you should probably be up-in-arms about: "You stole my idea!"

      Kind of hard to -take- an idea from someone, after all...

      You just need to take the container too. Zombies has been doing it for centuries...

    20. Re:Stolen or copied by Minwee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In German it would be "infringementrightcopy", plus about a dozen extra syllables on the end to show that you really mean it.

    21. Re: Stolen or copied by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Pirate is no better than stolen in this context. They are both loaded terms appropriated by those with financial incentive to make something seem worse than it is.

      It seems to me that the best word here would be plagiarism.

    22. Re: Stolen or copied by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the English language dumbfuck.

      We just refer to it as "the English language". Calling it the "English language dumbfuck" is just redundant.

    23. Re:Stolen or copied by game+kid · · Score: 1

      I'll just put this Mark Twain work out there...

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    24. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. US copyright law distinguishes between the two using the word "personal" and "commercial."

    25. Re:Stolen or copied by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      How about stoalen?

    26. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright now one for the important part. Distinguish between me copyrightinfringementing my friend's copy of the mp3 he bought last night and the article's copyrightinfringementing to sell for profit in large quantities.

      Easy - that word I've made bold does it.

      FWIW - that was the original distinction in UK copyright law. If it was done en masse, for profit, it was criminal. Otherwise it was basically nothing. The last 2 governments changed that though.

    27. Re:Stolen or copied by metamarmoset · · Score: 1

      It's shorthand for "You stole credit for my idea!", which makes sense

    28. Re:Stolen or copied by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Genius. Still holds his own with any modern comedian.

    29. Re:Stolen or copied by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      You might be thinking of French (the reason we have NATO - OTAN; AIDS - SIDA; etc.).
      German has pretty much the same word order as English (conditions apply of course).

    30. Re:Stolen or copied by pescadero · · Score: 1

      Okay then, "you stole my code" is short for "you stole some of the potential future revenue that I was going to earn from that code".

    31. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Frozen Sand no longer have the code for Urban Terror then it has been stolen. If they still have the code then it has been copied.

      I realize it's a bit of a touchy subject, but in this case the term "stolen" is correct because the private copy is no longer exclusive. This should not be confused with making a copy of an already distributed work, in which case the original owner has not lost anything (directly) because there was no exclusivity.

    32. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why must there be a single word? Many actions, including crimes, cannot be specifically or sufficiently described in a single word.

    33. Re:Stolen or copied by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Jacking off? Oh, wait...

    34. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urheberrechtsverletzung!

    35. Re:Stolen or copied by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

      Okay then, "you stole my code" is short for "you stole some of the potential future revenue that I was going to earn from that code".

      That seems unlikely, though. More likely the potential future revenue was merely 'destroyed' if anything, eh?

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    36. Re:Stolen or copied by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Is that alright with you?

      No, the non-word "alright" is not all right with me.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    37. Re: Stolen or copied by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Piracy of media doesn't put anyone in mind of a pirate (an even if it did, the popular image of a pirate is of a heroic rebel such as Jack Sparrow). Nobody has ever drawn a parallel to copying a DVD and taking hold of a vessel for ransom.

      Plagarism requires they take credit for the creation, which I don't think they have done yet.

    38. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean this word: alright?

    39. Re:Stolen or copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean the "non-word" that's enough of a word to be in dictionaries?

  3. Stolen? Steam? by Seumas · · Score: 0, Troll

    1) It sounds like the code was copied. Still wrong, but "stolen" makes it sound like they can't possibly go on with their project, because they don't have the code they wrote anymore.

    2) I'm sure it would be easy to work with Steam and say "don't accept any games that come through based on XYZ code" in this case. On the other hand, Steam has given very few shits about extremely iffy projects in the past.

    1. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course it's not wrong to copy code. It's wrong to prevent anyone from copy code. It's unethical. Instead you should share the code with anyone, preferably under an FSF approved free software license.

    2. Re:Stolen? Steam? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MPAA officially changed the definition of "stolen."

    3. Re:Stolen? Steam? by kthreadd · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the definition of pirate.

    4. Re:Stolen? Steam? by tfmachad · · Score: 1

      s/Steam/Valve?

      Care to cite an example for your second statement? No sarcasm, just curious.

    5. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's wrong to prevent anyone from copy code. It's unethical. Instead you should share the code with anyone, preferably under an FSF approved free software license.

      No, it's not "wrong" or unethical to prevent anyone from copying code. Free software licenses require copyrights. Asserting that the owner of source code has no right to control copying of their work via copyright carries with it the assertion that the terms of ALL software licenses - even those 'approved by the FSF' - may be safely disregarded at will.

      If you really want to go down that road, then you have no basis to complain when a company takes your GPLv3 code and does whatever they want with it, and contributes nothing back to the community. After all - if you would assert your right to take a copy and do whatever you want with it, they can do the same thing: and they have a MUCH bigger legal team.

    6. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Shados · · Score: 1

      All the people using the expression "You stole my idea!" changed the meaning of it long, long, LONG before that.

    7. Re:Stolen? Steam? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The term "Pirate", in the sense of copying without consent, predates the MPAA. Or movies. It even predates modern copyright (first recorded in 1701, whereas the first copyright act was 9 years later).

    8. Re:Stolen? Steam? by mmcxii · · Score: 1, Informative

      Stolen does not mean to deprive another of ownership, it means to take without permission. That's what it has meant for generations.

    9. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that clears that up!

    10. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stolen
      the past participle of steal

      steal
      1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, [...]

      That's not exactly what you've claimed.

    11. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the NSA is working on that as we speak in order to correct some small PR problems.

    12. Re:Stolen? Steam? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      No they didn't - the definition has always been, "taking something that doesn't belong to you, without permission."

      Unless you want to try and argue that sneaking into Stephen King's study and making an unauthorized copy of his latest, unreleased novel is somehow not theft?

      Regardless of what label you want to stick on, it's morally wrong to take something, even a copy of it, without the rightful owner's permission.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Stolen? Steam? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Stolen does not mean to deprive another of ownership, it means to take without permission. That's what it has meant for generations.

      I'd wager they know that, but are actively denying said knowledge in an act of mental gymnastics, purely for the sake of attempting justification of their unjustifiable positions.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Stolen? Steam? by tepples · · Score: 1

      you have no basis to complain when a company takes your GPLv3 code and does whatever they want with it, and contributes nothing back to the community.

      On the other hand, without copyright, the company would have no basis to complain when someone disassembles the company's modified version, comments it, and distributes it.

    15. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure it is morally wrong to take a copy of something without permission?

    16. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's true. Which means that the company will dedicate significant resources to copy protection and obfuscation, making that work as difficult and painful as possible for anybody who wants to try. And they'll probably also develop models where their own techs are the only ones contractually allowed access to any system where their software is installed.

      A world without copyrights = a world with more DRM-like copy protection schemes. If you think today's DRM schemes are byzantine, care to imagine what they'd look like in a world where the creator of any work has - under the law - absolutely no rights to their work beyond what they can "get away with" before somebody takes their code and starts distributing it?

      Software will be developed in walled compounds, surrounded by men with guns. TPM? Yeah, you'll have it in spades. Walled gardens? Sure, why not. Hosted software providers? You bet.

    17. Re:Stolen? Steam? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It's wrong to prevent anyone from copy code. It's unethical. Instead you should share the code with anyone, preferably under an FSF approved free software license.

      No, it's not "wrong" or unethical to prevent anyone from copying code. Free software licenses require copyrights. Asserting that the owner of source code has no right to control copying of their work via copyright carries with it the assertion that the terms of ALL software licenses - even those 'approved by the FSF' - may be safely disregarded at will.

      If you really want to go down that road, then you have no basis to complain when a company takes your GPLv3 code and does whatever they want with it, and contributes nothing back to the community. After all - if you would assert your right to take a copy and do whatever you want with it, they can do the same thing: and they have a MUCH bigger legal team.

      And that's exactly how you pirate OSS. Though the FOSS community doesn't usually call it piracy (probably to avoid association with other fine copyright wielding folks like the MPAA and RIAA?), just "license violations".

      Though to be fair, the FOSS community doesn't blindly sue pirates either (especially en masse) - they generally go after the commercial pirates - the ones who sell the stolen code (either embedded In hardware or as part of a larger package). Not the small time pirate sharing their latest FOSS binaries with their friends. So there's that aspect as well.

      But whether it's music, movies, software (both FOSS and commercial), it can be pirated. FOSS is just unusual in that if you don't accept the license, you still have rights to the software - the ones granted by copyright law. In most commercial software, you have to accept the license.

    18. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a real numbnut.

      "Theft" means a physical object has to be removed from its rightful owner. Imaginary property, like the story itself cannot be "stolen", only infringed on. What you're describing would be called "trespassing/forced entry and copyright infringement", possibly with commercial intent if the burglar published the story. No theft in sight, unless the burglar nicked the pallet with paper on which the story was printed.

    19. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Desler · · Score: 1

      stolen

      the past participle of steal

      steal

      1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, [...]

      That's not exactly what you've claimed.

      How is it not? Your definition clearly says "to take without permission" which is exactly what the GP said...

    20. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure it is morally right?

      If you were working on something to release (novel, program, new product idea, artwork) and someone came in and copied your work when it was almost complete and then released it before you, would you feel that was morally wrong?

    21. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail to even have a basic understanding of the words you are talking about.

      the phrases "stole my idea" and "stole a kiss" have existed for almost ever. The definition of the word steal encompasses the meaning expressed, that it is to take without permission. The definition does not require that the original owner be deprived of the item.

      Please educate yourself.

    22. Re:Stolen? Steam? by claar · · Score: 1

      Stolen does not mean to deprive another of ownership, it means to take without permission.

      And what does take mean? When your definition was penned, taking something clearly deprived the former possessor of ownership.

      I'll concede that re-using the word "stolen" isn't a terrible choice for this new "take-a-copy" action, but let's not pretend that this is what its meant all along.

      --
      I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
    23. Re:Stolen? Steam? by mmcxii · · Score: 1

      Again, it means to take without permission. It doesn't imply to deprive another of ownership. And the idea of "stealing one's ideas" has existed before any of your fancy digital copies and it meant the same thing then. It is a possible case of what it meant and it has been going on, again, for generations.

    24. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the property of another. If you take someone's property, they no longer have it.

    25. Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The expression "stealing one's ideas" is a metaphor, modelled after the "real" stealing (taking away something from someone else). It is as much a metaphor as is "stealing one's girlfriend" (3rd meaning in reference.com), much like "ownership" of ideas is as much a metaphor (modelled after the "real" ownership of goods) as is ownership of a girlfriend.

      If someone said you can not "steal a girlfriend", because you can't own a woman, you wouldn't go to reference.com and contradict them, would you? Well, maybe you would.

    26. Re:Stolen? Steam? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      How do you figure it is morally wrong to take a copy of something without permission?

      I figured the whole "without permission" part kind of made that obvious.

      At least, obvious to anyone who isn't a moron and/or thief.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    27. Re:Stolen? Steam? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      He doesn't fail to understand, he refuses to acknowledge that he's a thief. Cognitive dissonance via mental gymnastics.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sell? Really? Last time I checked, urban terror wasn't the most advanced of games. And how does a member of the development team steal the code? It's in a git repo, everyone has a copy of it already.

    1. Re:I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really can't see the difference between these two scenarios?

      1) I let you come use my garage workshop where I have all kinds of tools and materials for mechanical repair; You use my tools and materials to repair your lawn mower, and then leave the garage without taking anything but your own property with you.

      2) I let you come use my garage workshop; when you finish repairing your lawnmower, you also load half my tools into your truck and drive off with them.

  5. Loved this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Played it for a few months back in the day, very fun! Hope they get their day in court.

  6. Poor choice of name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you call yourself "B1naryTh1ef", and then steal the source, that just indicates a general sloppiness of character. Sheesh.

    1. Re:Poor choice of name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why he chose that name. Nobody would expect B1naryTh1ef of planning to steal source code.

    2. Re:Poor choice of name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he either is a thief or he isn't and he gave you two hints in his name about the truth state value...

    3. Re:Poor choice of name by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why he chose that name. Nobody would expect B1naryTh1ef of planning to steal source code.

      In that case, maybe he should have called himself TheSpan1sh1nqu1s1t1on...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Poor choice of name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explains why Nic Cage uses the handle C0nst1tut10nThe1f

    5. Re:Poor choice of name by b1naryth1ef · · Score: 1

      Fuck you noticed?

  7. To catch a thief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frozen Sand also states they have found chat logs indicating there had been 'a plot to get B1naryTh1ef to steal the code so they could sell Urban Terror under a different name on Steam.'"

    Urban Thief.

  8. I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he got tired of stealing binaries.

  9. Whoa. /keanu by vistapwns · · Score: 1

    I know this is off-topic, but I hadn't played this game in like a decade, and never think about it, but just last night I was sitting thinking about the times I used to play it. Didn't even know it was still around, might have to check out what their doing with it..

    --
    "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:Whoa. /keanu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're/their?

    2. Re:Whoa. /keanu by herbalt · · Score: 2

      If you haven't played it since the Q3 mod days, there's a bunch of new features and a rather lively competition community. The game is currently in version 4.2 with new game modes (e.g. a trickjump mode), animations and weapons, and most notably a cheat detection system which players have been awaiting for ever since Punkbuster was no longer supported. From what I read in the forums, the anti-cheat system is a good reason to be worried about the code leak because it will again give leeway to developers of wallhacks and whatnot, when the the dev team had just started getting a grip on the cheating issues.

    3. Re:Whoa. /keanu by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking when I read the headline "Wait, that game still exists and servers weren't left to rot years ago?"

      I remember playing it like a decade ago, and thinking that it was a slightly "edgier" version of Counterstrike, except that anyone with Half Life could already play Counterstrike.

      Maybe it's gained something in the last decade, but if it's still based on Q3, I doubt it has gained much.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:Whoa. /keanu by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know more, except it appears their website is slashdotted. Guess not.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  10. Don't worry, brahs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Information wants to be free!

    It wasn't stolen, they just helped themselves to a copy, nobody lost anything!

    1. Re:Don't worry, brahs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet when the NSA think the same about your emails it is a bad thing!

    2. Re:Don't worry, brahs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You noticed that too, huh?

      Gotta love these copyright crusaders who don't even seem to realize that without copyright, their precious GPL disappears too...

  11. U sure it wasn't NSA? by c0lo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean, a game with such a name...

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:U sure it wasn't NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was the NSA either we would have never heard of it, or the article would simply state "something happened but we can't tell you what."

  12. War Z II ? by guru42101 · · Score: 1

    They gotta get a stolen sequel for their stolen first game. Don't worry Frozen Sand, they'll screw up any changes they make so bad that it won't effect your bottom line.

  13. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does slashdot care about copyright infringement?

    1. Re:So what? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      since when do copyright holders care about things like first sale doctrine, right of ownership, or privacy of their customers? You can whine about lack of morality all you want, but these guys are no better than the most ardent richard stallman supporter. In fact, the latter at least has a legit argument for their stance: control over their hardware and property...real property, not fantasy control schemes.

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first sale doctrine says one can resell physical items one purchases. It doesn't say one can make copies of copyrighted works, nor does it say one can sell or transfer a non-transferable license.

      Right of ownership to something does not necessarily include a right to make copies of said thing unless one holds the copyright to said thing. An example is the purchasing of a book. One does not have a right to make and sell or give away copies of a book one has purchased even though one has right of ownership of the book. This applies regardless of how easy it is to make copies.

      Copyright holders don't care about the privacy of their customers in either way until the customer violates the copyright holders copyright. Then, they care quite a bit. One's right to privacy doesn't extend to covering up crimes or violations of other people's rights. Your right to privacy ends where a copyright holder's right to control the copying of his work begins. In other words, your right to privacy is neither inalienable nor absolute.

      People such as yourself have brought these circumstances about by ignoring copyright law and expecting to get away with it. You think if you break or ignore a law, it won't be enforced then whine like the spoiled little brats you are when you are punished for your transgressions. While that may have been how it was in your school, in your home growing up, and even in your college that is not how it is in the real world,

  14. Quake 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the standalone Urban Terror is based on the GPL'd Quake 3 code. For them to *not* make the code available was likely a license violation.

    1. Re:Quake 3 by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I believe the standalone Urban Terror is based on the GPL'd Quake 3 code. For them to *not* make the code available was likely a license violation.

      Point? Two wrongs don't make a right.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Quake 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but 3 rights makes a left

  15. what am i missing? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2, Informative

    quick google of the name and i found a github repo that's been up for years.

    The officially supported ioquake3 engine by the Frozen Sand Development Team for the game Urban Terror 4.x

    so what's the deal?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:what am i missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Licence stuff from their website:

      Urban Terror is a mod for Quake 3 Arena. Urban Terror can be freely distributed over the internet, unmodified, without charging for the product. Urban Terror uses the Quake 3 SDK license. This means the game code (the .qvm's in zpak000.pk3) are closed source and can only be distributed electronically over the internet, not on cd or dvd. The non-code data files of Urban Terror (zpak000-assets.pk3) can go on any medium however. The full license texts come with the installer, they outweigh the information provided here.

      Urban Terror does not use any Quake 3 data, only its engine (on windows: quake3.exe) to run on. It therefor can also run on other executables created from the GPL'ed Quake 3 code. ioUrbanTerror.exe is such an executable and is distributed together with Urban Terror, but is a seperate product. Quake 3 can still be used to run Urban Terror on if the end-user prefers it. ioUrbanTerror uses the GPL license and its source code is openly available. ioUrbanTerror does not depend on Urban Terror, it can be used to run any Quake 3 mod or even baseq3, by setting the appropriate fs_game. When running Urban Terror on ioUrbanTerror, Urban Terror's close sourced .qvm's (quake virtual machine) are interprated by the open source engine (ioUrbanTerror).

    2. Re:what am i missing? by herbalt · · Score: 2

      That's the source for the ioquake3 engine, which Urban Terror uses and which was released under a GPL licence by ID Software. The actual game is released in a separate package (and they've been getting some hate for that, eg on the ioquake message boards)

    3. Re:what am i missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's just the open source Q3 engine though.

      UT is a closed source mod to the engine developed seperately (under the Q3 SDK licence)

      From http://www.urbanterror.info/support/196-misc/#1.1

      "Urban Terror uses the Quake 3 SDK license. This means the game code (the .qvm's in zpak000.pk3) are closed source."

      "Urban Terror's close sourced .qvm's (quake virtual machine) are interprated by the open source engine"

      So basically there are three bits: engine, mod and assets. The engine can be the open source Q3 (but could be the closed source version, and doesn't really care). The magic bits of the mod are closed source, and presumably the bits that have been "stolen".

      (no expert, just reading the FAQ's)

    4. Re:what am i missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with the game's code closed source people claim it as the pioneer of Free Open Source games all the time. Misinformation indeed.

  16. Oh no by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    Now where am I going to find an identikit arena shooter based upon the Quake 3 engine?

    Oh wait, here's a short list of a few of them

    http://freegamer.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/quake3-total-conversions.html

    Come on, the id Tech 3 source code was realised 8 years ago yesterday. Are there really no better engines out there?

    1. Re:Oh no by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Seems to work just fine for Activision. They've been using it as the base source for the Call of Duty games up to and including Modern Warfare 3/4 and all the various spin-offs. It's highly modified, but at the end of the day Q3A continues to be the gold standard in FPS.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  17. B1naryTh1ef by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a plot to get B1naryTh1ef to steal the code

    and no one ever wondered about this name? talk about hiding in plain sight.

    1. Re:B1naryTh1ef by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one expected him to go after the source code!

  18. Happened to me about 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    About 10 years ago I worked on a group startup project and we worked on it for a good 3-years. It was a huge investment but we were all different people from around the world, not stationary in a cozy office. We had an alpha on a new game engine and toolkit that had features that wasn't seen (and some that are still not seen) in today's mmorpgs. It was to become a 3D version of Ultima Online basically. Unfortunately the code was stolen from someone living in Sweden and our computers all got jacked. I had a backup on a few CDs but I had horrible luck when I dropped coke on them, causing permanent damage (impossible to recover). We all hated each other because we were blaming each other for this and that, so there was a big internal conflict but managed to find out who it was but couldn't find out where that person was living since we weren't doing anything on contract. We were all young at the time and didn't know better. It's a damn shame because the timing was perfect, it was even before WoW. Incidentally some of the technology we had placed into the game was found in various games that came out a year or two later. We presume that the technology was sold to studios.

    1. Re:Happened to me about 10 years ago by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 1

      I have redundant backups of the pictures I took of my cat. They're located in three geographically diverse locations. Pictures of my cat.

      What were you thinking?

      --
      It started back in Team Fortress Classic
    2. Re:Happened to me about 10 years ago by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

      Dude, he was doing coke on top of his backup CDs - he doesn't sound like the sharpest tool in the shed.

    3. Re:Happened to me about 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... how does ( presumably spilling ) coke on CDs ruin them?

    4. Re:Happened to me about 10 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, who was doing coke on his backup CDs? bahahahahahaha

  19. Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Free" program "stolen"? One of these words doesn't mean what you think it means.

    1. Re:Oxymoron by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      One thing was free. A different thing was stolen. That's really not that hard to understand.

    2. Re:Oxymoron by neminem · · Score: 1

      If you drive around town in an ice cream truck giving out free ice cream, and someone jacks your truck, you would presumably still go to the cops, right?

    3. Re:Oxymoron by tomxor · · Score: 1

      More like you add some sprinkles to everyones already free icecream then be a dick to everyone and take away the free icecream and expect people not to tip over your sprinkle truck so they can make their own sprinkles.

  20. Piracy. Just say no. by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't download a crescent wrench, would you?!

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:Piracy. Just say no. by chill · · Score: 1

      Crescent ROLLS, maybe. But a crescent wrench, probably not. I'd torrent some butter while I was at it, just to make it complete.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  21. But... if the game is free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who honestly cares about stolen source code?

    You're giving the game away. For free. The game is free.

    THE GAME IS FREE.

    1. Re:But... if the game is free... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Free in gratis, but not free in libre.

  22. Spooky subject line if you don't have italics by boguslinks · · Score: 1

    My RSS reader doesn't italicize, so I see "Urban Terror Code Stolen"... I was like, "NOOOOO.... uh... what's an Urban Terror Code?"

  23. Publicity stunt? by flimflammer · · Score: 0

    This sounds too much like a publicity stunt... Stealing the code so they could sell the game on Steam? Leaving literally all traces to point specifically to someone on the team? What kind of wacky idea is that, really? All that was left was naming the archive "leaked by B1naryTh1ef.zip"

    Never actually heard of this game before now. I'm sure they could use the attention.

    1. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be on the Dev Team. While I haven't been for quite a few years, I still talk to quite a few of them, I can confirm that it isn't a publicity stunt, unless most the people on the team actually knew nothing about it being done that way. I know it's really not going to matter much as I'm an AC here and nothing I say is going to carry much weight, but figured I should toss out that it's good people on that team, and if they were going to do that type of thing they (or we, back in the day) would have done it many times over.

      As far as people never hearing of it, it really is well past its time. It used to have a relatively large following and was one of the most played Q3 mods. The community, as with many PC Mod games, imploded over the last few years.

    2. Re:Publicity stunt? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.

    3. Re:Publicity stunt? by b1naryth1ef · · Score: 1

      Anon's always seem so legit...

    4. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because we aren't complete asshats, like you.

  24. Pre-1923 by tepples · · Score: 1

    In my country, pre-1923 culture and knowledge is a human right. English from 2013, apart from jargon related to the calculating machines of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, would probably be comprehensible to somebody from 1922.

  25. I've got this crossword puzzle by tepples · · Score: 0

    Until someone comes up with a single word that means "copied against the will of the code's owner"

    I've got this crossword puzzle, and I'm looking for a nine-letter word meaning "Copied without author's permission". What I have are
    I _ F _ _ _ G _ D

    Oh, I get it: INFRINGED

    1. Re:I've got this crossword puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be copied without the author's permission.

      No, I don't think that quite works.

  26. For an AC, you're clueless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, you're wrong there. Entirely wrong.

  27. Steam here means a division of Valve by tepples · · Score: 1
    In these days of conglomerate companies whose right hand can't tell what the left is doing, it's common in some circles to use a product name to refer to the part of the company that makes that product. Xbox, for example, is a common name among the gaming press for the Entertainment and Devices division of Microsoft. Sony Computer Entertainment has occasionally referred to itself as PlayStation in the "Dear PlayStation" ads. "Steam", for example, may refer to the division of Valve that develops its app store and game support services, as opposed to the "Source" division that develops games but can't count to three. And sometimes, a company even changes its name to that of its product line, like what BlackBerry did at the beginning of 2013 to avoid more "RIM jobs" jokes.

    Care to cite an example for your second statement?

    If Steam wants to keep its safe harbor from copyright infringement lawsuits, it'll need to quickly pull any unauthorized derivative of Urban Terror after receiving a notice of claimed infringement from the Urban Terror team.

  28. What did they take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They CREATED a copy.

    If I make a Victoria Sponge using my own purchased ingredients, just like you did with yours, I have NOT stolen your Victoria Sponge cake, I have MADE MY OWN.

  29. Why is this modded troll? by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 0

    Every time there's a story about copyright infringement, some pro-piracy apologist makes this same damn argument and it gets +5 Insightful.

    1. Re:Why is this modded troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the pro piracy apologist has been copied many times, over and over, and they all upvote the argument...

  30. the collected drama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:the collected drama by spiki · · Score: 0

      Actually good news report about how it unveiled.

      --
      I sell frozen yogurt which i call frogurt
  31. New Engine by tomxor · · Score: 1

    That's the old version your looking at, a great game none the less... it's just a mod for the idTech3 engine.

    The new game is based on the old one in spirit but uses a new engine with much upgraded graphics, and is closed source, although maybe idTech3 based?

    I really liked the old game but got banned from the new account system for writing weapon switching scripts, ironic when UrT is itself a big ol' hack, alas the entire site is run by a single overlord with a very dogmatic view on hacking of any kind, so i said screw them i'm sticking with the old one, so i'm not much surprised at this given the group contains those kind of people. They should've open sourced it anyway, the account system would've been enough to handle wallhackers and whatnot.

    1. Re:New Engine by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      I really liked the old game but got banned from the new account system for writing weapon switching scripts, ironic when UrT is itself a big ol' hack, alas the entire site is run by a single overlord with a very dogmatic view on hacking of any kind

      well what you were doing is not considered hacking but rather cheating because it gave you an advantage over other players. UrT is actually not a hack, it's a fork of the original source code with lots of original content. a hack would be if you tweaked certain aspects of the game or had drop in replacement content.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:New Engine by spiki · · Score: 0

      Ohlol. I finally recognized UrT player among in all these comments. So yea, hi n :) You may know me as [b00bs]The-spiki

      --
      I sell frozen yogurt which i call frogurt
    3. Re:New Engine by tomxor · · Score: 1

      UrT 4.x is not a fork of idTech3, and it is a drop in content replacement, hence (originally) a mod... Also i got banned because i shared the script with everyone rather than keeping it to myself, also the script didn't do anything out of the ordinary, all within the bounds of the game, it just used console commands, look up quake3 scripts which are widely used and accepted... that is essentially what i was doing.

    4. Re:New Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehehe, heya Spiki, greetings from an ol' friend ;)

  32. Email to RaidR by tomxor · · Score: 1

    Interesting :P RaidR is the site admin i mentioned in my last post (no i'm not fond of him, and so are others it seems), here's the email sent from one of the perpetrators

    umad? turns out u guys dont own us the community fights back we wont take your s*** u ban us from ur game u hide your codes u run stop its time for the community to take over you let idiots like elf and raider run your servers and you expect security you expect me to run away from a home ipd box i lold. you wont figure out how i got in you wont rid yourselfs of me guess what happens next you loose control no more dictatorship no more closed source only community only success no more fs goodbye fs we wont miss you Link to source removed as it's a criminal act and we can't verify it's free from viruses. good bye

    It kind of is a dictatorship, not that it's wrong with a developer in general... but when it's a free game based on an open source engine and the next one is closed... and the admin is a massive dick... yeah i'd wana fork it too.

  33. Arm port anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would be create an ARM port. did they dump the code anywhere or only stole it for personal gain?

  34. jeeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is by far the lamest story i've read all day. thanks, slashdot.. for WASTING my time.

  35. Any Steam management types on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally (and, yes, I'm an AC, BUT I buy my games on Steam) I'd like to see Steam do two things:

    1. State that they won't accept the stolen variant of this game, and,
    2. Allow, if Frozen Sand agrees, the actual game to be published on Steam.

    I like my games FOSS and moddable, if the option exists, but having them on Steam can open up community features such as public achievements, friends, badges, trading cards, etc... If the game is available both ways, it's even better.

  36. Not open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have break relation with ioQuake3 a long time ago. IoQuake3 has not relation atm with this guys. And are against the idea to cooperate with ioQuake3.

  37. OR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, they are simply trying to claim ownership of somebody elses code, and they have to make up this story because they don't really have the original.

  38. suspicous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the cure for cancer has been stolen now too?

  39. Works At Valve by tomxor · · Score: 1

    According to his twitter page (also linked on urbanterror.info) he works at Valve: https://twitter.com/b1naryth1ef. If true then it's not like he was doing this for money, they must have pissed him off pretty good.

    1. Re:Works At Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah he works at "Valve" yet deleted his steam profile(which is still in the cache), protected his twitter account and points to @ValveAndSteam which is also a fake account.
      Seems legit...

  40. The real story by b1naryth1ef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mildly hilarious to see this here. In fact, I did not steal the source code, nor leak it. I've already made an official statement (which you can read at the bottom of http://playurt.com/index.php?mod=news&action=view&id=7 that post). If you're really stupid enough to listen to anything Frozen Sand posts on their home page (with the only evidence being "screenshots", and the post being locked to responses) you don't have much going for you. I'm not going to go into the legal implications of what Frozen Sand has done (because I'm still processing documentation with my lawyer) but to say the least, they're in a wee bit of trouble. This basically boils down to FS trying to harassing and defame me after I quit.

    1. Re:The real story by spiki · · Score: 0

      b1naryth1ef > Mildly hilarious to see this here.

      Mildly hilarious to see YOU here. Hey b1n, it's [b00bs]The-spiki

      --
      I sell frozen yogurt which i call frogurt
    2. Re:The real story by b1naryth1ef · · Score: 1

      Sup spiki.

    3. Re:The real story by spiki · · Score: 0

      b1naryth1ef> Sup spiki.

      Not much, but I know what is NOT UP. UrT AUTH :)

      --
      I sell frozen yogurt which i call frogurt
    4. Re:The real story by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      Further proving UrT is the craphole of internet drama that I gladly left a bit ago.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    5. Re:The real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehehehe, hey guys :p Buncha noobs. ;)

  41. How can you "hack" a git repository? by Electrawn · · Score: 1

    The entire source tree for a git repository is in git clone, with the magic sauce of "--mirror" to get the full repository. This is an advantage for open source distributed teams, but not a great methodology for closed source development like this was.

    Deeply amusing.

  42. Is free software innovative ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... But over all the free software development methodology tends to lead to collaboration which in turn lead to innovation ...

    Perhaps the distribution model is/was innovative but is the code really innovative? It seems that free software is dominated by creating copies/replacements of commercial software. Unix -> Linux. Photoshop -> Gimp. MS Office -> LibreOffice.

  43. If it's Git by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are great chances people have clone most of the branches. They can simply re-create and push the code into Git.

  44. dear binarythief by mschoolbus · · Score: 1

    Please add multicore support.

  45. Plenty of cases where Closed Source copies Open by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the distribution model is/was innovative but is the code really innovative? It seems that free software is dominated by creating copies/replacements of commercial software. Unix -> Linux. Photoshop -> Gimp. MS Office -> LibreOffice.

    For example, I've been using tabbed file browsing for about a decade now; they've been the default in my desktop environments. I hear the latest version of OSX is going to finally add that. Who knows if/when Windows will. That's a fairly trivial feature, sure. But that actually proves another point about open source versus closed; all it takes is one person to want that feature and to code it, and it's there, and people can use it.

    As well, it's hardly like Unix was the first OS, or Photoshop the first image editor, or MS Office the first office suite. Hell, MS Office itself was for many years vastly inferior feature-wise to many alternatives that had histories stretching earlier than it, it just won because of Microsoft's OS market share---the Network Effect is a fearsome and ravenous beast. Few blobs of software are the 'originals', they're copies of copies of copies, slowly iterating (hopefully; sometimes regressing instead, especially in unfree software).

    I remember when I first ran Windows 8 and I saw that it had fancy graphs for the speed of file copies, and I had to laugh, since that's been in KDE since the rough early days of the 4.x series. Not to mention that the launcher can parse things I write like "1000 minutes in hours" and spit me out the answer to my question, while Windows 8.x still struggles to even find installed programs (8.1 is a bit better than 8 for the most part, albeit worse in a few ways, and still extremely inferior to KRunner). And there are programs pushing into newer paradigms that make old fogeys like me uncomfortable and wanting to tweet things that end in #lawns, like Tomahawk, and whose website reminds me of the ubiquity of the opensource Bootstrap framework at the moment.

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
  46. Good Luck Bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope you don't get busted on this one because if so it's a federal crime, means federal time. So you better lawyer up because I'm sure they have more than just a few screenshots. Looks like you a guys little guy and they Love that young sweet ass in prison. Lol
    Good Luck
    6th|russa

    1. Re:Good Luck Bro by b1naryth1ef · · Score: 1

      You must be a little confused on the law here. If FS was stupid enough to try and sue me for something I didnt do, it would be a /private/ lawsuit. FS is registered in Canada, which does /not/ allow non-profits to register for software licenses. Unfortunately considering the nature of the codebase (Q3's licensing, GPL), the only violation they might try to get me for is NDA violation. I'd love to see them provide more evidence than a few screenshots, but alas I'm not going to get my hopes up.

    2. Re:Good Luck Bro by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

      "Canada, which does /not/ allow non-profits to register for software licenses."

      What does this mean? What. specifically, would a Canadian nonprofit have to do in order to be slapped down for registering for a software license?

      --hendrik

  47. Interruption by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why must there be a single word?

    So that you can explain it to someone else and finish your sentence before he or she interrupts you.

  48. The source code was.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leaked. And not one comment with the url to the tar.gz or evening hinting what the file name might be. I am disappoint.