The compressed video and sound are fine, as they are playable using the open-source code and can easily be considered the "usual form of the source".
From the GPL: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Would you rather make modifications to a sound recording using a single stereo Ogg file, using a single stereo PCM WAV file, or using WAV files of the individual tracks (one per instrument) plus the script for the mixer?
I think in fact you are trying to make a bogus example to show that the GPL won't work. It works fine.
I bet they could use some of that Mozilla code in IE7! MS Mozilla!
You too can use the Gecko engine (Mozilla's rendering engine) in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Use this tool to patch iexplore.exe and other apps to use an ActiveX wrapper around the Gecko engine instead of MSHTML.
It took 5 times as long to get to version 1.0 than MS did with IE.
The Mozilla team started from scratch and produced a working web browser in three years, after deciding that the Netscape 5.0 code on which they had been working for the last year just wouldn't cut it. The Microsoft Internet Explorer team bought the Mosaic browser (a project presumably begun in 1992) and released IE 1.0 in August 1995, and it wasn't actually usable until 3.0 in August 1996. Again four years.
DVD extras cost money to produce
on
E3 Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
DVDs are cheaper to produce than VHS but cost almost $10 [more]
It costs money to produce the DVD "extras" such as menus, translations, interviews with the director, deleted scenes, etc.
Would you get one of, say, the media player apps if you couldn't get it for free online?
So much of this issue centers on your erroneous belief that the GNU GPL requires you to distribute electronically.
I understand that the GNU GPL does not require this, but the behavior of the typical Internet surfer does. The typical Internet surfer would rather just click the little X button in the upper right corner of her browser than order a CD on an impulse. And if I start selling CDs online, I have to pay upwards of $200 per year for an SSL certificate to protect my e-commerce from the man in the middle, don't I?
You could accede to Oberhumer's wishes and try GPG
I have considered this path. However, when I looked into GPG, I found no way of getting my key signed by a prominent GPG user, or even by any GPG user. Isn't that a prerequisite for entering the "web of trust" or whatever they call it?
phony electronic distribution requirement
You try selling a game that doesn't have a downloadable playable demo. Players like to know what they're getting into before they buy something.
I'm not aware of the part of the GNU GPL that requires "electronic" distribution.
But the GPL FAQ states that if the binaries are distributed electronically, the source code must also be distributed electronically. The sheer size of the source code may prohibit me from distributing the software electronically at all.
Also, if the work is not a derivative of anything GPL'd, the GNU GPL would not apply to you (assuming you are the copyright holder on this work)
I am not. Read what I had written: "I can't re-license the software because it uses the LZO compression library, which is licensed under the GNU GPL." The LZO library was written by Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer, who does not have a plain e-mail address.
This is a non-problem if and only if reversibly concatenating an executable with asset files counts as either "mere aggregation" and/or "just data" under the GPL.
Yet another reason why everything should run over ssl/tls.
Who has upwards of $200 per year for an SSL certificate? AFAIK, VeriSign along with its Thawte subsidiary has a near monopoly on issuing the certificates required to run secure SSL connections.
You can put just what you need online and provide the complete "source" via CD in the mail if requested.
I've considered that, but the GPL FAQ states: "The GPL insists that redistributors of binaries without sources provide an offer in writing to send the sources, because that's the only way we can make sure that users can get the sources. So if you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you have to distribute sources along with them."
In other words, if I distribute binaries electronically, I have to either distribute source code electronically or restrict binary distribution to those who own a printer.
From the GPL FAQ: "This should not be hard. If you can find a site to distribute your program, you can surely find one that has room for the sources." I'm not sure that the authors of the GPL had situations in mind where the source code is several orders of magnitude larger than the binary.
If it doesn't turn out to be that popular a game or folks just don't care about the source (it happens a lot), then it's a moot point anyway.
If I do not comply with the letter of the GPL from the outset, I am infringing the copyright on the LZO library, and Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer can sue me for up to $150,000 in statutory damages under U.S. copyright law.
The only way I can truly make this a moot point is if I can make a case that the way I store asset files (essentially a file system within the ROM) counts as "mere aggregation" under the GPL.
Stick the video and sound assets into a seperate file
The target system uses interchangeable ROM cartridges and has only one ROM connector. I don't want the user to have to swap cartridges several times during game play, and I don't want to have to provide two expensive ROM cartridges in each package.
(like iD did with their.pak files with quake)
I'm already storing asset files in.gbfs archives. (The.gbfs format is an archive format I designed, somewhat similar to.tar,.pak,.zip,.jar,.dat used by other programs.) However, because a program on the target system can access only one file (the ROM), I have to concatenate the asset files to the end of the executable. Does concatenating several files count as "linking" if I also provide a tool to extract the individual.exe and.gbfs files?
If you want to (and I presume you do), provide compressed versions of the assets (eg make the asset library a simple zip file).
I already do that, but the assets are already 20 MB zipped before counting the lossy compression used to pack the assets into the pak file. Lossy compression of source code is not permitted by the GPL, as a lossy compressed audio or image file is no longer "the preferred form for making modifications to the work."
If you are concerned about that, just write an exception into your copy of the GPL.
I am not authorized to do that. The program includes a library (M.F.X.J. Oberhumer's LZO) under the GNU GPL, and I am not permitted to link it against anything not under the GPL. I cannot contact Mr. Oberhumer because he does not accept mail not encrypted with PGP, and I cannot use PGP because I don't know anybody who would sign my keys.
If concatenating several files in a reversible manner does not count as "linking," then I don't have a problem.
If you want build speed, disable optimization etc.
I understand this when developing on a workstation for a workstation target, but if you're developing a graphics engine that must run within 200,000 machine cycles on fixed hardware, and your engine already runs at 84% CPU usage at -O3, you can't afford to turn off the optimizer.
I'm developing a video game to be released under the GNU General Public License. The binary (executable + video and sound assets) will be about 256 KB, and the source code for the executable portion of the file plus the custom build tools is about 256 KB. The problem is that the "source code" for the whole project, as defined by the GPL, may exceed 50 MB (primarily large lossless video and sound files), and because this is my first project, I can't afford very much web space. I can't re-license the software because it uses the LZO compression library, which is licensed under the GNU GPL, not the Lesser GPL. (I can switch to any other packer library with similar speed, but I don't want to have to go all the way back to RLE compression.)
If the source code is several orders of magnitude bigger than the binary and requires manual processing in the build process, how should I distribute my software electronically in order to comply with the letter and spirit of the GNU GPL?
It leaves out the CD subcode channels (frame header bits) but introduces its own subcode channels (dotfiles in the UDF filesystem) that are just as impossible to attack with a permanent marker.
When Slackware 8.1 [slashdot.org] is ready for prime time, I'll probably do it as an ISO. For 15 minutes, I'm going to be the biggest bandwidth user on the entire Eldorado Mountain Sprint Broadband Direct cell.
You can have your ISO within 14 hours if you throttle your download to 13 kilobytes per second (typical ISDN speed). And because your connection is always on, you won't be nearly as likely to get cut off While-U-Sleep.
in some obtuse set of circumstances, its retail value would be $100,000.
Such circumstances already exist in the United States of America. Copyright law, 17 USC 504, provides for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed.
They will put these unique IDs somewhere on the edges of the disk.
How do you know? There's a whole lot of empty space in the headers of a CD, reserved for things like this. Karaoke discs also use the subcode channel.
Where's my sharpie?:)
A SHARPIE® fine point permanent marker will not help you if the new standard stores the serial number in the subcode rather than in a separate session like key2audio does.
You can still buy lots of NES consoles on eBay. Nintendo has long used the existence of eBay against the "preservation" and "but piracy of no-longer-available software is fair use" defences. (I'd give you a link, but it appears to have disappeared in the 2001 redesign.)
emulating the c64 would be a wonderful use of new hardware... emulating the n64 would be piracy
Actually both would be piracy, unless you have specific license contracts that state that you may freely copy and redistribute software for the Commodore 64. Unlike patents, copyrights do not expire.
On the other hand, how did Nintendo 64 software developers develop and test their software? Emulation isn't piracy if you own the copyright on what you're emulating. Even Nintendo has recently realized that that highly substantial non-infringing uses for flash cartridges make the flash cartridges in and of themselves no longer illegal, and has removed the "emulators exist ONLY to play pirated games" language from its IP FAQ.
Now why the FUCK would I want one of those? How come nobody says what the fucking thing does?
Read the grandparent:
Modified XBE's and custom code can boot (This is a HUGE feature - as you'll all see soon)
This is the milestone. An XBE is the Xbox equivalent of a Win32 EXE or a Linux ELF, that is, a program file. If you can boot a modified program file, then you can potentially make a file called "grub.xbe" that will load the kernel of a free GNU/Linux operating system. This is the approach that this team plans to take.
Xbox and GameCube discs spin clockwise just like any other common optical disc (such as a CD, a copy-protected audio disc, or a DVD); they just store their boot blocks on the second layer, which normally starts at the outside of the disc and spirals inward.
I'm not going to defend these patents, but keep in mind that the claims are ANDed together, not ORed. Don't read the first claim and exclaim that Red Hat patented reports. It patented a static HTTP server that uses an object cache in an O/S kernel and meets the characteristics of all twelve claims.
Actually, the items in an individual claim are ANDed, but the separate claims are ORed.
Slashdot Mirror
$15 for 80 mins of music is insane. I remember buying cassette tapes for $5 BRAND SPANKING NEW at the Turtles down the road.
1. Longer albums. Back in the day, when vinyl was king, 35 minutes was considered an album; nowadays, CD albums average 70 minutes.
2. Inflation. CDs cost USD 17 now, but $17 in AD2002 dollars is worth about $9 in AD1983 dollars (when CDs were first released).
The compressed video and sound are fine, as they are playable using the open-source code and can easily be considered the "usual form of the source".
From the GPL: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Would you rather make modifications to a sound recording using a single stereo Ogg file, using a single stereo PCM WAV file, or using WAV files of the individual tracks (one per instrument) plus the script for the mixer?
I think in fact you are trying to make a bogus example to show that the GPL won't work. It works fine.
I bet they could use some of that Mozilla code in IE7! MS Mozilla!
You too can use the Gecko engine (Mozilla's rendering engine) in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Use this tool to patch iexplore.exe and other apps to use an ActiveX wrapper around the Gecko engine instead of MSHTML.
It took 5 times as long to get to version 1.0 than MS did with IE.
The Mozilla team started from scratch and produced a working web browser in three years, after deciding that the Netscape 5.0 code on which they had been working for the last year just wouldn't cut it. The Microsoft Internet Explorer team bought the Mosaic browser (a project presumably begun in 1992) and released IE 1.0 in August 1995, and it wasn't actually usable until 3.0 in August 1996. Again four years.
DVDs are cheaper to produce than VHS but cost almost $10 [more]
It costs money to produce the DVD "extras" such as menus, translations, interviews with the director, deleted scenes, etc.
So don't distribute your work electronically.
Would you get one of, say, the media player apps if you couldn't get it for free online?
So much of this issue centers on your erroneous belief that the GNU GPL requires you to distribute electronically.
I understand that the GNU GPL does not require this, but the behavior of the typical Internet surfer does. The typical Internet surfer would rather just click the little X button in the upper right corner of her browser than order a CD on an impulse. And if I start selling CDs online, I have to pay upwards of $200 per year for an SSL certificate to protect my e-commerce from the man in the middle, don't I?
You could accede to Oberhumer's wishes and try GPG
I have considered this path. However, when I looked into GPG, I found no way of getting my key signed by a prominent GPG user, or even by any GPG user. Isn't that a prerequisite for entering the "web of trust" or whatever they call it?
phony electronic distribution requirement
You try selling a game that doesn't have a downloadable playable demo. Players like to know what they're getting into before they buy something.
I'm not aware of the part of the GNU GPL that requires "electronic" distribution.
But the GPL FAQ states that if the binaries are distributed electronically, the source code must also be distributed electronically. The sheer size of the source code may prohibit me from distributing the software electronically at all.
Also, if the work is not a derivative of anything GPL'd, the GNU GPL would not apply to you (assuming you are the copyright holder on this work)
I am not. Read what I had written: "I can't re-license the software because it uses the LZO compression library, which is licensed under the GNU GPL." The LZO library was written by Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer, who does not have a plain e-mail address.
This is a non-problem if and only if reversibly concatenating an executable with asset files counts as either "mere aggregation" and/or "just data" under the GPL.
Yet another reason why everything should run over ssl/tls.
Who has upwards of $200 per year for an SSL certificate? AFAIK, VeriSign along with its Thawte subsidiary has a near monopoly on issuing the certificates required to run secure SSL connections.
You can put just what you need online and provide the complete "source" via CD in the mail if requested.
I've considered that, but the GPL FAQ states: "The GPL insists that redistributors of binaries without sources provide an offer in writing to send the sources, because that's the only way we can make sure that users can get the sources. So if you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you have to distribute sources along with them."
In other words, if I distribute binaries electronically, I have to either distribute source code electronically or restrict binary distribution to those who own a printer.
From the GPL FAQ: "This should not be hard. If you can find a site to distribute your program, you can surely find one that has room for the sources." I'm not sure that the authors of the GPL had situations in mind where the source code is several orders of magnitude larger than the binary.
If it doesn't turn out to be that popular a game or folks just don't care about the source (it happens a lot), then it's a moot point anyway.
If I do not comply with the letter of the GPL from the outset, I am infringing the copyright on the LZO library, and Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer can sue me for up to $150,000 in statutory damages under U.S. copyright law.
The only way I can truly make this a moot point is if I can make a case that the way I store asset files (essentially a file system within the ROM) counts as "mere aggregation" under the GPL.
Stick the video and sound assets into a seperate file
The target system uses interchangeable ROM cartridges and has only one ROM connector. I don't want the user to have to swap cartridges several times during game play, and I don't want to have to provide two expensive ROM cartridges in each package.
(like iD did with their .pak files with quake)
I'm already storing asset files in .gbfs archives. (The .gbfs format is an archive format I designed, somewhat similar to .tar, .pak, .zip, .jar, .dat used by other programs.) However, because a program on the target system can access only one file (the ROM), I have to concatenate the asset files to the end of the executable. Does concatenating several files count as "linking" if I also provide a tool to extract the individual .exe and .gbfs files?
If you want to (and I presume you do), provide compressed versions of the assets (eg make the asset library a simple zip file).
I already do that, but the assets are already 20 MB zipped before counting the lossy compression used to pack the assets into the pak file. Lossy compression of source code is not permitted by the GPL, as a lossy compressed audio or image file is no longer "the preferred form for making modifications to the work."
If you are concerned about that, just write an exception into your copy of the GPL.
I am not authorized to do that. The program includes a library (M.F.X.J. Oberhumer's LZO) under the GNU GPL, and I am not permitted to link it against anything not under the GPL. I cannot contact Mr. Oberhumer because he does not accept mail not encrypted with PGP, and I cannot use PGP because I don't know anybody who would sign my keys.
If concatenating several files in a reversible manner does not count as "linking," then I don't have a problem.
If you want build speed, disable optimization etc.
I understand this when developing on a workstation for a workstation target, but if you're developing a graphics engine that must run within 200,000 machine cycles on fixed hardware, and your engine already runs at 84% CPU usage at -O3, you can't afford to turn off the optimizer.
I'm developing a video game to be released under the GNU General Public License. The binary (executable + video and sound assets) will be about 256 KB, and the source code for the executable portion of the file plus the custom build tools is about 256 KB. The problem is that the "source code" for the whole project, as defined by the GPL, may exceed 50 MB (primarily large lossless video and sound files), and because this is my first project, I can't afford very much web space. I can't re-license the software because it uses the LZO compression library, which is licensed under the GNU GPL, not the Lesser GPL. (I can switch to any other packer library with similar speed, but I don't want to have to go all the way back to RLE compression.)
If the source code is several orders of magnitude bigger than the binary and requires manual processing in the build process, how should I distribute my software electronically in order to comply with the letter and spirit of the GNU GPL?
If I share software with you I can't simply tell you where the source is, I have to give it to you or make a written offer?
Say my sister doesn't have access to the Internet. Given only a URL, how is she supposed to fetch the source code? (Read More...)
yerricde has replied to your comment in a discussion where it is more on-topic. Read the answer here.
The DVD spec leaves out the subcode channels
It leaves out the CD subcode channels (frame header bits) but introduces its own subcode channels (dotfiles in the UDF filesystem) that are just as impossible to attack with a permanent marker.
When Slackware 8.1 [slashdot.org] is ready for prime time, I'll probably do it as an ISO. For 15 minutes, I'm going to be the biggest bandwidth user on the entire Eldorado Mountain Sprint Broadband Direct cell.
You can have your ISO within 14 hours if you throttle your download to 13 kilobytes per second (typical ISDN speed). And because your connection is always on, you won't be nearly as likely to get cut off While-U-Sleep.
in some obtuse set of circumstances, its retail value would be $100,000.
Such circumstances already exist in the United States of America. Copyright law, 17 USC 504, provides for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed.
They will put these unique IDs somewhere on the edges of the disk.
How do you know? There's a whole lot of empty space in the headers of a CD, reserved for things like this. Karaoke discs also use the subcode channel.
Where's my sharpie? :)
A SHARPIE® fine point permanent marker will not help you if the new standard stores the serial number in the subcode rather than in a separate session like key2audio does.
[What about] people who make their own CDs (bar bands, etc)
Most bar bands break the law anyway because they cover other songwriters' works without paying ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI.
biut it doesn't matter you can STILL buy a n64
You can still buy lots of NES consoles on eBay. Nintendo has long used the existence of eBay against the "preservation" and "but piracy of no-longer-available software is fair use" defences. (I'd give you a link, but it appears to have disappeared in the 2001 redesign.)
emulating the c64 would be a wonderful use of new hardware... emulating the n64 would be piracy
Actually both would be piracy, unless you have specific license contracts that state that you may freely copy and redistribute software for the Commodore 64. Unlike patents, copyrights do not expire.
On the other hand, how did Nintendo 64 software developers develop and test their software? Emulation isn't piracy if you own the copyright on what you're emulating. Even Nintendo has recently realized that that highly substantial non-infringing uses for flash cartridges make the flash cartridges in and of themselves no longer illegal, and has removed the "emulators exist ONLY to play pirated games" language from its IP FAQ.
Now why the FUCK would I want one of those? How come nobody says what the fucking thing does?
Read the grandparent:
Modified XBE's and custom code can boot (This is a HUGE feature - as you'll all see soon)
This is the milestone. An XBE is the Xbox equivalent of a Win32 EXE or a Linux ELF, that is, a program file. If you can boot a modified program file, then you can potentially make a file called "grub.xbe" that will load the kernel of a free GNU/Linux operating system. This is the approach that this team plans to take.
toilet ... equator ... Coriolis Force
Toilet/Coriolis connection debunked here.
Xbox and GameCube discs spin clockwise just like any other common optical disc (such as a CD, a copy-protected audio disc, or a DVD); they just store their boot blocks on the second layer, which normally starts at the outside of the disc and spirals inward.
in fact i have yet to see a mainstream console system NOT emulated by the dreamcast (other than the ps2/cube/xbox)
I couldn't find a Nintendo 64 emulator for Dreamcast.
On the other hand, Game Boy Advance is as much a mainstream console as the Super NES ever was, and DreamGBA emulates it on the Dreamcast.
I'm not going to defend these patents, but keep in mind that the claims are ANDed together, not ORed. Don't read the first claim and exclaim that Red Hat patented reports. It patented a static HTTP server that uses an object cache in an O/S kernel and meets the characteristics of all twelve claims.
Actually, the items in an individual claim are ANDed, but the separate claims are ORed.
"Buy hard drive. Buy supported video card. Boot from floppy. Insert CD-ROM with disk image. Reboot. Done."
Boot this. It's a GNU/Linux distribution designed to boot from a CD-ROM disc.