Open Source Immortality?

[R00k]

Sounds like Qrack
My understanding is that the author of that engine isn't complying with the GPL by releasing the sources when the binaries are released. Breaking id Software's license agreement is flat out rude.

...

Ack wait "THAT AUTHOR" you mean mE?? OR Beefy?? Qrack 1.95 isnt public yet cause its still beta, but i release sources as I update the downloads
Either way, I am guilty of selective GPL compliance. Bam, and Phenom, Rapture, Avalanche, Vis, clan Bizzarro have variants open source versions of CAx. I really should write out some kinda documentation, make it non qccx and open source it.

[Baker]

Ack wait "THAT AUTHOR" you mean mE?? ... i release sources as I update the downloads

No, not you. The feature set.

"Sounds like Qrack" = I was referring to the DQuake vs. Qrack feature set (md3, colored light support, decals, hlbsp, QMB particles/Q3 particles, sprite32, skybox, external textures, fog, fullbright texture support, png/tga/jpg, bumpmaps). In fact, considering the similarity of the feature set I do not believe this could be a coincidence -- likely DQuake is porting from Qrack.

Obviously, I wasn't suggesting you as a GPL violating author, I was referring to the author of DQuake.

It is my understanding that on numerous occasions the author of DQuake has made engine releases and not released the source code. And it is my understanding that he "screwed" the Solitude team in such a manner.

And I don't believe such behavior on behalf of the author of DQuake should be admired. And I also believe that a closed source engine such as DQuake isn't contributing anything.

[BEEF34T3R]

Ok, public releases of DQuake and other ports will be with sources and GPL copy, thx

I'm mostly the helper/tester/suggestor, the code is being written by Crowbar.

[Baker]

Ok, public releases of DQuake and other ports will be with sources and GPL copy, thx

I'm mostly the helper/tester/suggestor, the code is being written by Crowbar.

The author of DQuake is violating the GPL. He released a binary; he is required to release the source; he hasn't. Case closed.

No respectable site is going to ignore that; no one is the developer community is going to view such an author with ANY level of respect whatsoever.

Everyone knows the terms of the release of Quake source code, it is included in the distribution.

The code is all licensed under the terms of the GPL (gnu public license).
You should read the entire license, but the gist of it is that you can do
anything you want with the code, including sell your new version. The catch
is that if you distribute new binary versions, you are required to make the
entire source code available for free to everyone.

Our previous code releases have been under licenses that preclude
commercial exploitation, but have no clause forcing sharing of source code.
There have been some unfortunate losses to the community as a result of
mod teams keeping their sources closed (and sometimes losing them). If
you are going to publicly release modified versions of this code, you must
also make source code available.

...

John Carmack

There isn't anything vague or unclear about that. It is universally known by developers everywhere.

The license that John Carmack released the source under is being violated, plain and simple.

[MH]

My understanding of the GPL is that you don't actually have to provide a link to downloadable source code (or source code available via whatever your distribution medium is) in order to comply. 3(b) of the GPL v2 seems fairly clear on this, and I'd read it as indicating that you can do a binary-only release together with an offer to provide source to anyone who asks for it.

The main violation here seems to be that the offer to provide source isn't explicitly included, but on the other hand it's possible that inclusion of the GPL text with the binary distribution (if that is the case) would be enough to cover this.

The GPL however is quite vague on a lot of things and it's possible that my understanding is wrong.

[Baker]

My understanding of the GPL is that you don't actually have to provide a link to downloadable source code (or source code available via whatever your distribution medium is) in order to comply.

It is my understanding that the author in question has refused to release his source code several times including to a project team he was involved in and has released several binaries and stated he had no need to comply with the license agreement until he releases his "final one". That isn't following the terms that John Carmack set for the Quake source release, of course.

Yeah, you don't have to provide a link to the source. But if someone asks for it, you have to provide it. And the author in question as I understand it has repeatedly refused (this is apparently a well-known fact in the PSP Quake community).

[Baker]

Anyways,

Back on topic ... a few of these are happening or have already happened.

[MH]

It is my understanding that the author in question has refused to release his source code several times including to a project team he was involved in and has released several binaries and stated he had no need to comply with the license agreement until he releases his "final one". That isn't following the terms that John Carmack set for the Quake source release, of course.

Yeah, you don't have to provide a link to the source. But if someone asks for it, you have to provide it. And the author in question as I understand it has repeatedly refused (this is apparently a well-known fact in the PSP Quake community).

Ah, pretty cut 'n' dried then.

[MH]

One of those rumours (sorry, I'm so European!) has just happened, and DirectQ now has the NAT fix in. DirectQ - Release: Release 1.7.666c

[Ovarylord]

This post inspired me to blog a bit about Quake and its amazing longevity. Hope you don't mind me posting about it here. I'm planning to do a series on commercial-gone open source games (and other re-texturing projects/vintage games).

[Baker]

Hope you don't mind me posting about it here.

It's a community forum, post whatever you want, wherever you. Post off-topic, derail a thread, pimp your work. Laissez faire and all that!

[BEEF34T3R]

Baker
Of course, we respect John Carmack, all his brilliant work at id, industry-important technological breakthroughs and his great contribution into the community - sources under GPL, Quake and Doom finally, and we are not going to share with web id's copyrighted materials (game data or something).

I'm not going to justify old CrowBar's fault, but can explain, that thread on BladeBattles forum was started as a close test, those files were not something for the wide audience. Again, we'll release all ports to public accepting GPL.

Thanx.

[Baker]

Baker
Of course, we respect John Carmack, all his brilliant work at id, industry-important technological breakthroughs and his great contribution into the community - sources under GPL, Quake and Doom finally, and we are not going to share with web id's copyrighted materials (game data or something).

I'm not going to justify old CrowBar's fault, but can explain, that thread on BladeBattles forum was started as a close test, those files were not something for the wide audience. Again, we'll release all ports to public accepting GPL.

Thanx.

I'm not trying to get on your case personally, Beefy.

Any binary distribution requires that you make the source available to anyone that asks for it. There are no exceptions for a "closed test", there are no exceptions for "beta version". There are no exceptions at all.

And the author in question is not complying with that is violating the GPL.

Failing to comply with the license is very bad ethics. It is also illegal.

Long story short, regardless of the excuses or the reasons or the justifications, that author is violating the GPL. No developer, no legitimate site is going to give that a free pass.

[R00k]

Baker
Of course, we respect John Carmack, all his brilliant work at id, industry-important technological breakthroughs and his great contribution into the community - sources under GPL, Quake and Doom finally, and we are not going to share with web id's copyrighted materials (game data or something).

I'm not going to justify old CrowBar's fault, but can explain, that thread on BladeBattles forum was started as a close test, those files were not something for the wide audience. Again, we'll release all ports to public accepting GPL.

Thanx.

"Blah blah blah blah" -- this thread has performed a bullshit error and will be reset when the crap is flushed.

No one REALLY wants to play Quake on a PSP, its a tech demo that 12 year olds see as a method to show their dad they dont really suck ass at life, just yet.

I'd rather see someone SUCK at trying than trying to SUCK.

[Baker]

No one REALLY wants to play Quake on a PSP, its a tech demo that 12 year olds see as a method to show their dad they dont really suck ass at life, just yet.

I'd rather see someone SUCK at trying than trying to SUCK.

Eh?

I don't agree with that at all. Any reason to take up game modding is a good one.

Making models, learning QuakeC, changing the engine ... those are all rewarding experiences. You learn more than about "gaming" things in the process. In making maps or models, you get a glimpse in computer simulation and the issues. With the engine, you get a whole ton of insight into other issues and learn quite a few concepts in the process. Game logic forces you translate ideas in your head to concrete implementation and learn the limitations and unwritten rules (bugs, limitations, flow of the logic) and how it could be better.

Some day there will be a non-locked down platform and it will rule them all. Will it be this one: OpenPandora - The OMAP3 based Handheld ? I don't know.

But if not them, one like them in the future.

This is why Windows and DOS destroyed all other competitors way back whenever.

The idea that a device or computer you own is ACTUALLY yours to do with as you please and not some borrowed piece of equipment has appeal.

Someday, a handheld device maker will discover this fundamental concept.