Chatty: Diablo III, Dragon's Dogma
FileShack: Unity of Command, Skyjacker
Daily Filter: Planetside 2, Deadlight
Weekend PC digital deals: strategy-o-rama
38 Studios, Harry Potter Kinect - Shacknews Daily: May 25, 2012
Carmack on GPL
by Clay Mitchell, Feb 23, 2000 5:09pm PSTUpdate - Clay: Here's the whole dealie, since i know you can't get to the QuakeLives site right now. This is what's happening: The QuakeLives guy has stated this:
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL. Specifically the rights regarding access to the source code. And while we are obligated to offer you the source code, for up to 3 years until we stop releasing this. To gain access to this site, you are obligated not to ask.So the guy wants to protect his source code? Big deal right? Wrong! Carmack released the source under the GPL. What's that? The GNU Public License. And here's a snippet of it:
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. YOU MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE RECIPIENTS' EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN."Anyhow, whats this mean? All these free software jokers who do stuff with Linux are up a creek if this kind of mess can happen. Any Tom, Dick or Harry, can take their software, close it and sell it! Anyway here's Carmack's whole "don't mess with me foo" .plan update.
This is a public statement that is also being sent directly to Slade at QuakeLives regarding http://www.quakelives.com/main/ql.cgi?section=dlagreement&file=qwcl-win32/ I see both sides of this. Your goals are positive, and I understand the issues and the difficulties that your project has to work under because of the GPL. I have also seen some GPL zealots acting petty and immature towards you very early on (while it is within everyone's rights to DEMAND code under the GPL, it isn't necessarily the best attitude to take), which probably colors some of your views on the subject. We discussed several possible legal solutions to the issues. This isn't one of them. While I doubt your "give up your rights" click through would hold up in court, I am positive that you are required to give the source to anyone that asks for it that got a binary from someone else. This doesn't provide the obscurity needed for a gaming level of security. I cut you a lot of slack because I honestly thought you intended to properly follow through with the requirements of the GPL, and you were just trying to get something fun out ASAP. It looks like I was wrong. If you can't stand to work under the GPL, you should release the code to your last binary and give up your project. I would prefer that you continue your work, but abide by the GPL. If necessary, I will pay whatever lawyer the Free Software Foundation reccomends to pursue this.
Comments
So stick that up your pipe and smoke it dumbass.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
If I modify a unix GPL program to work under windows and reference one of the window DLLs in the resulting code, Microsoft is under NO requirement to release the source to THEIR DLL.
The same would be true, if I created a DLL that contained an engine for AI programming that I copyrighted and granted redistribution license to anyone who purchases the development IDE tools. If someone decides to use my AI DLL as part of a Quake project, the GPL does not force me to release my source to the AI engine.
And it is bullshit to think the GPL won\'t hold up in court. It isn\'t a law. It\'s a license agreement that you have to hold to. If you don\'t agree, then don\'t use the GPL.
The law BACKS UP the GPL, the GPL isn\'t just a law to be declared \"unconstitutional\" or some shit.
It could be for any game, and Quake simply SUPPORTS it.
There is nothing to stop you writing a secure networking API of you own violition. If you then modify the Quake source to support it, you don\'t have to release your own SEPERATE work, which is distributed under a seperate liscense, in a seperate download. After all GPL only applies to a work and its derivitives.
But id STILL owns the code. If Slade wanted to, he could negotiate a different liscence with id that WOULDN\'T require him to post the code. That\'s perfectly legit- and plenty of software companies like Raven hav similar agreements on the Quake source that don\'t require them to post source. But you HAVE to get that relisence from id, you can\'t just make it up yourself like Slade has done.
That\'s a lot like saying every new law that hasn\'t had a case regarding applied to it will never hold up. It makes zero sense.
- Holesinswiss
damn it
hahahahahahahahah
Got Ya !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Limits being - Dll stuff can be OS specific - Needs porting/portability support and the ability to modify the Quake Code in such a way the secret needed stuff is outside of the code.
Some people reading this board need to figure out what open source means.
This could be fought in court. I don\'t know if a case this clear cut has got that far, it would seem a simple test of whether the GPL is enforceable or not.
Once the Quake source was released under GPL the cheat genie was out of the bottle. Time to move on folks.
It\'s painfully obvious that the Quake source code mod-community is nowhere near as big as the Doom one. Then again, Quake is pathetic compared to DOOM in every way. :)
you obviously have no idea whatsoever what quakelives is about do you?