Yagisan
Mini-Member
Posts: 94
Registered: 01-06 |
Gez said:
You should also/instead ask for the email of whoever is in charge of the mobile game team so that you can ask them directly what they are doing with the iDoom and iWolf code and how long they'll take to comply with the terms of the license this code is under.
While it's all well and good to say when will you comply, the fact is they were legally obligated to comply the moment they redistributed the resulting binaries. Unless each person purchasing this product is getting a written offer good for 3 years to supply the source for nominal copying fees, then they don't really get to decide when they comply.
Gez said:
And attempting any sort of legal action would cause more harm than good. It would risk changing Zenimax's legal opinion on the subject, since it would turn into a potential threat and an obstacle against reuse of old technology on new platforms with limited resources; and then you can say goodbye to future open-sourcing of any idtech engine that's not already open. Fighting people who aren't actually our enemy can only have bad outcomes, whether the trial is a defeat or a victory.
With the sale of Id Software to Zenimax, several key issues have changed.
* Zenimax is not Id Software. Id software is a now a defunct concern.
* Zenimax and Id software do not share the same ideals.
* Any non legally bindings and covenants we had with Id software are now null and void. This includes promises of future releases of idtech.
* Zenimax's current behaviour ( intentional or not ) already projects an image of disregard towards license compliance.
Is Zenimax our enemy ? Fundamentally we do not yet know. All we do know is they are profiting from community members work, without abiding by the license that it was given to them under. That can be construed as a hostile act, given the lack of communication from Zenimax, even if it was the result of a simple matter of human error on their behalf in the first place.
To those that think I am advocating legal action immediately, I am not. I would prefer that Zenimax immediately resume communications and rectify the matter at once, however, given the lack of action, it would be prudent of those involved to prepare themselves for the possibility of legal action, as distasteful as it is to some.
A common theme I see running through this thread is "Don't enforce our legal rights, otherwise they might not release new idtech code". That's right, they may not. They may also sell themselves to another corporation tomorrow, or decide they will be a iphone only developer, or anything else their shareholders decide will bring them most value. The previous shareholders and management valued sharing the source. Their new shareholders and management come from the media and financial services industries. Neither of which are known to be fond of sharing.
A quick look at just the board of directors reveals that the CEO is a lawyer, there are two media organisations, three investment firms, and a sporting organisation. Wether or not we get a new idtech release depends on if those organisations think it will be profitable for them. I don't have high expectations that there will be another open source idtech release.
But really, all this talk about not doing anything to prevent a possible cancellation of a future idtech source release is immaterial to the problem at hand. The problem at hand is simple - Zenimax has used the work of members of the community, and not abided by the license. They are now not communicating with those members. Those members have to make a choice soon, if they want to enforce their rights, or if they will give carte blanche to anyone to appropriate their work.
|
08-16-11 18:42 
