risen3d licencing discussion

[entryway]

Do you really believe that Graham could destroy the sources? I believe this is the scheduled lies and that shows only his devil-may-care attitude to one's fans.

[Quasar]

Yeah, we're working on putting everything together to that end. We'll try our darnedest, and if they still can't be won over, then it's hopeless. Not having to deal with the Activision EULA would be like a revolution in this community. I certainly know it would be a huge burden off myself.

[RTC_Marine]

That goes for alot of other ports aswell, including the other one you're associated with ;)

[Brad_tilf]

I can't believe you guys killed the best opengl port out there. Jesus.

[Csonicgo]

Brad_tilf said:

I can't believe you guys killed the best opengl port out there. Jesus.

OH NO!

Yeah, blame US. I can't ever forget when the community put that gun to Graham's head and told him to stop working on Risen3D.

[Brad_tilf]

If someone who is doing something for free gets enough grief then can you blame him for quitting? I can't believe people are giving someone this much of a hard time over something he is doing for the community.

[Neil]

Brad_tilf said:

If someone who is doing something for free gets enough grief then can you blame him for quitting? I can't believe people are giving someone this much of a hard time over something he is doing for the community.

I can't believe someone would take advantage of the community spirit showed by id and other Doom developers, who released their code under the GNU GPL, and betray that trust and spirit by violating the license as flagrantly as the Risen developers did.

[Brad_tilf]

Did they charge you to use it?
It was the best opengl port available and now it's dead and for no good reason.

[Yagisan]

Brad_tilf said:

Did they charge you to use it?
It was the best opengl port available and now it's dead and for no good reason.

It's dead for a damm good reason. Read this sentence again and again until you understand it. The Risen3D developers failed to comply with their license obligations and as a result forfeted their right to use the source code they based Risen3D on. Understood ? Now go bitch at the Risen3D devs for not fulfilling their obligations for over 3 years.

[myk]

Brad_tilf said:
Did they charge you to use it?

Not everyone is a whore to such a point that they judge only what is being charged for.

Software that's produced through the abuse of another's generosity is not in turn a generous offer. They got their base code from the Doomsday team under the condition that modifications would be shared similarly in source form.

By the way, you understanding of the matter shows your title suits you quite fine.

[fraggle]

Brad_tilf said:

Did they charge you to use it?
It was the best opengl port available and now it's dead and for no good reason.

It's hard for non-programmers to understand this. Look at it this way. Imagine you're the creator of a TC, let's call it SuperDuperDoom. Anyway, you work hard and finally release your TC.

Now, imagine some other guy comes along and starts his own TC. He releases his first test version, which you download. You then notice that he's used all of the textures you made for your TC. Worse still, in the levels, large sections are cut-and-pasted from your own levels.

You email the author and he sends a reply saying that he used bits of your levels temporarily because some of the structures are kind of like what he plans for his final version. He promises that the next version will have all of your stuff removed.

The next release comes out and it still has all your stuff in. You send more emails and get no reply. Three years later the project is still under development and your work is still in this TC without your permission. You start a thread on the forums in which people agree that it's copyrighted material and should be removed. After seeing the fuss, the other guy puts up a statement on the website claiming that "it's perfectly legal because it's public domain material from a website" and says that he will remove the bits he's stolen, but makes ridiculous demands, like asking for a list of every linedef that should be removed.

Eventually, there are so many negative forum posts that the guy cancels his TC, deleting it from his hard drive and posting on his website claiming that "as people won't be patient, I won't finish the TC".

Now, you may think that this is different from the situation here, but it really isn't all that different. In the text files for WADs, level authors put messages like "You may NOT make modified versions of this WAD". With software, it's more complicated. We grant other people the permission to use our work on the condition that they release the source. If you ignore conditions like these, it's no different from ignoring requests like "You may not make modified versions of this WAD".

[Quasar]

A perfect way to sum up the situation, fraggle.

[myk]

Yes, it's a great analogy from someone who through experience can see the matter on both worlds (code/wads), to bridge them together for better understanding.

[Brad_tilf]

I've created my fair share of maps over the years and even collaborated on some stuff that had a ton of original work, not to mention the maps. But also someone has to do is ask if they can use those resources. After all, none of it would exist if it weren't for id Software allowing it and I am not so high on my stuff as to believe that I hold a right to something that isn't technically mine to begin with. It seems that a simple request for acknowledgement of the original work is all that is necessary in a case like this.

[Yagisan]

Brad_tilf said:

After all, none of it would exist if it weren't for id Software allowing it and I am not so high on my stuff as to believe that I hold a right to something that isn't technically mine to begin with.

The important difference that you seem to miss, is that it is not id's work that was stolen, it was our work released under the terms of the GNU GPLv2. It's already been demonstrated in this thread where the source came from, and 3 years of asking for them to comply with their obligations ends like this, because they don't want to do it.

Brad_tilf said:

It seems that a simple request for acknowledgement of the original work is all that is necessary in a case like this.

It's not. What is necessary is the release of the source code with the binaries as per section 3 of the GPL. Failure to comply is a violation of the license and terminates your rights to use the code.

[myk]

Brad_tilf said:
It seems that a simple request for acknowledgement of the original work is all that is necessary in a case like this.

Take this into account: John Carmack himself, one of the main owners of id Software and the man who coded most of the engine and made the effort to then release it to the public for further modification, placed it under the General Public License in 1999 and earnestly encourages people to go by that license when releasing or modifying Doom based engines.

Check out the July 26th, 2000 news on the CSDoom page from when there was a very similar issue with that engine, for a clear picture of his stance, in both encouraging the enforcement of the GPL (which Doomsday is under, and Risen3D takes from), and even switching to it when possible in regard to Doom projects.

[deep]

Been gone

Yagisan said:

You really have no understanding do you. Under what legal grounds can a license be enforced ? Why - it's COPYRIGHT law.

The problem with this WHOLE discussion is that people like you posture a lot but have no clue. COPYRIGHT has absolutely NOTHING to do with a LICENSE. Let me hammer this home so people will realize you are making it up as you go along. Listen up:

The way you enforce a LICENSE is via the LICENSE agreement - NOT Copyright law. And we are talking about LICENSE issue here!

IOW, a LICENSE is a standalone legal document (AGREEMENT) all by itself. It does not require Copyright anything for enforcement.

Not understanding something this simple is your problem. Unfortunately, your kind of post is confusing the hell out of everyone and continuing a debate based on imagination, not law.

As noted correctly by someone, you CAN NOT just throw a bunch of licenses in a heap and expect anyone to make sense of this. That's what JDOOM/etc has done - create a nonsense licensing state. This was pointed out by me a LONG TIME AGO yet you refuse to understand this. Not my problem, but your problem.

You and others wish to confuse and I find that interesting since some of you are actually in trouble by the very things you say. GZDOOM in particular falls 100% into the arguments presented :)

As I already said (and somebody else noted), you've created a SINGLE project with all these pieces - I give a rats whether you link it dynamically or not or any other gambit. You clearly don't realize this is more a style issue vs deeper stuff. ZDOOM is an obvious example of how to do it differently.

You can not now claim these are all different licenses when there is NO PLACE where that is clearly stated and delineated (what parts and pieces please).

My interest is actually only to set the record straight. No matter how much you wish to bully and make stuff up, the simple fact is that JDOOM currently is improperly licensed (and in violation of GPL and Raven). Furthermore, the original RISEN3D (as BOOMSDAY) predates 1.7.x. and that's where I start.

IOW, I was not about to change all my source just to keep up with RISEN3D. I never had any interest in "port" code per se, merely more flexible support for various editing specific stuff that is port independent. That's easy to verify since my code won't run RISEN3D code and I'm missing "features".

I really have spent a LOT of money on legal advice. Primarily for LICENSE AGREEMENTS that the other party violated. One party was Activision no less :) That's because Copyright and Licensing are just not the same thing.

The problem you have here is that everyone wants to jump on a bandwagon not realizing the bandwagon is more a problem for them then it is for me. Copying "keywords" is hardly a basis for an argument.

Where is your mythical ZDOOM code that you claim is in Doomsday ?

Easy - patch expansion, actually supplied by Graham from ZDOOM (and technically created by me). For others just look for "ZDOOM" comment. IIRC JK removed some comments so some are not so easy to decipher. It only take ONE example to prove my point :)

Explain how jHeretic and jHexen are not plugins

So what? Explain how it makes a DIFFERENCE. The source PROJECT is what counts. That they are not required for DOOM is not relevant. You look at leaves and fail to see the tree.

Why do you not answer any direct question asked of you ?

I do, but your level of expertise is lacking, so you don't understand and repeat the same nonsense over and over.

--------

Here's an interesting statement by Graf

Doesn't matter. It's still my own code and therefore subject to my own licensing conditions.

So if it's MY OWN CODE, clearly I can subject it to MY OWN conditions. The arguments here are so self-centered.

-------------

Last but not least, BOOM additions came from BOOM, not PRBOOM.

So you see, all that has been accomplished is you've made an author quit (something that will become more relevant as time goes on) and you've ignored facts as presented that JDOOM is not a legal GPL project, not to mention GZDOOM which wants to claim "rewrite" makes it exempt for GPL even though the basis was GPL.

Clearly this is mostly a personal vendetta where nobody gained anything and everyone actually lost a lot.

[deep]

Quasar said:

A perfect way to sum up the situation, fraggle.

Not really. Analogies are just that. The danger with analogies is that if invalid you can "prove" anything. Levels are just not the same as code. You can express the end result via many different code sets, yet in a level a texture IS that texture or the construct IS that construct. See what I mean.

That's all that was done just now. All of you are seeking justification, not seeing your own failings in proper licensing.

So this particular analogy is actually not correct since it misses the essence of invalid LICENSING issues as done by many ports.

[Bastet Furry]

You just shut up and release the source of R3DEdit as it seems that you used Risen3D Code in there which is based of some GPL fork of Doomsday.
And i assume that you use GPL code in deepsea too.

[TheDarkArchon]

deep said:

Good idea - suggest you follow your own advice. I've spent well over $100,000 on legal advice on this very subject. What have you spent?

A clear cut case of someone having more money than sense...

[Quasar]

deep said:

Not really. Analogies are just that. The danger with analogies is that if invalid you can "prove" anything. Levels are just not the same as code. You can express the end result via many different code sets, yet in a level a texture IS that texture or the construct IS that construct. See what I mean.

It seems to me you're saying very little with a lot of fancy words. It's not relevant that some code can do the same things as other code. Either the code in question has been derived from code under the GPL or it has not.

If you totally independently develop your own code to totally replace the GPLed portions of a program, then you can relicense it since you and you alone hold the COPYRIGHT. This is no different than how GPL utilities were independently and systematically developed to replace all of AT&T's code in UNIX so that it could become a completely GPL system.

On the other hand, you cannot take GPL code and just fiddle it around until you are satisfied that it's different enough and then relicense it, or fail to comply with the terms of the GPL while still distributing it.

None of this can be questioned, it is cut and dry.

So this leaves us with the ultimate question of whether or not a given closed source port is in fact in violation of the GPL. Let us consider a way in which this could have been resolved in an infinitely more mature manner than the one that has been taken: the source could have been given to an independent evaluator (or small group of them), with no rights to redistribution, who would have cross-checked the code with JDoom and performed some code forensics, so to speak. If this independent evaluator found that the claims were true, then the source is not released. If they found it was false, then that information would be published and we would all know the truth.

Instead the source has been deleted. This can only lead us to one possible conclusion: guilty as charged.

[Graf Zahl]

Quasar said:

It seems to me you're saying very little with a lot of fancy words.

Isn't that his specialty?

[Csonicgo]

Graf, don't you think Deep would make an excellent politician? ;)

[Bastet Furry]

I just wonder how many people actualy paid for deepsea and how many people use some external backup.....
Paying for a mapeditor, which seems to incorporate GPL code, when you can have better ones for free.... need to say more? ;)

[Graf Zahl]

Csonicgo said:

Graf, don't you think Deep would make an excellent politician? ;)

I think you will find me saying the same thing if you search the ZDoom forums for it. :D

[DaniJ]

Deep said:
As I already said (and somebody else noted), you've created a SINGLE project with all these pieces - I give a rats whether you link it dynamically or not or any other gambit.

To be honest whether you give a rats ass about it doesn't make it any less valid. Our approach to seperating the non-compatible licensed code has been given approval (and deemed none GPL<>Raven conflictive) by people with far greater understanding on the matter than you (no offense intended), so that is good enough for me.

Easy - patch expansion, actually supplied by Graham from ZDOOM (and technically created by me). For others just look for "ZDOOM" comment. IIRC JK removed some comments so some are not so easy to decipher. It only take ONE example to prove my point :)

Well isn't that interesting. Code which Graham supplied was from another port whose license was not compatible but yet he didn't mention its origins to skyjake nor do so in comments around the code in question?

Why am I not surprised.

I find it very difficult to believe that skyjake after having very carefully designed the Doomsday API to avoid including Raven code in the engine that he would then knowingly admit "dirty" code into the codebase. So, Graham's comments must have been woefully inadequate IMO.

If that is the case then you will no doubt be kind enough to supply me with a copy of the original code you wrote for this so that I might perform forensics on our current code in SVN. Be assured that if I find you to be correct - I will rip it out without delay, even if that means we have to push back the 1.9.0-beta5 release while I reimplement the necessary code. Besides, the texture/resource management system is due for a rewrite anyway...

Other than that, I have grep'd our source and have found only passing mention of "ZDOOM" outside of the dehreader plugin (which we fully acknowledge as being copyright of Randy Heit and we include him in all our credit docs too because of it). In fact, the only times "ZDOOM" is mentioned is when we draw a comparision between our method and ZDoom's on a particular subject.

But are you being serious? (to give everyone else a chance at understanding this; the code in question does nothing more than resize patches which is a DOOM-internal graphic format).

The code in question is probably only two hundred lines at most so comparing its presence in the codebase (if it is indeed from ZDoom) to the act of Risen3D taking Doomsday's ENTIRE codebase seems rather improportionate to me.

Rather like comparing a mole hill to Mount Everest. Me getting rid of the odd mole hill in Doomsday is going to be a damn sight easier than Risen3D attempting to bury recreate Mount Everest :P

[CODOR]

deep said:

I suggest you go back and learn how licensing works, as you obviously don't understand it.[/b]
Good idea - suggest you follow your own advice.

Your real name isn't Joerg Schilling, is it? 'Cause he talks like that a lot...

Oh, and the GPL relies heavily on copyright law, so I suggest you read it and its FAQ instead of paying your lawyer large sums of money to not do it for you...

[myk]

deep said:
So this particular analogy is actually not correct since it misses the essence of invalid LICENSING issues as done by many ports.

Inconsistencies or gray areas in licenses (or in wad permission statements) are another matter. The code/wads analogy is very relevant in this community that respects the GPL and accepts the claims of the Doomsday team as to how they released their project. And even if this were not so, Risen3D's condition would still be amiss. The "permissions" section of the wads template and the GPL serve the same function, and while as fraggle noted their nature is not equivalent because the materials are not the same, they are both parallel elements that need to be respected for the community to function properly, and will in such a context entail actions that back them (whether strictly legal or not).

By the way, your attempt to disentangle copyright and licensing is rather curious, as, in regard to software and especially in cases like the one we are considering, licenses are particular claims, grants, restrictions and directives in regard to copyrighted works held by authors or other holders. Honestly, differentiating the terms without properly discussing their relation is a pretty spammy (at best) affair; please don't make the poor thread cry.

Plus why on earth disagree with Graf Zahl (or anyone who posted about it) on what is proper in respect to referencing code as opposed to using it when your case with R3DEdit is so similar? Sounds suicidal to me, being also so close to a project with the GPL stamp (try proving you never read Risen3D code that had a GPL claim on it). Especially in a matter which is quite open to debate according to different philosophies in respect to information management and so called "intellectual property". At best it creates a muddled scenario where no one is even working properly, and that, to be redundant, doesn't work.

The problem you have here is that everyone wants to jump on a bandwagon not realizing the bandwagon is more a problem for them then it is for me.

So it's you against everyone, then. But I'll have to agree that you can't really fall much lower under the current circumstances, and that rhetorically you have a history and a knack for dragging arguments down, with the opposition and all, to abysmal levels.

Plus if, in an antagonistic manner, you discuss your closed coding practices with people who produce open projects, there will be one problem that won't go away: you won't be trusted.

Comparatively there's just your word there, which isn't very clear when you argue both that you think that the GPL is not valid in this case, and that you use sources from before the GPLing. The latter is safer for you, and if it's true you shouldn't have any problems or reason to argue further, the former is a mere questioning and could well make people believe you're just gambling between the two useful alternatives just in case. At best it's just extra baggage carried from the dead horse of Risen3D.

[Mordeth]

Brad_tilf said:
If someone who is doing something for free gets enough grief then can you blame him for quitting? I can't believe people are giving someone this much of a hard time over something he is doing for the community.

Evidence strongly points to him using other people's work as a base but refusing to share. Legally a gray area, as Deep has pointed out, but ethically it's quite obvious who is right or wrong here.

It's like selling other people's WADs on your own site, for your own profit. I'm sure there's some reason for it, but it is leeching of other people's hard work in a way that was certainly not intended.

Just as example, of course.

[Brad_tilf]

Mordeth said:

Evidence strongly points to him using other people's work as a base but refusing to share. Legally a gray area, as Deep has pointed out, but ethically it's quite obvious who is right or wrong here.

It's like selling other people's WADs on your own site, for your own profit. I'm sure there's some reason for it, but it is leeching of other people's hard work in a way that was certainly not intended.

Just as example, of course.

Very nice but nobody sells anything for "profit" in the doom community. For instance, since you alluded to it, I STILL take hundreds of dollars a year out of my own pocket to keep Doom Wad Station online. Hell, I just pulled $200 out of my own checking account in August, alone. Believe me when I say that there is not profit motive involved in offering people a bonus for donations.