risen3d licencing discussion

[Bastet Furry]

Cant someone in US drag him to court?

[deep]

Quasar said:

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.

"Fancy words" is in the eye of the beholder. Sort of a silly way to argue don't you think? [Btw, I was merely pointing out the analogy as invalid.]

It is indeed relevant that totally different code can do the same thing. The key thing ( something I explained to you before) is that you did so 100% independently of seeing the original code. That's something we've talked about before. Unless you did this in a "clean room" aka "chinese wall" environment, you can't just look at code and then rewrite to accomplish the same thing - aka "derived".

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.

1) Only if you do this WITHOUT LOOKING at the original code.
2) You can't relicense the whole project, just that code out of context.

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.

Exactly. IF it's GPL code, then one has to actually come up with their own method independently WITHOUT looking at the code. Indeed, what I've done has nothing to do with JDOOM and came from DeePsea. I've even described in detail how to do this at NEWDOOM, picked up by Legacy and actually also GZDOOM (but he'd die before admitting that).

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

Hardly. If you want to play this game, then you have to apply the same rules to yourself. Your code I know is not "clean" and clearly can't be GPL because you violated the first rule - doing this without looking at the source code.

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.

Easy, my source was never GPL. There was no GPL license included. Look at the pre 1.7 distributions of JDOOM and you'll see there is no GPL license included. Now what would you think if you only saw the original DOOM, HERETIC and HEXEN licenses?

The source has actually not changed radically over time. Sometimes it's still original DOOM code and sometimes it's still 1.6.x or whatever. All you have to do is backtrack and see that this is true. IOW, it would be almost impossible to use your method to arrive at a 100% determination.

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

Ridiculous argument. He just didn't want to put up with this sort of bull. I really don't care since I know that what I've said is true. Even today JDOOM is not defensible as GPL. The attempts to talk about "plugins" is a joke. Style vs facts. Indeed BOOMSDAY (which is clearly not GPL too) is the consolidation of "plugins" into one source. Clearly that means that it's a design style, nothing more Q.E.D

Gotta go make real money :)

[Neil]

deep said:

LOL. You forget that the DOOM LICENSE I used overrides the copyright thingy. That's the only license applicable in my case. Don't forget it's FREE, just like SKULLTAG is FREE using the exact same license. Yet they don't release the source. Are we both wrong?

Actually no because, as you so strongly reminded everyone, COPYRIGHTS and LICENSES are two different things. Copyright holders grant licenses. Licenses don't replace copyrights.

It's pretty bad that you so quickly managed to contradict yourself here.

[myk]

deep said:
JDOOM by virtue of having a mass assortment of licenses is a mess that you'll never convince any court as being enforceable since it's the job of the author to clearly define the rules. That was clearly not done.

JDoom is the DOOM plugin for Doomsday. I wasn't aware that it had licensing issues worth mentioning in particular. I thought the questioned parts were JHeretic and JHexen being combined with the GPLed core engine.

And that's exactly the same problem now. I suppose I should contact sourceforge and get JDOOM's Heretic and Hexen stuff removed. Is that what you want me to do?

If it makes you have less time to blather here, please, just do it. Like they said, they didn't mind contributions and input that would help them guarantee providing a GPL compatible project. And while you may be trying to use this as some sort of threat, the SF staff would certainly be cooperative and constructive.

LICENSING by itself is the instrument under discussion, NOT Copyright. As such, the LICENSES are not legitimate. Indeed with the mess presented the most restrictive license rules.

Your fixation with the differentiation started in relation to the Risen3d case in regard to the v1.7.7 and v1.7.8 releases (when you nitpicked some comment 100 posts back); if there is an issue with the licenses there, the copyright related grants transferred to the Risen3D team fall, and it's an illegal (copyright infringing) project, unless recognized otherwise in arrangement between the interested parties. If the GPL stands, it is also illegal and also infringes copyrights, because the source isn't released. The Doomsday team, on the other had, doesn't have much of an issue there (except for the deviation of the code in that project that closed itself), since they hold copyright over all their original source and have made sure to specify the application of the licenses in newer releases.

GZDOOM is in conflict with the very GPL issues raised. If GZDOOM can "rewrite" the admitted GPL code of PRBOOM then by God so can anyone.

Why, you can't? Is it due to a lack of skill?

What you don't realize is that GZDOOM CAN NOT include GPL code (has nothing to do with releasing source).

Does anyone disagree with not mixing GPLed code into the ZDoom engine? Naturally, agreeing with that is how the alternative code comes about. And in any case, remember that not releasing code can well be seen as an act of bad faith in a community that moves by sharing and free software, so beyond the fact that something is literally legal or not, action is taken in regard to what is considered harmful or threatening. For example, take CSDoom. Its source had GPLed code in it, and illegally so because it was carelessly mixed in with ZDoom. But it had been released consistently and even cleaned up eventually, so while comments were made about its irregular and tainted condition and it was urged to be improved, it was not really actively attacked anymore. So yes, releasing the code in a greyed out (or even an illegal) situation can help the project stay in tune with the community, and thus avoid ever reaching a point where legal action of any sort is necessary.

This is all pretty simple once you realize that LICENSING is an entity all to itself.

You might find that thought convenient, but unfortunately you can't isolate copyrights from the Risen3D license issue. If you use Doomsday's code you only get any copying or modification rights through the licensing conditions, aside what can be established in general (very little) or by arrangement (not everything reaches a point of legal action; most things do not).

It is indeed relevant that totally different code can do the same thing. The key thing ( something I explained to you before) is that you did so 100% independently of seeing the original code. That's something we've talked about before. Unless you did this in a "clean room" aka "chinese wall" environment, you can't just look at code and then rewrite to accomplish the same thing - aka "derived".

This has no validity in regard to released source, because it's an impossibility. If your competitor's source is feely available, you read it, or you're a fucking idiot. After that, you code a better alternative based on what they did. If code is closed there is a restriction on reading it (if you read it perhaps it could be said you're a hacker or a thief), if it's open, that restriction is gone (anyone can be supposed to have read it).

In any case, you can talk shit about GZDoom's code because you have it before your eyes. What can others even say about yours? There's little but your word. Behind your closed source there could be code that's not just rewritten with effort to be a different alternative for the same thing, but also literal copies of parts.

[Quasar]

I am pretty sure the Heretic and Hexen plugin sources for Doomsday are not simply "mixed in" with the ordinary sources. I understand how DLLs must be built under Windows, and you cannot just throw them in with your application's source. There is at the LEAST a project file which clearly has these different code bases firmly separated, and in the presence of that nobody has an excuse to feign ignorance. If it were otherwise, then it could not be compiled.

Mere aggregation is NOT restricted by the GPL. Read it. It says more or less that exact thing. Please do not make me pull it up and paste it here. The JHeretic and JHexen plugins CAN be aggregated with the Doomsday engine for binary distribution (at least so long as you believe the interpretation of the Activision EULA that allows distribution at all anyways, but that's a separate issue).

To the Doomsday guys, if all your files are NOT clearly marked in the headers, I suggest getting that taken care of now to shut this crap up if for no other reason. It really doesn't take that long to paste the appropriate headers. I got both the Heretic and Hexen source prepared with GPL headers in case our relicensing attempt goes through in only about an hour. For my part, I believe it's already quite clear what code is under what license, though.

We're not going to drag EE into this. I've written my own polyobjects, my own ACS interpreter, my own sound sequences code, etc. etc. etc. I still don't and never will buy this crap about not even being able to LOOK at the Raven source. I am, in my opinion at least, in compliance with every point under the LICENSE CONDITIONS section of that EULA. If I am not at any point, it may be due to the monster codepointers. Try as I may, there's only one damn way to do that stuff. I can fiddle around with it all I want but it's still going to look like I just took Raven's code and rearranged it. Even having never looked at Raven's code, I would have arrived at the exact same results.

The fact of the matter is that there's nothing substantially original or creative about the code in question. It only uses functions already present in Eternity. How can some arrangement of my own code become somebody else's property? I don't believe it can.

Even still, I am working to get this EULA issue taken care of so that ALL of us can have one less idiotic license issue to worry about.

[CODOR]

deep said:
Here's why all of you are so confused. A LICENSE can talk about COPYRIGHT as part of it's wording (not required though), however, that doesn't mean Copyright and License are the same thing. "Related" doesn't mean "same".

Has anyone here actually said that licensing and copyright are the same?

No.

Has everyone been saying that the license is what gives others certain rights to use a copyrighted work above and beyond the rights given by copyright law alone?

Yes. Except for you.

deep said:
Example: I have licensed programs and game data to various companies. They have nothing about source code copyright, just definitions and restrictions on what can be done with the work. Read just about any program license to see this. Now do you see why I keep insisting this is about LICENSE only.

Okay, then. A short list of open-source licenses:

Academic Free License, 2.1:

1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license to do the following: (insert list of terms)

The Artistic License, 2.0beta4:

This copyright license states the terms under which a given free software Package may be copied, modified and/or redistributed, while the Originator(s) maintain some artistic control over the future development of that Package (at least as much artistic control as can be given under copyright law while still making the Package open source and free software).

GNU General Public License, 2.0 (preamble):

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

IBM Public License, 1.0:

Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and object code form.

And I'm only down to 'I' in the list of licenses...

And just about every license I've checked require that copyright notices be displayed on both existing and new code. Do you think this could be due to the fact that they rely on copyright law to do most of their work for them?

[fraggle]

Summary of discussion so far:

Everyone: Risen3D is a violation of the Doomsday team's copyright.
deep: No! Copyright and licensing are separate things!
Everyone: No. Licensing is a way of granting permission to use copyrighted material.
deep: No! Licensing is separate from copyright! LOL! I paid a lawyer $100,000,000 for this information!
Everyone: No, really, the code is the copyright of the Doomsday team and Risen3D is violating its license.
deep: No! You don't understand! Copyright and licensing are separate! Licensing is a way of granting permission to use copyrighted material!

This shouldn't come as any surprise. Deep's usual tactics in any debate or argument are to reply with 80% fact, 20% nonsense while selectively and deliberately misinterpreting what other people are saying. I've seen this happen so many times now. He even admitted in an email to AndrewB a couple of years ago that he gets a kick out of distorting arguments and winding people up:

deep said long ago:
I dont care about the paying thing. When I say I enjoy toying with
the replies, that's exactly what I mean. It's fun to twist their
words back at them and show them how contradictory it all becomes.
Yup, I'm just one SOB. Besides, I'm way too old to change now.
Don't tell.

Deep is a troll. Arguing with him is a colossal waste of time because he never presents a consistent or coherent point of view to be argue with. You might as well be arguing with ELIZA.

I'd suggest that the correct response to deep's nonsense from now on be "Shut up, deep".

[andrewj]

fraggle said:

Deep is a troll.

Good post, completely spot on from my experience as well.

[Bastet Furry]

So, why is deep not getting a losering then? ;)

[Scuba Steve]

Kickbacks from DeepSea ;)

[Yagisan]

deep said:

It is indeed relevant that totally different code can do the same thing. The key thing ( something I explained to you before) is that you did so 100% independently of seeing the original code. That's something we've talked about before. Unless you did this in a "clean room" aka "chinese wall" environment, you can't just look at code and then rewrite to accomplish the same thing - aka "derived".

That is a restriction that ONLY applies to citizens of the USA. It is a law of the USA that imposes that restriction, not an international treaty.


<snip mindless reptitions of US specific laws that deep doesn't really understand.>

deep said:

Easy, my source was never GPL. There was no GPL license included. Look at the pre 1.7 distributions of JDOOM and you'll see there is no GPL license included. Now what would you think if you only saw the original DOOM, HERETIC and HEXEN licenses?

I'd think you deleted the GPL license, and chose to selectily read the files, like you slectivly read post here and at newdoom. Do you know why I can say this.

Even PrBoom has code from Doomsday - and you know what - they used it under the terms of the GPL that is damm well included in the source release.

deep said:

The source has actually not changed radically over time. Sometimes it's still original DOOM code and sometimes it's still 1.6.x or whatever. All you have to do is backtrack and see that this is true. IOW, it would be almost impossible to use your method to arrive at a 100% determination.

Sure he can.
is the code in the engine - was always GPL..
is the code in jDoom ? Doom Source License until id GPL'd it, then we prgressively changed the headers over to GPL.
is the code in jHeretic ? originally Raven, large parts now rewritten using the fully GPL jDoom as a base.
is the code in jHexen ? originally Raven, some parts now rewritten using the fully GPL jDoom as a base.

deep said:

Ridiculous argument. He just didn't want to put up with this sort of bull. I really don't care since I know that what I've said is true. Even today JDOOM is not defensible as GPL. The attempts to talk about "plugins" is a joke. Style vs facts. Indeed BOOMSDAY (which is clearly not GPL too) is the consolidation of "plugins" into one source. Clearly that means that it's a design style, nothing more Q.E.D

Even though you do not believe it, the truth remains the truth. Graham is obviously very infuenced by you, after all he suppied you with the first versions of Risen3D suitable for editing, most likely for some kickbacks from DeepSea.

[Yagisan]

Quasar said:

I am pretty sure the Heretic and Hexen plugin sources for Doomsday are not simply "mixed in" with the ordinary sources. I understand how DLLs must be built under Windows, and you cannot just throw them in with your application's source. There is at the LEAST a project file which clearly has these different code bases firmly separated, and in the presence of that nobody has an excuse to feign ignorance. If it were otherwise, then it could not be compiled.

Spot on.

Quasar said:

To the Doomsday guys, if all your files are NOT clearly marked in the headers, I suggest getting that taken care of now to shut this crap up if for no other reason. It really doesn't take that long to paste the appropriate headers. I got both the Heretic and Hexen source prepared with GPL headers in case our relicensing attempt goes through in only about an hour. For my part, I believe it's already quite clear what code is under what license, though.

I've been going though and confirming the headers are correct and updating the copyright years, but if i've missed any, feel free to file a bug on it and assign it to me, otherwise I'll finish them off as I have time. If the Heretic/Hexen relicensing fails, we (ok, mainly DaniJ ) have re-implemented most of heretic from jDoom, and have done some of jHexen. feel free to drop by #doomsday on irc.freenode.net and we can hash out the remaining files and coded needed to get some GPL heretic and hexen ports. It sounds like you have some of what we are missing, and we probally have code you could use too.

Quasar said:

Even still, I am working to get this EULA issue taken care of so that ALL of us can have one less idiotic license issue to worry about.

Let us know if we can help in anyway, and we'd be glad to do so.

Sorry about the double post.

[deep]

Petty attempt at sidetracking facts (that's what you do when there's nothing else to do), but here are the simple facts:

Currently there are no good licenses, merely a collection of licenses. That just does not fly. (And revising now is not retroactive)

These are ALL the licenses bundled in the distro: GPL, DOOM and RAVEN, without any direction as to what belongs to what part of the source code. Most importantly, the ORIGINAL Doom license is also included - even today. This is blatantly repeated in the file "srcnotes.txt". Incredible but true.

So what exactly does the original DOOM license cover? Why at the least DOOM of course.

Here's a little blurb from the GPL license that everyone think covers this, but actually says the opposite:

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

Note the word "simultaneously". It is impossible to satisfy ALL the licenses in the distribution. It's THAT simple.

Here's another interesting section from Raven license:

Sell, rent, lease or license any copies of this Program, without the express prior written consent of Activision.

I doubt very much that there is express prior written consent from Activision. Even if there was, it can't be GPL and so must be removed from Sourceforge

And a little bit from the DOOM license:

You have no ownership or proprietary rights in or to the Software,

Clearly this says that JK can't have ownership or proprietary right in or to the software. Both of these override the GPL, which clearly states that you can't distribute the program if there are conflicts such as these.

Here's an earlier version notethat I'm referring to by JK in JDoom.txt

jDoom and the Doomsday Engine are based on the source code of various games released by id Software and Raven Software. For license information see DoomLic.txt.

Clearly he says here that the DOOMLIC.TXT is the license [ the original one btw]. How clear can it get.

It was even worse (or maybe better) before the GPL license was introduced*ugh*

Only the author of JDOOM has any say in this matter, but actually he's defeated the GPL in various ways by violating the very LICENSE desired. All other "threats" are meaningless since they are not the author. But the author actually also has very little to say since he's bound by the very LICENSES that are included. Indeed, everything points to the whole project being an invalid GPL project.

The code originally made no attempt at being GPL, then when it tried, the licenses are contradictory, hence invalid.

All these statements are very easy to verify - but you have to get your head of ... Or you can just flame on and ignore what is in front of you!

[Oh, since Raven, Id and I are the US, I think those are the only laws I care about :) ]

[entryway]

Yagisan, stop talking with this chatterer and start to act.

[deep]

entryway said:

Yagisan, stop talking with this chatterer and start to act.

He can't. First of all he's not the author and has absolutely no rights. Secondly, if you carefully read my post the only violation is actually by JDOOM itself in violating the GPL license by mixing in the other LICENSES.

As I've explained many times, only RH understands this. ZDOOM has the same (and more licenses) but they are all compatible in how they LICENSE the project.

I find it interesting that nobody is willing to understand the problem, but instead wants to jump on a wagon that has nowhere valid to go :)

[leileilol]

Ok, now how about the licenses in YOUR project's source that we can not look at and investigate ourselves because it's closed?

God, you're a broken record.

[TheDarkArchon]

fraggle said:

"Shut up, deep".

[Quasar]

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

[deep]

DeeP said:

Or you can just flame on and ignore what is in front of you!

You are ignoring the COMPLETE license issue. You can't just pick parts and claim they apply when the OTHER licenses prevent you from even using any part of the GPL.

[TheDarkArchon]

Good idea. *ignores DeeP*

[Yagisan]

<snip large post were deep argues that Doomsday is improperly licensed, and as such he never had any grant of right to use the code to create R3Dedit. Thanks for presenting another argument where you have stolen the code. Same shit, different colour eh ?. The only thing we agree on is deep has stolen the code :) >

deep said:

All these statements are very easy to verify - but you have to get your head of ... Or you can just flame on and ignore what is in front of you!

Personal attacks, indicating that deep is getting desperate.

deep said:

[Oh, since Raven, Id and I are the US, I think those are the only laws I care about :) ]

You have demonstrated a flagrant disregard for your countries laws, and the international treaties it has signed. Nice to catch you lying again.

deep said:

He can't. First of all he's not the author and has absolutely no rights.

Again, I need to correct you. No - I am not the primary author - I am however an author of code that is used in the Doomsday engine, and almost all of it's plugins, and of the build scripts. I'm also the only team member thats willing to even speak to deep.

Honestly, we have no respect for him at all now.
* He's stolen code,
* He's ignored license conditions
* He's tried to blame it on the victum (a common defence tactic of rapists)
* He's threatend to try and shut down our hosting.

Take a good long look at what you have done. This is the community that buys your DeepSea product (which to be honest, I think IS based on stolen code after your behaviour to us) - and you are stealing engine code, and threatening to try and shutdown the projects. These are the projects that YOU need. If you want to continue slitting your wrists, go for it. Do what Risen3D did, take your toys and go home.

Why do I persist in speaking to him - I have some hope that he does have ethics and morals, and will do the right thing. In this case though, I'm probally wrong.

[deep]

Thanks for ignoring the fact Yagi. You don't have a leg to stand on.

I've clearly pointed out why this is true.

Why you persist in fabrication lies is interesting. There's not a single US law I've violated, OTOH, JDOOM has violated the law via licenses that can't possibly be mixed together.

The original DOOM license gives me full legal authority as it does to ZDOOM, SKULLTAG and other ZDOOM derivates.

You are not the primary author and have no basis. If you like we can split hairs and then I and Graham also become authors of JDOOM and also have the same rights as you since our code is in JDOOM (btw, I just realized that it was you that removed the ZDOOM references:).

So nice try at distorting the facts. What victim? Crazy words.

Simply put my code and Graham's is 100% legal. JDOOM and the rest is absolutely not. Did you miss the part where it originally had the DOOM license as the only license?

What part of this don't you understand?

Not a single thing you sling (seeing what will stick) is true. I call that being pretty unethical don't you think.

My reason for posting is that people like you pollute. I'm just keeping you honest :)

[Quasar]

Since I've clearly and indisputably established that JDoom's setup does NOT impose the GPL onto Raven's code in any way, where is this alleged license conflict? The fact is, it's distributed by its authors in accordance to the terms of both licenses. Though you dispute this, I maintain that it is exceedingly simple to isolate the various different programs (the core Doomsday engine and its plugins) so that if one wishes to exploit for profit the portions under the GPL, one is permitted to do so simply by removing those portions of the code not under that license (ie, distributing the core Doomsday engine along with the JDoom plugin only). This is all that needs to be done to satisfy the GPL, so there is NO violation, of that license at least.

If you wish to maintain that the Raven license allows no distribution at all, then that could be a problem, but it is a problem shared by everyone and not just Doomsday. Under this case, anyone who takes that code knowingly and uses it to their own benefit is taking upon *themselves* any guilt. You can't stab a guy in the back just because the man next to you just did it first. Even if Doomsday is in violation of a license, it gives nobody else any additional rights.

It is, in fact, each individual's responsibility to make sure the code they use is under license terms that they can satisfy, and in the event they cannot, they must not use that code or else possibly expose themselves to legal retaliation on the part of the copyright owners.

[Yagisan]

deep said:

There's not a single US law I've violated,

You've never heard of the United States Copyright Act of 1976 ?

deep said:

The original DOOM license gives me full legal authority

It would have, if you only used parts under that license. YOU DID NOT.

deep said:

You are not the primary author and have no basis.

Now you are arguing an author can't tell you you are violating that license - wow, I'm am impressed with that bold faced lie. As an author, and as a receipent of the binaries you distributed I have shown that you have violated the license of the code you have taken.

deep said:

If you like we can split hairs and then I and Graham also become authors of JDOOM and also have the same rights as you since our code is in JDOOM

You already claimed that Graham has taken his code from ZDOOM. Lifting code does not make you an author - and as a result any contributions from him are consider possibly tained and to be re-implemented. Pity he doesn't respond to emails, and "Abbs" never passes them on for him to prove otherwise.

What code do you claim is yours in Doomsday - I would like to check it isn't tainted by your theft of others code. (Come on - surely you know what you claim to have wrote)

deep said:

(btw, I just realized that it was you that removed the ZDOOM references:).

I insist that you provide proof of this claim, and if you are unable to prove it (and svn logs clearly show who made what changes), I would like a formal written apology, signed by yourself.

deep said:

Not a single thing you sling (seeing what will stick) is true. I call that being pretty unethical don't you think.

The only person slinging crap, is you. both here at doomworld, and here -> http://forums.newdoom.com/showthread.php?t=31452 at newdoom.

I will look forward to sf.nets reply after you contact them (as you have stated you will do in the newdoom thread), and I'm sure all other ports there will follow this with interest.

deep said:

I'm just keeping you honest :)

Best to work on yourself first Deep. You get tripped up on your own lies.

[deep]

Quasar

You have only proven this to yourself. I disagree completely.

The downloaded file is ONE package and I'm looking at the complete package here. You need to really look at all the stuff in there (which I'm pretty sure you haven't done) and realize the problems. Also go back to earlier versions to see where I'm coming from. Even the original DOOM license is still in there, how dumb can it get? Look in doc JDOOM folder.

It's NOT exceedingly simple to isolate. I bet you could spend several months or more, especially in light that some comments where the source came from was removed. You'd have to go back to earlier versions to see this. That's how I know, because I have the earlier version with the correct comments.

Correct, this is a problem for EVERYONE with HERETIC/HEXEN code. That's my point. Let's be honest here .. it's a universal problem more so for other ports then it is for a DOOM only specific port.

The problem is that there is only a single author that understands the licensing requirements (when viewed in light of ALL the licenses) and that is RH. He's posted basically the same explanations as I have - you just can't make anything with HERETIC/HEXEN stuff GPL. Same thing on picking up parts of GPL code which RH also avoids but GZDOOM has not, thus that problem for GZDOOM appears.

[deep]

Yagisan said:

You've never heard of the United States Copyright Act of 1976 ?

LOL desperate to avoid the single LICENSE point that I made. I'm using the original DOOM license. So if you insist then SKULLTAG must also fall into the same reasoning you are using. And he (and ZDAEMON) clearly know that you can't force them to release the source. So we are all wrong and you somehow are correct. Arrogant but not valid.

That (DOOM's) is the ONLY license that existed, period. And that's the only license I'm bound by. Go fish.

All you've shown is a complete inability to understand simple facts.

Actually JK also took code from ZDOOM, said so in the source code - LOTS of places. Those and the Graham ones are the comments that were removed -as to origin. I stand by that, although I don't know who removed them.

Don't make too big a fuss otherwise GZDOOM and many others will have to hit the bucket too. Nothing is all that clean in the DOOM source port area. In fact, since no HERETIC or HEXEN parts are in anything of mine, it's probably the cleanest port of all.

You need to become more familiar with ZDOOM code. It's not my job to educate you, something you sorely need though. Besides that I already explained some part and yet here you are asking again, showing you don't remember or just want to keep being a bully.

You can insist all you want, you have no basis for anything. I insist you prove that JDOOM, etc isn't severely tainted by inclusion of "copied" source? LOL, see how ridiculous that sounds.

Your logs are incomplete. Go back to 1.1 for God's sake. Have fun verifying the truth. So far you've shown nothing but sloppy crafting of imagination.

[Quasar]

Heit hasn't technically avoided anything. He took the Raven code and put it under BSD license under the assumption that BSD doesn't violate the Raven EULA. However, where did the authority to change the license on the code to BSD come from? I've always been a bit confused on that, and really in the end I'd consider him to be on the same shakey legal ground we're all standing on due to the EULA, and that if Activision was suddenly bought by a bunch of money grubbing profiteers who see a chance to make a cheap buck while showing off the size of their legal wang, they could sue him and several others.

BTW is that a challenge up there? If so I'm quite up to it.

[Yagisan]

deep said:

LOL desperate to avoid the single LICENSE point that I made. I'm using the original DOOM license.

I saw that, but no one gave you the right to abitarily relicense all the code to suit yourself, so your point is moot.

deep said:

So if you insist then SKULLTAG must also fall into the same reasoning you are using. And he (and ZDAEMON) clearly know that you can't force them to release the source. So we are all wrong and you somehow are correct. Arrogant but not valid.

As far as I can see, they are being unethical too, but I'm not the license police for all souceports, I am happy to lend my personal support to any port authors that wish to go after them, but right now, you are the thief I'm intersted in.

deep said:

That (DOOM's) is the ONLY license that existed, period. And that's the only license I'm bound by. Go fish.

That looks a lot like "nyah nyah - I'm not listening, I'm not listening, if I don't hear it, it can't be true"

deep said:

All you've shown is a complete inability to understand simple facts.

It would help a lot if you were actually right - you remind me of Microsofts get the facts campaign. None of them were right either.

deep said:

Actually JK also took code from ZDOOM, said so in the source code - LOTS of places. Those and the Graham ones are the comments that were removed -as to origin. I stand by that, although I don't know who removed them.

On those rare occasions we take code from other ports, we make sure we only take GPL or BSD licensed code, and I should have correctly credited them. If not - file a bug.

I'm waiting on my apology too mate - You've accused me of doing the exact opposite of what I have been doing, and svn history proves I'm *documenting* the source, not stripping the comments out.

deep said:

Don't make too big a fuss otherwise GZDOOM and many others will have to hit the bucket too.

I'm really not fazed that you threaten other ports. You just confirm to them I am right, and set off alarm bells that you may have their code in R3Dedit as well. It should also let them know exactly what you think of them too. You slit your own wrists good that time.

deep said:

Nothing is all that clean in the DOOM source port area.

No copyright holders are taking any action against any port that releases its source. The only ports that (and tools) that people complaining (rightly so) about theft and license violations are the ones, like you, that don't release the source.

deep said:

In fact, since no HERETIC or HEXEN parts are in anything of mine, it's probably the cleanest port of all.

It's hardly clean when it's subject to a breach of license conditions claim, that has basically been proven.

deep said:

You need to become more familiar with ZDOOM code. It's not my job to educate you, something you sorely need though. Besides that I already explained some part and yet here you are asking again, showing you don't remember or just want to keep being a bully.

Now why do I need to be more familar with ZDOOM. Sure it's a fun port, but I'm not making a ZDOOM clone, or a workalike, I do not seek to emulate it.

For some reason you have this ablity to talk at length about basically nothing in particular, and are unable to come up with specifics when asked ? Again - the code you claim is yours - specfics - where is it, and what version do you claim had it. (does it even exist ?)

deep said:

You can insist all you want, you have no basis for anything.

Once again. but in a coherent English sentance please. Try to be specifc.

deep said:

I insist you prove that JDOOM, etc isn't severely tainted by inclusion of "copied" source? LOL, see how ridiculous that sounds.

Sure thing - wait, you didn't actually say what was yours (except to take credit for GMJ's work - you know you said you write it for zdoom and he copied it, sure he loves you for stabbing him in the back, and there isn't much of his code left to re-implement)

deep said:

Your logs are incomplete. Go back to 1.1 for God's sake.

God has nothing to do with your theft. The logs predate your fork. The prove you took GPL code.

Running tally of Deep, digging deeper
* He's stolen code,
* He's ignored license conditions
* He's tried to blame it on the victum (a common defence tactic of rapists)
* He's threatend to try and shut down our hosting.
* He's threatend to try and shut down other ports including GZDOOM

[myk]

Yagisan said:
is the code in jHeretic ? originally Raven, large parts now rewritten using the fully GPL jDoom as a base.
is the code in jHexen ? originally Raven, some parts now rewritten using the fully GPL jDoom as a base.

I'd don't see how this can work unless you are talking about an unreleased version aimed to be compatible with new nonRaven code for the games or GPLed Raven code. These two are plugins of Doomsday, and thus supposedly linked to Doomsday in a nonintrusive or nonconditional and thus an allowable way. But if their very code is composed of stuff from either license tree, they are messed up.

Also, while it is perfectly possible to mix GPLed software with software of other licenses, the Raven license isn't compatible within a package, mainly because it restricts commercialization. The Raven plugins must be offered separately and not on the SF site or on any OS distro that is sold, and they cannot mix GPLed and Raven licensed code within themselves.

Even though you do not believe it, the truth remains the truth. Graham is obviously very infuenced by you, after all he suppied you with the first versions of Risen3D suitable for editing, most likely for some kickbacks from DeepSea.

Don't even discuss this with him; it does not matter. There was criticism, and a project was closed. What individuals may be thinking is irrelevant compared to that fact.

deep said:
You are ignoring the COMPLETE license issue. You can't just pick parts and claim they apply when the OTHER licenses prevent you from even using any part of the GPL.

You should stick to this argument specifying what's really relevant, and not junk that only detracts from the conversation and even your own interests in it.

[Quasar]

I wouldn't discourage people from replacing Raven code with GPL'd code though, at least if/until the relicensing happens. I regret ever looking at it myself, but I consider Heretic and Hexen support an absolute must for my port. You can see I am stuck between a rock and a hard place, yes? :P