Risen3D Sunk

[Wobbo]

Craigs said:

So let me get this straight. The author of Risen3D is shutting down his project, and deleting any traces of it just because some people on our forum hurt his feelings?

If hes not willing to follow the OBLIGATION allow his work to be scutinized, understood, and modified then he doesnt deserve to have anyone pay attention to him

fuck him and fuck the attitude of people who think that *their* work should be classified while they developed it from much older, smarter, and hardworking, people who gave it away in the first place.

Linguica said:

this is a really dumb comment

No its not. Fair Use more than covers the freedom to do whatever you want with practically any coprighted material (as long as you dont charge money for it), and GNU liscenses - just like EULA's - have no real legal status. The community should be the ultimate judge of right and wrong - not the ridiculous and vague copyright laws which are desinged to protect profits and not creativity.

[Quasar]

Wobbo said:

No its not. Fair Use more than covers the freedom to do whatever you want with practically any coprighted material (as long as you dont charge money for it), and GNU liscenses - just like EULA's - have no real legal status. The community should be the ultimate judge of right and wrong - not the ridiculous and vague copyright laws which are desinged to protect profits and not creativity.

I'm afraid this is patently untrue. Fair use grants highly specific and limited rights to use copyrighted material in non-profit contexts. It is not a free-for-all that allows you to do anything. And you may not think so, but judges and lawyers from several different countries agree that the GPL is a valid, enforceable license.

[Grazza]

Quasar said:

Fair use grants highly specific and limited rights to use copyrighted material in non-profit contexts.

Yes, this is generally viewed (for printed media) as "fair use for the purpose of comment or review", and indeed interpreted as narrowly as that sounds. Though it isn't restricted to non-profit contexts; you can quote from other works on this basis in commerical works. As a general guideline, you can get away with about 400 words (from a longer work), though of course the governing criterion is that the use should be "fair" on this basis - you have to be commenting on it, as part of the topic on which you are writing, and not just using it as a substitute for writing something yourself.

[/publisher mode]

[fraggle]

I think it's worth pointing out:

• Risen3D wasn't killed by GNU zealots. Graham killed it by ending the project.
  
• Nothing forced him to stop distributing Risen3D. He was legally not allowed to distribute it because he refused to release the source (but demonstrated that he was quite willing to anyway). He could have just released the source as he was legally obliged to do, but he chose to end the project.
  
• Regarding comments about people being unable to play Risen3D WADs now that the project has died, this demonstrates exactly why the authors of source ports should release their source code and why users shouldn't trust those that don't. If the author doesn't release the source and later decides to shut down the project, your project is going down the toilet with it.
  

[Jon]

Quasar said:

I'm afraid this is patently untrue. Fair use grants highly specific and limited rights to use copyrighted material in non-profit contexts.

It's also worth noting that fair use is a provision in United States law, but does not apply elsewhere. The UK for example has no such thing.

[myk]

Wobbo said:
The community should be the ultimate judge of right and wrong - not the ridiculous and vague copyright laws which are desinged to protect profits and not creativity.

Not that you necessarily disagree with what I'm about to say but; the GPL is by definition a "community oriented" license designed specifically to foster sharing and community development. The guy who released to source encouraged it for that reason and most community develpers have adopted it for the same reasons. You can't create anything without a source as a base, and if everyone closes their project (or opens it occasionally only on a whim) creativity certainly isn't furthered. Even if you want to disregard legality, if what you want is to put sharing and creativity in the forefront, the GPL makes sense as a "contract" between community members, beyond legal matters even (but not against them).

[Wobbo]

^^^I 100% agree with that myk

Quasar said:

I'm afraid this is patently untrue. Fair use grants highly specific and limited rights to use copyrighted material in non-profit contexts. It is not a free-for-all that allows you to do anything. And you may not think so, but judges and lawyers from several different countries agree that the GPL is a valid, enforceable license.

Actually the excact wording of fair use rights varies and is usually very *vague* for the specific reason that it is not supposed to be specific. What one considers to be "educational" for example - might more than cover experimentation with source code and reverse engineering of software.

I do not disagree that the GPL is a good thing, what I'm saying is that since it has even less legal standing than copyrights do internationally, the community should decide on its own rules and judge artists and project leaders by them. As with EULA's, you cannot simply invent rules by putting them in a contract that comes as part of a product. However that does not mean those rules are wrong or shouldnt be followed.

To summarize my point: that what the makers of Risen3d did is illegal is very controversial, but that what they did is unfair and unethical isnt.

I think most of us can agree on that much.

[Schneelocke]

Wobbo said:

To summarize my point: that what the makers of Risen3d did is illegal is very controversial, but that what they did is unfair and unethical isnt.

I think most of us can agree on that much.

I, at least, don't. One may argue that copyright in general is not fair or ethical (at least the way it is today), but the GPL basically boils down to a "tit for tat" kind of thing - feel free to take, but if you do, give back, too. I'm not sure what's unfair about that; quite the opposite, I think that taking *without* giving back is unfair and unethical.

Also, since you mention EULAs... the GPL is not a contract, it's a license. You don't have to agree to anything in it, and you're not legally bound by it; however, if you do not accept the GPL, you only have the standard rights like fair use that copyright gives you. If you want to use (and by that I mean "use as a base for your own works") a GPL'ed program, you'll have to accept the GPL.

And if you think that's unfair... tough luck.

[Kelzam]

This discussion is still going on?

[myk]

Schneelocke said:
And if you think that's unfair... tough luck.

Not sure what you are arguing; Wobbo seems to be saying that while you can go around and around in regard to the legalilty issue specifically (like the discussion did go), that it was unethical is clear.

In any case some of the other things he said (how he got to the conclusion; because copyright is vague and licenses are specific claims by copyrighters) might be worth discussing.

Also, since you mention EULAs... the GPL is not a contract, it's a license. You don't have to agree to anything in it, and you're not legally bound by it; however, if you do not accept the GPL, you only have the standard rights like fair use that copyright gives you. If you want to use (and by that I mean "use as a base for your own works") a GPL'ed program, you'll have to accept the GPL.

How are you not legally bound to release the source and abide by the GPL when doing anything the GPL considers? An EULA is a license. It is automatically agreed upon when you buy and use the game. You pretty mush agree upon the GPL if you take any code it's under and use it in any way specified by the license. If you refuse in either case, id Software or the Free Software Foundation can take legal action to oblige you to repair the misuse in whatever way is relative to the license in question.

If you reuse GPLed source you have to go by the GPL, if you buy and use DOOM, you have to "sign" its EULA. You could say the Risen3D team "signed a GPLA" when they used and released Doomsday source.

If I don't acquire DOOM I don't have to agree with its EULA, and if I don't use any GPLed code I don't have to agree with the GPL. (Agree in the sense that you abide by them, not that you favor them as an idea, obviously.)

[Bastet Furry]

Thanks to German law you can write as many EULAs as you want over here and nobody has to give a damn ;)
That was risen with the so called OEM software and with 2nd hand software.
Our prime court ruled that its perfectly legal to sell OEM without any hardware, the company can refuse to give you support but they cant disallow you to sell OEM.
Same with 2nd hand software. Some companys tried to enforce that you cant sell your used software, German court said you can.

And with Risen3D, if i would be an author of jdoom and the programmer of Risen would live in Germany i would cite him to court.

[myk]

Bastet Furry said:
Thanks to German law you can write as many EULAs as you want over here and nobody has to give a damn

I doubt it. But obviously if an EULA contains claims or restrictions that are considered illegal or inapplicable, no legal demands can be made in relation to them (those claims and restrictions, not necessarily the rest of the EULA) by the issuer of the license, since they are invalid. If the GPL had clauses considered unapplicable in Germany, it would be at least partially invalid as a license in local issues.

[Schneelocke]

myk said:

Not sure what you are arguing; Wobbo seems to be saying that while you can go around and around in regard to the legalilty issue specifically (like the discussion did go), that it was unethical is clear.

I misread what he said. Mea culpa - I should've paid attention when I read Wobbo's post. >_>

In any case some of the other things he said (how he got to the conclusion; because copyright is vague and licenses are specific claims by copyrighters) might be worth discussing.

How are you not legally bound to release the source and abide by the GPL when doing anything the GPL considers? An EULA is a license. It is automatically agreed upon when you buy and use the game. You pretty mush agree upon the GPL if you take any code it's under and use it in any way specified by the license. If you refuse in either case, id Software or the Free Software Foundation can take legal action to oblige you to repair the misuse in whatever way is relative to the license in question.


If you reuse GPLed source you have to go by the GPL, if you buy and use DOOM, you have to "sign" its EULA. You could say the Risen3D team "signed a GPLA" when they used and released Doomsday source.

If I don't acquire DOOM I don't have to agree with its EULA, and if I don't use any GPLed code I don't have to agree with the GPL. (Agree in the sense that you abide by them, not that you favor them as an idea, obviously.)

If you use id's GPL'ed code in a way that violates the GPL, id can go after you for violating the license, but they cannot go after you for violating a contract.

I'm not saying that there's never going to be any legal repercussions if you misuse GPL'ed code (whether there are depends on the goodwill of the copyright holder and whether they consider compliance or punishment more important), but it is a difference.

But yes, using GPL'ed code in a proprietary project when you did not receive it under another license that allows you to do this from the copyright holder is - to use the *AA's terminology - piracy and should be treated as such. It's definitely not a "gentleman's crime" that nobody cares about and that's not serious.

[myk]

Schneelocke said:
but they cannot go after you for violating a contract.

If a contract is an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified, then yes, breaching the GPL is violating the contract you have with the authors that released the GPLed software you've misused.

[Schneelocke]

myk said:

If a contract is an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified, then yes, breaching the GPL is violating the contract you have with the authors that released the GPLed software you've misused.

It's not. Cf. e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html .

[myk]

Schneelocke said:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Thanks for the link; an interesting read. I had seen some isolated talk about this but had never reached the article by the GNU lawyer. While a contract is what I said above by definition, the legal category (with its consequences in court) implies that the contracting part imposes conditions on the other, such as a company demanding additional restrictions not contemplated by natural copyright. Perhaps what Bastet Furry mentioned above referred to this, where in Germany certain contract type EULAs were considered (at least partly) incompatible with copyright laws or otherwise unconstitutional.

[Schneelocke]

myk said:

Thanks for the link; an interesting read. I had seen some isolated talk about this but had never reached the article by the GNU lawyer. While a contract is what I said above by definition, the legal category (with its consequences in court) implies that the contracting part imposes conditions on the other, such as a company demanding additional restrictions not contemplated by natural copyright. Perhaps what Bastet Furry mentioned above referred to this, where in Germany certain contract type EULAs were considered (at least partly) incompatible with copyright laws or otherwise unconstitutional.

First of all, you're welcome. :) That being said... yes, if a company wishes to impose additional restrictions, they have to make a contract, but the GPL doesn't do that; it only allows you to do certain things that copyright law would otherwise forbid. You are free to accept the license or not, but if you don't accept it, you can only use the software in question in the ways that copyright law itself allows - i.e, in pretty much no way at all.

As for German law, IIRC, it's basically an application of the first sale doctrine: if you go to a store and pick up a copy of Adobe Photoshop and pay (I'm making this up) 500 EUR for it, then you *have* acquired the software, and you do not need a further contract with the manufacturer (Adobe) in order to be allowed to use it.

Also (again, IIRC), a contract can only be valid if there's - in laymen's terms - something in it for both sides; a contract in which one party has only obligations but doesn't gain anything is not valid. I think this is actually something that applies in the USA etc., too, but the difference - as far as I can tell - is that in the USA, you do not automatically have the right to use software you bought; therefore, the EULA you agree to and which gives you that right is giving you something, and therefore, a binding contract is formed.

In Germany, you don't get anything you don't already have, and thus, there is no contract.

(N.B.: this totally ignores the question of whether you can enter a legally binding contract with a click of your mouse at all, of course. Also, keep in mind that IANAL, so everything I said should be taken with a *huge* grain of salt - it's just my interpretation, which most likely is totally wrong.)

[Bastet Furry]

Yup, that sums it up.
If i have an original disc of, lets say, VisualC, i have the software.
No need for some funky registration card or something else.

BTW, as we discuss the GPL, there is one question that i couldnt find an official answer for.
If i make a programm with the GCC or any other GPL compiler, is my programm automagicaly GPLed?
Even on the GCC site there is no simple "Yes, you can make closed source software" or "No, you cant make closed source software" or something along these lines everyone could understand.

[Bloodshedder]

Bastet Furry said:

If i make a programm with the GCC or any other GPL compiler, is my programm automagicaly GPLed?

No.

[CODOR]

Bastet Furry said:
If i make a programm with the GCC or any other GPL compiler, is my programm automagicaly GPLed?

It's in the FAQ: Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?.

[myk]

Schneelocke said:
Also (again, IIRC), a contract can only be valid if there's - in laymen's terms - something in it for both sides; a contract in which one party has only obligations but doesn't gain anything is not valid.

Well, propietary software (contractual) licensing generally "grants" to the user part of what the producer or holder of the software claims (specific ownership over the material possibly beyond what copyright may imply) aside from perhaps some sort of support (help or tech support); it seems to be some sort of speculative extremism where a number of activities are restricted (e.g., "only one backup copy in your HDD is allowed", or "may be used only on one computer") just in case they may lead to spreading of the software or unveiling of the information without the producer or holder gaining anything, exacerbated by the ease with which that information is passed along. All in all from the application of rules more or less suitable for property onto information; and without the bonus of support or free or cheaper upgrades, the results become merely restrictive (because information is not really quantifiable).

Look at Microsoft with their "Genuine Advantage" program; while before they (MS) may have hated exploits such as worms, they might now ultimately consider these as a "friend" of sorts since getting rid of these is one big reason to pay for the software (unless you can crack it). You're basically paying for that "GA" service (plus perhaps tech support), at least as a home user (in a business environment other requirements may demand that you go legit).

[fraggle]

myk said:

How are you not legally bound to release the source and abide by the GPL when doing anything the GPL considers? An EULA is a license. It is automatically agreed upon when you buy and use the game. You pretty mush agree upon the GPL if you take any code it's under and use it in any way specified by the license. If you refuse in either case, id Software or the Free Software Foundation can take legal action to oblige you to repair the misuse in whatever way is relative to the license in question.

If you reuse GPLed source you have to go by the GPL, if you buy and use DOOM, you have to "sign" its EULA. You could say the Risen3D team "signed a GPLA" when they used and released Doomsday source.

If I don't acquire DOOM I don't have to agree with its EULA, and if I don't use any GPLed code I don't have to agree with the GPL. (Agree in the sense that you abide by them, not that you favor them as an idea, obviously.)

The GPL is not an EULA. It isn't an agreement in the sense of "I will agree to release the source of any modifications that I make, ". The GPL is a grant of permission to use the software. If you don't agree with the restrictions in it, you are violating copyright law because nothing else grants you permission to use it. So if you don't follow the licensing terms, you're not violating any kind of contract like you are with an EULA, you're just violating the copyright of the authors.

[Schneelocke]

fraggle said:

The GPL is not an EULA. It isn't an agreement in the sense of "I will agree to release the source of any modifications that I make, <signature>". The GPL is a grant of permission to use the software. If you don't agree with the restrictions in it, you are violating copyright law because nothing else grants you permission to use it. So if you don't follow the licensing terms, you're not violating any kind of contract like you are with an EULA, you're just violating the copyright of the authors.

Where "using" means "distributing". You do not have to accept the GPL in order to use the software as an end user, but you have to accept it if you want to distribute the program, in modified or unmodified form.

I think the same holds true for proprietary software, too, BTW, which is why it's legal for me to use a friend's copy of Photoshop installed on his computer, even when I didn't pay for Photoshop myself. I'm not allowed to make copies, of course, but copyright law says nothing about using the program. Of course, that's not counting EULAs, but I'm still not sure myself these are actually valid contracts *anywhere* (again, IANAL), and even if they are, it's not clear to me how provisions in an EULA would apply to me if I don't have a contract (even an EULA) with Adobe myself.

But that's something I can't really speculate on - I don't know enough for that. :) But I do know that you don't need to agree to the GPL in order to use (as an an end user) GPL'ed software.

[myk]

fraggle said:
It isn't an agreement in the sense of "I will agree to release the source of any modifications that I make, ".

This starts to get tricky, because something released as public domain or a similar license would be less restrictive than the GPL in usage permissions (though potentially less open in some usages). The GPL is based on a certain concept of copyright which assumes certain requirements, even though it's purpose is to allow an exception to them for community purposes. While you certainly aren't agreeing on what you said above, how are you not agreeing in the sense of "I will agree to provide by demand the source of any modifications that I distribute, "? I think that the GNU lawyer is rightfully comparing the GPL to other licensing that is clearly contractual in terms that are identifiable under legal practices, but it's not an absolute statement, given what it's based on.

Schneelocke said:
Where "using" means "distributing".

More than that, since there are other licenses that allow distribution but only without modification.

I think the same holds true for proprietary software, too, BTW, which is why it's legal for me to use a friend's copy of Photoshop installed on his computer, even when I didn't pay for Photoshop myself. I'm not allowed to make copies, of course, but copyright law says nothing about using the program.

They seem to generally apply restrictions on how many systems it may be used on, since that is more practical (especially through registration keys and other such locks and identifications), and if they allow any copying they generally quantify it ("one backup copy to your HDD"). A company, for example, could pay for the use of the program for 100 computers. That doesn't mean 4 employees (400 total) won't be using the software on each system on different shifts and schedules.

[fraggle]

myk said:

While you certainly aren't agreeing on what you said above, how are you not agreeing in the sense of "I will agree to provide by demand the source of any modifications that I distribute, "? I think that the GNU lawyer is rightfully comparing the GPL to other licensing that is clearly contractual in terms that are identifiable under legal practices, but it's not an absolute statement, given what it's based on.

Because you can never _demand_ that somebody release their code, just because they used some GPL code.

Suppose Microsoft took a bunch of GPLed code and incorporated it into Windows, for example. It is not possible to then demand that Microsoft release the source code to Windows, because the GPL is not a contract - they have not agreed to anything saying "I agree to release any source code that this touches". It's still just copyright infringement. The most that the authors of the original code can do is to sue Microsoft for damages and/or have distribution of Windows stopped.

The thing to realise is that nothing is _forcing_ you to release your code if you use GPLed code. There is always an alternative, but that alternative is that you don't distribute binaries either.

[myk]

fraggle said:
The thing to realise is that nothing is _forcing_ you to release your code if you use GPLed code. There is always an alternative, but that alternative is that you don't distribute binaries either.

Nothing is forcing me to pay id Software for DOOM either. I can ignore the game or play it at a friend's house. But once I install the package, I'm under certain obligations as long as I possess it. Once I distribute binaries of GPLed software, I'm under certain obligations as long as I'm distributing them. In either case, failing to comply can lead to legal penalties, if affected parties pursue them.

The significance of distinguishing it from "contractual" licenses (that are typical of propietary software), is not that you are not under any obligations (these depend on conditions; in regard to DOOM I may have further obligations if I release an addon, such as being reponsible for any issues it may cause, at least as far as id is concerned), it is that contractual licenses take a stance that tends to be restrictive to the point where they touch even private matters (how many copies I made, if any, for instance), often beyond what can be assumed by standard copyright law, while the GPL is fully public in scope, and liberal to the point that it gives permission to do things considered illegal by default under copyright law.

Talking about the DOOM EULA, I doubt it can be considered an actual contract. Some other software licenses, that require registration information or some identifying action from the user, might more clearly fall into that category, though. In any case, it uses a better name for itself; a "Limited Use License".

[Dutch Doomer]

Risen3D is back online its being hosted by DoomWadStation.

[kristus]

timeline really. But the page is new.

EDIT: Oh wait, they actually released the source now. :O

[myk]

Cool... I had heard a rumor this was going to happen, but wasn't sure and didn't expect it to happen this soon anyhow.

[Xtife]

well good that things worked out
maybe someone will pick this up, or atleast intergrate it into doomsday