Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Altazimuth

  1. 3 hours ago, chungy said:

    49bb60e00e7e8f515bdac1fcfa05e0a08b922231 broke it again

    I'll fix that. I didn't think that it'd actually compile the failed static_assert. Is that UB? I'll rejig those. I guess MSVC is just wrong.


    EDIT: Fixed it.


    Fucking MSVC accepting non-conforming code:



  2. 8 hours ago, Baron Pampa said:

    Btw. thank you for your time :)

    It's no issue. I apologise that you had to go through this in the first place.

    What does CMake still fail with after initing?


  3. 8 hours ago, Baron Pampa said:

    eternity/adlmidi is an empty directory for me

    I figured as much. OK you gotta run "git submodule init" on the command line. I'm concerned by the directory being present but empty, as it foils my check that the "adlmidi" directory exists that is supposed to check if the submodule is installed.


    Git is just too damn user-hostile.

  4. That's... odd. When I used CMake on windows libADLMIDI ended up in the appropriate place. libADLMIDI very much contains a CMakeLists.txt, and the submodule should be in "eternity/adlmidi". Does "eternity/adlmidi" not contain CMakeLists.txt? Additionally, the following should be in the CMakeLists.txt which means that static is the static library and the static library only should be built.

    option(libADLMIDI_STATIC   "Build static library of libADLMIDI" ON)
    option(libADLMIDI_SHARED   "Build shared library of libADLMIDI" OFF)

    I pushed a commit. Maybe it fixes it for you? I'm unsure. Please let me know.

  5. OK given you're on Arch you'll need to punch in following (assuming you're using sudo):

    sudo pacman -S sdl2_net

    You may also need "sdl2_mixer" installed. The issue is that you're missing the sdl2_net library on your system, which is required. Let me know if there's any other trouble.

  6. Dude don't edit your post after I replied to it to make it look like I'm quoting text that was never there. I know we're having a tiff here but not cool. You can't just delete the portion of the post I'm replying to. Now you just go back to the same old request of asking me to prove a negative. We're not going to see eye to eye on this matter. I posted my evidence, and I'm not going to spend the hours of trawling IRC logs just to find the relevant bit that might have what I remember strengthens my claim in the vain hope that it might make you change you mind, when it's clear to me that that's not going to happen. It's not worth it.

    I do not feel overarching details are code/implementation. I accused Graf directly of code theft, and obfuscating out details to throw off the scent. Don't put words in my mouth.

    We're going in circles here and it's getting tiresome. I apologise that things have been so hostile between you and I, but I feel like you've been ignoring everything I've said. Right now I want to hear Graf explain for himself, and not have somebody else do it for him.


    @Graf Zahl You still never answered who the people are who "have no f*cking clue what they are doing with their reckless actions."

  7. 4 minutes ago, Dark Pulse said:

    he saw the overview of what SoM was doing, and utilized that knowledge (of how he was doing it, etc.)

    See my prior post. Where does SoM explain how portals in EE were done, "how he was doing it, etc."? You keep asking me to prove code theft so now I'm asking you to prove SoM explained how portals work.

  8. 28 minutes ago, Dark Pulse said:

    If you mean me mentioning it, yeah, it's impossible for a one-man clean-room implementation to exist, but it's the closest approximation to what he did, since he said he only looked at the concepts and not how they were implemented directly. It's technically a misnomer, but it gets the gist across. 


    Although as I'm also pointing out to Altazimuth, that's an entirely different argument from what he's trying to present here (that it's stolen/uncredited code) that seemingly got settled years ago, not to mention the licensing issues that existed at the time no longer do, etc.

    OK I'll bite. Where did he get the ideas for this alleged clean-room implementation? Where'd he find out how to do this? When I asked him SoM stated he didn't recall ever explaining the concepts that allow portals to work on the forums, so you prove to me that he did that and did it enough that Graf could look at that post and extrapolate from there.

  9. 2 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

    However, after you all blew the whole thing over, I really saw no reason to play this game any longer and tried to find a creative way around it. And thanks to Eternity's own copyright claims in the code it was surprisingly easy to do!

    Odd usage of blow over but whatever; usually blow over is an idiomatic phrase meaning for something go go back to being calm after a proverbial storm.

    Anyway that's besides the point—I said yesterday "It's worth noting the most major of instances where code is used, that being particles, does appropriately attribute Randi. Other examples of code are single lines or small snippets." We also have top-of-file credits all over the place. If TeamTNT and id were credited like that they'd be at the top of every damn file.

    If you really wanted to follow coventions of Eternity you'd actively credit him in the source for such an important feature, the same way Randi is copyrighted at the top of some cam_ files, the same way you are credited in xl_umapinfo, and the same way functions like P_AdjustFloorClip for the important 3D clipping do. Eternity credits at the top of files all over the place, and a lot of the time in the code itself. You know as well as everybody else does that you're using this as an excuse to have a "gotcha!" moment of attempting to hoist me by my own petard and it looks really petty, especially for somebody who's been a part of the community for around two decades. It's a real stretch, Graf.


    2 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

    The problem isn't SDL, but having native Visual Studio projects with some outlandish setup.

    Eternity has CMake. It works for Visual Studio. Blzut3 uses this as his primary method for building Eternity.


    2 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

    At the time dpJudas closed the PR I was still looking for a solution that would be acceptable to both sides (No, it's not that easy as you think!)

    You could have at least communicated in the PR that you were working on it. It was two days between the PR being closed and me posting on the forums and in that time you weren't able to say anything?

  10. 4 minutes ago, Rachael said:

    We're done here. I have nothing more to say to you. 

    You're kidding, right? You insult me directly and name-call, not even in retaliation since the worst language I used up until that point was accuse Graf of lying and call his original copyright notice "mealy-mouth ass-covering", and you're OK doing that but when I call you out on your own awful behaviour you suddenly just refuse to talk to me? I'm expected to put up with your hypocrisy, foul language, and manipulation but me calling you out on even a fraction of it's not OK?


    1 minute ago, Rachael said:

    He deliberately misinterpreted my post to ignore his own worst offense

    The hell is my "own worst offense?" Also no I really didn't intentionally misinterpret your post in some effort to discredit you. Regadless of this you discredit yourself with your attempted deflection. Rachael, I'm still astounded by your attempt at dismissiveness by trying to paint me as a some bottom-feeding plebian attempting to become popular. I've been around for a while and being popular with all the users isn't my end-goal. If popularity is what I seeked then I would have just worked on GZDoom.

  11. On 8/21/2019 at 8:51 PM, Graf Zahl said:

    Some people here really have no f*cking clue what they are doing with their reckless actions and in what kind of legal bind they are placing other people with this.

    @Graf Zahl I'd been meaning to ask but got sidetracked. So who're "some people?"

  12. 2 hours ago, Rachael said:

    I've been very supportive of Eternity and had a very strong desire for it to grow, but that does not give Eternity devs the right to dictate what other source ports can and can't do. That is at the very least, really fucked up.

    Same post:

    2 hours ago, Rachael said:

    I'll have to note here that the software renderer is slow as shit on it, for complex maps

    Doesn't being supportive of a project usually require providing constructive criticism? This looks more like the words of a toxic fan to me.

    29 minutes ago, Rachael said:

    I think if the maintainers really cared about the port, they'd put in features like optional OpenGL rendering (which GLBoom+ already has - how behind the times are you??!!!)

    So me asking for three lines of attribution—that I already supplied in a pull request—is dictating and "really fucked up," but you trying to use guilt to manipulate me into adding OpenGL by implying I don't care about the source port I've worked on for half a decade isn't?

    Frankly I don't see how it's fair to bring up a port's (with only two developers, both of whom are very busy) of lagging behind when I'm primarily here to resolve a licencing issue. Honestly it's just plain direspectful to mention something that completely irrelevant to the topic, directly criticising the port in an unhelpful way whilst indirectly insulting myself, printz, and any other Team Eternity members past or present.

  13. 1 hour ago, Rachael said:

    I am very disappointed with how this is being handled - especially by everyone involved in the later parts of it. You all should know better by now, and this constant rip-and-tearing at each other's necks is not doing anything productive.

    Please, for the love of this game and the source port, DON'T hit the "Submit" button when you are upset!


    I'd have figured the person who said the above would be above name-calling and direct insults. You tell me but to my eyes your post quoting me seems pretty upset.

  14. 57 minutes ago, Dark Pulse said:

    Which, as far as I can see, have been addressed

    After much gnashing of teeth it's been addressed, and not the the extent I'd have liked. I question the massive resistance to this in the first place. "I didn't steal code and also what I did was legal" isn't a normal response. Even beyond that, I'd call *ZDoom's grabbing of any an all features that make any other port unique, as well as the mods specifically targeted at those ports, at the least reckless and at the most disrespectful.


    57 minutes ago, Dark Pulse said:

    Let's say it's for sugar cookies.

    Your example is inherently bad by being so much more simplistic than portals. Linked portals took SoM a very long time to develop, and not just any developer is gonna be capable of making them the same way any rando can back sugar cookies. Also you'll find there are lots of recipes to make individual things, but Graf just happened to use the exact same ingredients to make an incredibly complex dish. Fully working linked portals have so many moving parts, and are extremely specialised. Sugar cookies are made of such common and basic ingredients that most anybody who knows anything about cooking could come up with them.


    1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

    We do give a shit about the moral and ethical aspects of the thing

    Who is "we"? Are you a GZDoom developer, or merely acting as a proxy for them?


    1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

    but the problem is that there's simply some things where you have only *ONE* way to do it

    There's no way to prove this is the only way to do portals. This is disprovable by contradiction, but to contradict this would take a really long amount of time, so claiming this is the only way to do this is basically pointless.


    1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

    Graf could've chosen that, but lately the trend has gone towards making features get adopted by multiple engines, for example, stuff like DECORATE or UDMF.

    "Lately" my left foot. Excluding BOOM features a small list: MBF helper dogs, 3D midtextures, fragglescript, 3D floors, MBF sky transfers? All of these were introduced to ZDoom yonks ago. What other engines adopt DECORATE? I'm genuinely confused by that one. As for UDMF that was intentionally created by Quasar with the specific intent of being a "Universal" cross-port standard.


    1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

    It's in the better interests of ALL source ports, IMO, if wide-ranging features such as this have a universal implementation for all ports that wish to support that feature, instead of "This one does portals by line specials, this one does it by placing Things, this third one does it by altering the level structure," etc.

    I disagree. ZDoom absorbing every single feature of other ports makes it seem a lot less worthwhile to work on ports that aren't ZDoom, and so everything ends up revolving around a single port in terms of where the vast majority of development goes. Even then the "universal implementation" bit is bunk, because ZDoom's portals and Eternity's aren't compatible, and Graf explicitly stated that certain things that differentiate Eternity's portals will never come to GZDoom. Along with that there's also the consideration that, last I checked, Eternity's portals intentionally had some restrictions in place for easier processing that ZDoom's didn't and that also makes them not compatible.

    Also again you make things seem far simpler than they are. Doing portals by line/things/level structure alteration is not the issue here. The issue is the methodology used to construct the portals at runtime. Where all the data is that defines this doesn't matter in the slightest.


    1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

    you can't copyright the concept of portals - only the implementation, and even then, if there's only one way to achieve a given result, that aspect of the code isn't copyrightable

    I argued Graf stole the code and that was the copyright violation, not the idea of portals. As I said before it's a well-known fact that ZDoom and GZDoom will happily take unique and cool features from other ports, but I consider that a secondary issue, more tied into the morals and ethics that anotak mentioned which I'd be happy to discuss at-length.


    1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

    Graf mentioned Eternity in his code comment

    Yes, I referred to this in an earlier post. "Mealy-mouthed ass-covering" is what I called it and I stand by that.


    1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

    Basically, all it takes is a little research to know that the concept originated with Eternity, and that SoM is the author of that code within Eternity.

    Users aren't going to research this. How many GZDoom users to you reckon talk about early 3D floor implementations, like Julian Aubourg's in RORDoom, SoM in Doom Legacy, or DOSDoom and EDGE's? Given that in videos on Youtube I can recall users claiming Brutal Doom is what added things like freelook and jumping to Doom I seriously doubt at least 99% of GZDoom users will even know that SoM is the pioneer of portals in Doom and responsible for techniques that GZDoom uses (and I believe the code too). SoM had to do all the hard work discovering the techniques that did and didn't work and ZDoom just used all that hard work without as much as a mention of SoM before I kicked up a stink.

    It's not like ZDoom has an entire page on linked portals and then tells people the feature originated in EE. All there are's a fleeting mention in Line_SetPortal and a logo for EE in the xlat section. Sector_SetPortal doesn't even mention EE, instead just having the xlat section alone.


    2 hours ago, Dark Pulse said:

    you can't really claim that it's "based on the structure and algorithms," because for that to be true, you need to be able to point at specific parts of the code, that aren't the only way to do a given result

    I pointed at specific parts of code. You're asking me to prove a negative here. Asking me to spend just as long as SoM did on portals just to prove that there are other ways to implement portals in order to prove you wrong is highly unfair and you should be aware of that.


    ZDoom from the early days has taken code, and apparently as recently as 2016 is no exception. Fiercely predatory competition may not have always been its primary tactic to stay on top, but it certainly ended up being a large part of it thanks to how it was developed.

    ZDoom doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants, but instead on the corpses of other source ports.

  15. It's worth noting the most major of instances where code is used, that being particles, does appropriately attribute Randi. Other examples of code are single lines or small snippets. To me this is parially is a matter of principle, doing what's right as well as what's required. Portals were for the longest time Eternity's big draw, so I'd certainly be willing to say that portals are easily just as important, if not moreso than particles. Based on that precedent I believe GZDoom should appropriately give credit to SoM for taking code and algorithms to implement the killer feature of a rival application, thus removing any benefits it might have over ZDoom.


    51 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

    To make it clear: The proposed change of the attribution presented a major problem for me because it plain and simply misrepresents the facts and would have indirectly forced me to having violated the license in a way I did not do.

    To me this reads as an admission that even in a scenario where Graf had taken code and wanted to change the attribution on that file he knows he couldn't because he realises it would mean that he violated the GPL by having it in there, unattributed, and during a time where the project wasn't fully GPL.

  16. The GPL violation accusation was the vestiges of an angrier post that I didn't do a great job of fully transitioning to something a bit more diplomatic. I'd rather we not just all focus on that one tiny besides-the-point detail that adds nothing to the conversation and just deflects off of the actual issues here.


    I still am of the mind this doesn't change the fact that GZDoom was in violation of the GPL back when it wasn't fully GPL simply by having this code in there. Where it stands now regarding that is confused and not important.


    I apologise for that part of the post.

  17. 8 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

    The code wasn't taken from Eternity.



    So I guess this has devolved into a he-said she-said?


    It's worth noting in this commit you also have a commented out BuildBlockmap https://github.com/coelckers/gzdoom/blob/126c80d597f340f5fc70fdfa74810d029baa51ef/src/portal.cpp#L839, which adds to my case. You're telling me you just happened to pick the exact same group table logic that SoM came up with, and also happened to pick the same solutions for problems you hadn't even began to solve yet that EE was well ahead on. On top of this you somehow did this all without making direct references to our code, happening to have some mild differences like recursion in EE being a do/while in ZDoom, which happens makes the similarities harder to spot? The sense of the algorithm is still the same though.


    It's not like you haven't added EE code before without proper attribution before the switch to GPL, see https://github.com/rheit/zdoom/blob/4f21ff275c639de4b92f039868c1a637a8e43f49/src/p_setup.cpp. I can only assume that Quasar agreed at-the-time to waive the GPL on that code so it would be allowed to integrate with ZDoom at the time.


    I was hoping that since you had nothing to lose by accepting the pull request this'd be resolved quietly and easily. I didn't even put a bit at the top of the pull adding SoM to the actual copyright-holders for the file.

  18. Yo @Graf Zahl seems like GZDoom still in violation of the GPL. I don't see any direct mention of SoM in portals.cpp, and the mealy-mouthed ass-covering copyright notice that you added the day this thread started looks more like denial to my eyes than actual attribution. I realise at the time you couldn't really get away with proper attribution due to you not being able to use GPL code and have it be actually OK with the stipulations of the GPL, but at this stage GZDoom is supposed to be GPL. I made a pull request and everything to try resolve this quietly and inoccuously but even that was shot down. Does the GZDoom team have no interest in righting past wrongs?