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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About deep

  • Rank
    as in Deepsea

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. deep

    Can nodebuilders crash and erase a map?

    Yes, a node builder CAN erase a file, because it rewrites the file. Any program that rewrites your PWAD has the potential to destroy parts of the PWAD. That included editors and PWAD managers like XWE. Nodes themselves can never destroy any data, just appearance of level may be affected. All that takes to fix is to rebuild using something else.
  2. deep

    Other mapping programs then DeepSea

    Wrong, wrong and wrong. First off, I did NOT violate any license because the version of DOOMSDAY I based R3Dedit on was NOT GPL. Risen3D wasn't really shut down at all, just that Graham has no balls :) Secondly, DOOMSDAY, regardless of attempts to say otherwise, is NOT legal GPL anyway (even though my version was released with the original DOOM license as distributed with DOOMSDAY originally). Don't want to argue - just the facts. Third, GZDOOM is actually also NOT a legal GPL port. It can't be since ZDOOM can't be (should be simple to figure THAT out). And of course if GZDOOM was legal GPL, then of course the net derived version - SKULLTAG is illegal since no source released and so forth. It's all about ignoring the obvious contradictions in "license" for the convenience of argument. People just say things and they don't like it when I speak out :) And I've been just busy. There's a new DeePsea version shipping (mostly 3D interactive THING adding, deleting), but no time to edit the help file and update webpage. (And if this is "trolling" .. well it's the way I've always openly criticized and challenged posts .. whether you "like" my comments is not especially relevant to me.)
  3. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    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.
  4. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    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.
  5. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    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 :)
  6. deep

    Final Attempt to Get Heretic/Hexen GPL'd

    Not exactly. Randy probably violated the license by reverse engineering - disassembling - at least parts of the code. (For the US for sure) This process is actually the same as "looking at the source code".
  7. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    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.
  8. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    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 :)
  9. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    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: 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: 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: 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 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 :) ]
  10. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    "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". 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. 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). 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. 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. 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 :)
  11. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    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?
  12. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    You can repeat nonsense till hell freezes over. A LICENSE and COPYRIGHT are NOT the same thing. 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". 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. Technically anything created by anyone is automatically "copyright" (no need to even say this any longer). That technically presents a problem for anyone to use or distribute a software program. The solution to this is a LICENSE, aka "Software Licence" aka "EULA" http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/EULA.html Wiki link actually does NOT support any argument presented. Rather than interpreting to suit your taste, realize that all it says is that a software license grants permission for someone to use the work and degrees beyond that. IOW, since copyright is automatic, there needs to be explicit permission to use the work. Look at levels to see how they too require a LICENSE to distribute and use according to the rules the author has chosen. ------------- 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. And for the last time, JDOOM had NO GPL license in anything I worked on. You can turn blue and say that was the intent but there was absolutely nothing like that in the zipped sources. I'm not a mind reader and only go by what was officially included. This whole thing reminds me of the DEU guy that got pissed (never contacted me though) when I took his word that I could do anything with the source I wanted. I fixed most of the bugs and made DeeP - changing it to drawing mode at the same time. (Interestingly, everybody said DEU dot-to-dot was the way to go - like now justt because everyone wanted to be on a band wagon - yet not understanding the differences. Yet today, guess how it's done:) ) So he started some backyard bitching session (that I only found out years later) and then changed the license. But the cat was out of the bag. 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? ----------- 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. 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. What you don't realize is that GZDOOM CAN NOT include GPL code (has nothing to do with releasing source). RH clearly understands this and has openly stated why he won't use any GPL code because of the LICENSING problem. Note that it's NOT a copyright problem. This is all pretty simple once you realize that LICENSING is an entity all to itself.
  13. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    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.
  14. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    Been gone 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. 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 :) 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. 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 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.
  15. deep

    risen3d licencing discussion

    No it's not. You can not make up your own rules just because you "changed" the code for essentially the same result as the original code. IOW rewriting code is not a method to escape licensing in THAT context. You want to, but since the context is identical it's a no go. As you point out, there are many ambiguities and that's really the main agreement here. I'm ok with that since that confirms my suggestion that all these 100% claims have no clear basis in law. Later -Gotta go