Yagisan

I wrote this code. MSVC IS NOT defined when building with Cygwin. The problem you have is clearly listed in the comments. I brought it up with you when I wrote the code. You include your own copies of stdint.h and inttypes.h in source/win32 - this include path is added to your search directory when trunk/source/CMakeLists.txt is parsed. I did not test cygwin at the time, if I had, it would also be listed as broken in the comments. The solution now, is the same as I proposed when I wrote the code. Move the replacement stdint.h and inttypes.h to another directory, so it doesn't break on MinGW, Cygwin, VS2010+ - yes this will involve a small patch to the CMakeLists.txt to include the new directory for old MSVC compilers.

That is not exactly true. kb1 somehow got both DaniJ and Graf Zhal to agree on something - and Doomsday and GZdoom are almost polar opposites on everything. Given I can't remember when I saw you two agree last, we have determined the solution is what you two have agreed to. End of thread.

The strength of the hash is, that after a map update, it may well have changed options. Although, I wouldn't store the rest of the details as an n-bit hash - I'd prefer the text format for that. Easy to extend.

Indeed - if he wanted to make it commercial, he would need to use the open source licensed version, and if he wanted to close the source, he would need to use the non-commercial license I'm not entirely sold on the idea that the raven code is GPLv2+, but it is ambiguous enough that you can argue it both ways, and both interpretations could be considered valid. It's the statement of intent in SourceReadme.txt that stops me from rushing out to join the chorus of yes - it is GPLv2+ That applies to anyone who wishes to accept it under the terms of a later license. If Quasar does wish to move to the GPLv3+ he has my full support. All of my contributions have been either explicitly marked as GPLv2+ on substantial contributions, or small patches to files already so marked.

No, it most likely wouldn't. It doesn't mean that we can do so however. Unless the original license is permissible, or the copyright holders agree, you can not change the license, or absolve yourself of license obligations by removing copyright. See for example http://www.brownrudnick.com/nr/pdf/alerts/Brown%20Rudnick%20Advisory%20The%20Bionic%20Library-Did%20Google%20Work%20Around%20The%20GPL.pdf It is my understanding that the ZDoom additions are under a BSD license, but the work as a whole is not. A quick glance at the source reveals the original Doom Source license header is present, not the GPL header. Given the history of the project, I don't particularly want to go through and pick out faults and incompatibilities them already seem well known.

It way well leave a bad taste in your mouth, but with the overwhelming opinion in this thread to let one particular license violator continue to do so, just because they own some of the original copyrights, I am compelled to point out the potential ramifications of this. It visibly weakens your position against other license violators, because you can be seen to condone such violations. It's no different to having any other licenser go after them, except they tend to want monetary compensation, where as we simply wish to enforce the terms. All I can do is offer my advice in this thread - I am ( thankfully for many of you ) not a party to the legal dispute at hand. No one is forced to take my advice.

I only base my opinion that it is GPLv2 only based on the statements included in the source releases. This is the only statement of intent I could find in the source release. I do concede that the referenced LICENSE file does mention GPLv2 or later - but the source code isn't marked as required. As a conservative interpretation, it is GPLv2 only, a more liberal one could read it as GPLv2+

I respectfully disagree. Id no longer exists - you are dealing with Zenimax. It's clearly listed here http://www.zenimax.com/management.htm No one knows what they are waiting on - my suspicions are that as there isn't a particular person responsible for ensuring that the open source license they used is being complied with, no one is in fact working on this issue. Previously it benefited the shareholders to do such a thing. It built up lots of valuable, but intangible, goodwill. It has also led to this situation, where they have reused code, that was released under an open source license, code that was enhanced, cleaned up, and transformed by community members under that open source license - and they have not complied with the terms of that license.

No, there is nothing iffy about it. The GPLv3 is deliberately incompatible with GPLv2 only. Here is a handy matrix from the FS that shows how compatible the GPL licenses are with each other. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

It has some nice features like automatic license reinstatement once an infringer comes back into compliance with the license, however it can't be used with any port that uses Heretic or Hexen code from Raven, as that code is GPLv2 only.

Please quote the sentence in it's entirety. The meaning changes considerably with selective quoting. You, yourself advocate, not rocking the boat, just in case they cancel future idtech source releases. As far as I can see, Quasar has done everything reasonable to prevent further escalation. As long as communications remain open between Quasar and Zenimax, there is no need to escalate it further up the legal process. Finally, some food for thought on licensing: http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/ http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/8046 Really, the best course of action for all concerned is for Zenimax to negotiate with Quasar and the other rights holders.

While it's all well and good to say when will you comply, the fact is they were legally obligated to comply the moment they redistributed the resulting binaries. Unless each person purchasing this product is getting a written offer good for 3 years to supply the source for nominal copying fees, then they don't really get to decide when they comply. With the sale of Id Software to Zenimax, several key issues have changed. * Zenimax is not Id Software. Id software is a now a defunct concern. * Zenimax and Id software do not share the same ideals. * Any non legally bindings and covenants we had with Id software are now null and void. This includes promises of future releases of idtech. * Zenimax's current behaviour ( intentional or not ) already projects an image of disregard towards license compliance. Is Zenimax our enemy ? Fundamentally we do not yet know. All we do know is they are profiting from community members work, without abiding by the license that it was given to them under. That can be construed as a hostile act, given the lack of communication from Zenimax, even if it was the result of a simple matter of human error on their behalf in the first place. To those that think I am advocating legal action immediately, I am not. I would prefer that Zenimax immediately resume communications and rectify the matter at once, however, given the lack of action, it would be prudent of those involved to prepare themselves for the possibility of legal action, as distasteful as it is to some. A common theme I see running through this thread is "Don't enforce our legal rights, otherwise they might not release new idtech code". That's right, they may not. They may also sell themselves to another corporation tomorrow, or decide they will be a iphone only developer, or anything else their shareholders decide will bring them most value. The previous shareholders and management valued sharing the source. Their new shareholders and management come from the media and financial services industries. Neither of which are known to be fond of sharing. A quick look at just the board of directors reveals that the CEO is a lawyer, there are two media organisations, three investment firms, and a sporting organisation. Wether or not we get a new idtech release depends on if those organisations think it will be profitable for them. I don't have high expectations that there will be another open source idtech release. But really, all this talk about not doing anything to prevent a possible cancellation of a future idtech source release is immaterial to the problem at hand. The problem at hand is simple - Zenimax has used the work of members of the community, and not abided by the license. They are now not communicating with those members. Those members have to make a choice soon, if they want to enforce their rights, or if they will give carte blanche to anyone to appropriate their work.

Yes, the GPLv2 has a real cut you off at the balls approach to violations. GPLv3 is, depending on your point of view a better approach, where you get your rights reinstated once you comply with the license. I get the impression that most rights holders are willing to let the previous violations slide if Zenimax rectify their non-compliance immediately. I can only hope someone at Zenimax starts to take you seriously before another copyright holder issues a DMCA takedown, and leaves Zenimax frantically searching for whomever Jim Flynn's rights have passed to to beg for a new license.

While I can't speak for USA laws, my understanding on Australian and Japanese business law, indicates that for an entity ( such as a business or foundation etc) to pursue a legal remedy for copyright infringement against Zenimax, we would need to assign our copyrights to that entity. A legal representative could act on the collective behalf of all ( contactable ) copyright holders without the need to create a separate legal entity to do so. I'm going to suggest that you look into contacting the following places for GPL enforcement assistance: http://gpl-violations.org/index.html http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ However, as I have previously stated, due to non-compliance with the license, Zenimax have put themselves in a position where they will need to seek a new license from each and every copyright holder, or their successors. In the case of missing developers, this means they may never be able to legally distribute any versions of Doom that contain that contributors copyright - in effect permanently enjoining them from utilising enhancements to the classic Doom properties.

Indeed - so without the PrBooM source, Zenimax would have had to do more work to make this money spinning port. Zenimax is no stranger to license agreements and the DMCA - just look at the board of directors. If you aren't going to enforce your rights out of fear Zenimax won't open source doom 3, then why should anyone else respect them ? By that stage, you probably won't be able to do much about it, as you already know they are infringing, and will have given them implicit permission to continue doing so by taking no action.