It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Source code for games licensed under FOSS licenses?(38 posts)(38 posts)
(38 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 19, 2012
So I don't understand the details of all this, but GOG obviously got permission from the people who created this game to host it on their site. I mean, here's one of the dev team telling people to watch the announcement. As I said, I don't know about GPL, but surely the developers of the game telling GOG that they can host the game on their site, trumps any other requirements? I mean, it's their game.
Post edited October 19, 2012 by BadDecissions
Posted October 19, 2012
avatar
BadDecissions: As I said, I don't know about GPL, but surely the developers of the game telling GOG that they can host the game on their site, trumps any other requirements? I mean, it's their game.
If the devs dual-licensed the game for GOG (in other words, let GOG use it under a license other than GPL), then sure. However, if GOG is still distributing the game as licensed under the GPL, then they have to abide by it regardless of how the devs feel about it.
Posted October 20, 2012
low rated
avatar
BadDecissions: As I said, I don't know about GPL, but surely the developers of the game telling GOG that they can host the game on their site, trumps any other requirements? I mean, it's their game.
avatar
kodeen: If the devs dual-licensed the game for GOG (in other words, let GOG use it under a license other than GPL), then sure. However, if GOG is still distributing the game as licensed under the GPL, then they have to abide by it regardless of how the devs feel about it.
Oh right, "let's license or product and be restricted by it EVEN THOUGH IT'S OUR FUCKING WORK". Yeah... this is why all these licenses and all that bullshit is fucking stupid.
Posted October 20, 2012
avatar
Shinook: There are other GPL games here which the sources haven't been published for, not just Warsow (Arx Fatalis, for example).
Arx Fatalix is not a "GPL" games. It's a game for which the engine source code has been made available by the devs and released using GPL. It doesn't means that the game itself is GPL. (i.e. you can share and put the source code for download on your web site but you can't do the same with the full game or its assets)

And concerning the GPL, you have to provide a link to the full modified or original (depending if you modify it or not) the source code if asked by your customer.
Posted October 20, 2012
avatar
kodeen: If the devs dual-licensed the game for GOG (in other words, let GOG use it under a license other than GPL), then sure. However, if GOG is still distributing the game as licensed under the GPL, then they have to abide by it regardless of how the devs feel about it.
avatar
Emualynk: Oh right, "let's license or product and be restricted by it EVEN THOUGH IT'S OUR FUCKING WORK". Yeah... this is why all these licenses and all that bullshit is fucking stupid.
If they want to change the license, they have to get the permission of every person/company that worked on the code. In warsow's case this includes id Software.
Posted October 20, 2012
low rated
Also the fucking source code is here: http://www.warsow.net/download. It's available on the net, there you go, you can stop complaining.
Posted November 24, 2012
So I downloaded Warsow yesterday both to try it out as a game(it is really fun) but also to see if GoG was respecting the GPL. Turns out they are actually violating it. I am 100% sure that is completely unintentional and it happens to be extremely easy to remedy.

So what is the problem? There is no source code provided with the game and no license file or even any indication that the source code is licensed under the GPL. Permission from the Warsow team is NOT enough since they based their game on Qfusion engine which in turn is based on id Software's Quake 2 source code release. It is important to note that I am only talking about the source code and resulting binaries not the actual game content such as levels, art, sound and the like.

Here are the relevant provisions of the GPL v2:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Given the option in section 3 a) it is very very very easy for GoG to remedy this, they just need to upload the source code for the version of Warsow they provide. The other problem is that they need to provide the GPL with Warsow, but that is also very easy to remedy, as they just need to do quick update to the games installer, this is the relevant section, notice section 3 quoted above refers to this section, I bolded the important bit:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
They would of course also need to indicate that the EULA provided with the game only applies to the content and not to the source code or binaries.

It is true that Warsow is licensed under the GPL V2 or any later version so GoG can choose to distribute it under GPL v3, but that doesn't really change anything substantial. Since the same principles apply, although the GPL v3 has more options for distribution of source code, none of them apply in this case.
Post edited November 24, 2012 by Kristian
Posted November 24, 2012
avatar
Kristian: ....
1) I don't know the history of Warsow, how do you know GOG is providing a GPLed version of the game? Just because there is a GPLed version available doesn't mean GOG has the GPLed version packaged.
2) They do not have to present the GPL in the installer, it's not a bloody EULA, they can put it in a text file, typically named LICENSE
3) They do not have to provide the source code, merely extend an offer to provide it upon request. If they've made no modifications they may simply direct folks to the main source repos.

I have to give you credit for mostly understanding the GPL, most people have an abysmal understanding. However, you are incorrect on the above points, and they actually are important points.
Post edited November 24, 2012 by orcishgamer
Posted November 24, 2012
1) I don't know the history of Warsow, how do you know GOG is providing a GPLed version of the game? Just because there is a GPLed version available doesn't mean GOG has the GPLed version packaged.
That is almost certain, unless they have permission from the Warsow team AND the QFusion team AND id Software they HAVE to do that. Since Warsow is based on the QFusion port of id's Quake 2 engine/code base.
2) They do not have to present the GPL in the installer, it's not a bloody EULA, they can put it in a text file, typically named LICENSE
I know but they don't do that. There is no GPL to be found anywhere. In fact there IS an EULA there which contradicts the GPL. Ofcourse that would be fine so long as it was limited to the levels, models, animations, etc.
3) They do not have to provide the source code, merely extend an offer to provide it upon request. If they've made no modifications they may simply direct folks to the main source repos.
I quoted the part of the GPL that says that so obviously I am well aware of that, but just distributing the code is much easier for GoG.
Posted November 24, 2012
avatar
Kristian: ...
In said case they should toss in a LICENSE file and be done with it. I suppose they can zip the source and put it under "extras" if they want. I never read EULAs so I have no idea if their EULA conflicts with the GPL, given the nature of most EULAs it probably does. If so, they can add a clause at the top "Not to be construed to preclude rights granted under GPL covered parts of this package, in the case of conflict the terms of the GPL in the LICENSE file prevails".

I'm aware that you quoted the GPL, forgive me, many people quote the GPL while still getting it wrong (in fact this is way more frequent than getting it right). I just find presenting the simplest compliance scenario possible makes it easy to comply and doesn't give people the wrong impression of the GPL. Since we're talking about this in "public" I believe that's especially important.
Post edited November 24, 2012 by orcishgamer
Posted November 24, 2012
As far a I can see we agree, at least mostly. I do believe we agree on what needs to be done, change the EULA to notice that it is only for the content not code, stick the GPL in a file like "license" and provide the source code on their server either as part of what the installer install(perhaps optionally) or under extra. Done they are compliant. That is how easy it is.

Sure they COULD get by by providing a written offer for the souce code, but that is more work for them in the end. If they do the above suggested things they can forget about it going forward since they would be in full compliance.
Posted November 24, 2012
GPL licenses are not retroactive.

If Donkey Puncher Simulator 1.01 is released as non-GPL, but then the source code is released later, that source code is legally a "fork" -- Donkey Puncher Simulator 1.01 is still non-GPL.

For example, this is why Skulltag Doom is not obligated to release their source code, even though Doom itself is now GPL'd -- Skulltag Doom was based on a version of the earlier open-sourced Doom before John Carmack later decided to apply the GPL to Doom's source.

This is the most likely explanation why GOG is not releasing source code -- the versions of certain games they are selling were from non-GPL branches/forks.
Posted November 24, 2012
avatar
Kristian: That is almost certain, unless they have permission from the Warsow team AND the QFusion team AND id Software they HAVE to do that. Since Warsow is based on the QFusion port of id's Quake 2 engine/code base.
That's the catch. Ordinarily the owner of GPL'd software would have the right to grant exclusive usage or distribution of the software under a different licence, but in this case, given that the game uses id tech, it's not the Warsow team's to grant. Permission needs to be acquired from both the Warsow team and id to release the engine without source code.
Posted November 24, 2012
avatar
solzariv: GPL licenses are not retroactive.

If Donkey Puncher Simulator 1.01 is released as non-GPL, but then the source code is released later, that source code is legally a "fork" -- Donkey Puncher Simulator 1.01 is still non-GPL.

For example, this is why Skulltag Doom is not obligated to release their source code, even though Doom itself is now GPL'd -- Skulltag Doom was based on a version of the earlier open-sourced Doom before John Carmack later decided to apply the GPL to Doom's source.

This is the most likely explanation why GOG is not releasing source code -- the versions of certain games they are selling were from non-GPL branches/forks.
You are correct in what you are saying but that doesn't apply in this case since there never was a release of the Quake 2 source code under any other terms than the GPL.

jamyskis, you too are correct. But there is no reason for GoG to go the trouble of asking all the involved parties since they can just do what was suggested by me and orcishgamer and be in full compliance in a matter of minutes.
Posted November 24, 2012
This is why I hate the GPL.

Mostly the burdensome requirements and wide/varying interpretations of the license. I've seen lawyers debate facets of the GPL and never come to a reasonable conclusion. IMO it has it's priorities backwards.
Post edited November 24, 2012 by Shinook
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Source code for games licensed under FOSS licenses?(38 posts)(38 posts)
(38 posts)