Updated GPL release readme

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby DevUrandom » 13 Jun 2008, 12:24

As the Resurrection Project can never use that exception (ok, we could, if we would manage to get the ok from everyone who ever contributed a significant amount of code), at least this project will never shut its doors. ;)

I guess what Buginator means is that i.e. when Chojun writes his VisiRaptor rendering engine and integrates it into Warzone, he will rip out the original renderer (or it will at least not be comparable to the new one). If he would now turn mad, or vanish from the stage, there would be a significant amount of code which drives WZ missing, only accessible in a closed-source blob. Which would in turn mean that development on his version of Warzone would stop, unless he would have given the sourcecode plus license to someone else before biting the grass (which he might not do at all if he would really turn mad).
You could still compile the current code and run the current version of the game ("... redistributable, linkable ...") but you were unable to improve the portions of the code which do not belong to Warzone anymore. In case of i.e. VisiRaptor you would be stuck with rewriting that library from ground up, if Chojun writes the interfaces nicely (which he no doubt will). If his integration or documentation would be bad, you could as well start fresh from the 2004 version of the code, I guess.
Theoretically you could this way close-source (nearly) the whole game, by rewriting it piece by piece and putting the new code into closed-source libraries. You would only leave as much code in WZ so you could continue to use the name "Warzone 2100". Though: Will this ever happen?

This is a speculation of what might be if ..., a dark utopia, the bad dream of Warzone 2200 fans, not a fact.

So for everyone interested in Warzone 2200 it is all about trust. Trust the developers that they will continue the game, or will pass their proprietary code on to a new generation in case they leave. If you could not trust the Warzone 2200 project, you would be f*ed with that exception.
And even then, there is still the Resurrection Project you could work on. (Or maybe that other fork Rman talked about.)

I don't have much fear here, but then: I am in a special position...

This is somewhat like the KDE - Trolltech relationship of the early days. If Trolltech would have bitten the grass, the KDE project would have been stuck for life with using an old non-developed version of the Qt libraries. Which is why they were so interested in an if-we-die-we-pass-on-the-sourcecode deal with Trolltech. (Now Qt is opensource on every of their platforms, so the problem of Trolltech going broke is less of an issue today.)

To my opinion, writing down any other kind of restrictions for the libraries in the exception would have taken days or weeks of well-payed lawyer-time, and the outcome would have been far more complicated and less understandable than "accessible, redistributable and linkable free of charge". If it would be at all possible. And it would only have restricted the Warzone 2200 project, without any effect on the Resurrection project. (Which is why no one of the involved Resurrection members cared a lot about it.)

Given the time constraints we were under, I think that despite all differences in philosophy, organisation, etc, we worked very well together and created a nice document. (Maybe we can continue that on other fronts as well? :) )
I am confident that the bad effect the linking exception might have, is pretty much non-existant. (Don't prove me wrong. :P )
This is especially true for the Resurrection project: The fact that our code does not carry the linking exception, makes it impossible for everyone using the exception, to import our code (without asking the author for granting that exception).

Sheesh, this grew quite a bit over time. (Did I beat kage yet? ;) ) I edited and enhanced it several times, so be sure to read it again even if you think you read it already.
User avatar
DevUrandom
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby Per » 13 Jun 2008, 13:19

I am sufficiently confident that openness and inclusiveness will win over closed source and closed minds in the end that I do not see much danger from the GPL exception. That said, I do not particularly like it, and this project will not use it. The wz2200 people were adamant that they needed it, so I did not object.
Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
 
Posts: 3649
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby Kamaze » 13 Jun 2008, 13:43

From what I understand, the GPL+exceptions could be replaced by the LGPL.
Would have afaik the same effect, that the base source and all deriviates of it weould need to be open source,
while allowing to link it to properitary stuff.

However, I am not a lawyer.
We all have the same heaven, but not the same horizon.
User avatar
Kamaze
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1017
Joined: 30 Jul 2006, 15:23
Location: Germany

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby DevUrandom » 13 Jun 2008, 13:48

Kamaze wrote:From what I understand, the GPL+exceptions could be replaced by the LGPL.
Would have afaik the same effect, that the base source and all deriviates of it weould need to be open source,
while allowing to link it to properitary stuff.

However, I am not a lawyer.

The LGPL works the other way round: Linking LGPL libraries into a closed source binary.
User avatar
DevUrandom
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby jaywalker_eidos » 13 Jun 2008, 14:01

No wonder lawyers have a smile tattooed on their faces :)
jaywalker_eidos
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 05 Jun 2008, 10:39

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby Rman Virgil » 13 Jun 2008, 14:36

---------------->

* As far as lawyers.

* The Guardians at the gates of GPL desperately need more case law on the books (they are also looking for volunteers to donate their time to that cause, btw, aka walking the talk..).

* There's only one to date in the US and that's from the past year (some few dozen in Germany over that handful of years)

* Perhaps one day it will be argued before the Supreme Court if someone can come up with the hundreds of millions to do so.

* In the matter of "exception", should such a case ever come before the court of the land, I think "Anit-Trust" precidents would be argued and the example of Ma Bell broken up into "Baby Bells" would come to the fore. Course that is a capitalist-democratic paradigm (bottom-up invisible hand) and not the paradigm of a state economic monopoly as in socialism (top-down dictates).

* This is all very interesting. And also quite remote from the day to day reality of what is happening as we speak in this particular instance.

- Cheers, RV :)
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
 
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby jaywalker_eidos » 13 Jun 2008, 14:58

Hmm to say its complicated is definitely an understatement then :)

Priority for me was getting you guys the extra assets freed so you can get a more `complete` package out there :) not that a movieless campaign wasnt fun, was just `different` :)
jaywalker_eidos
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 05 Jun 2008, 10:39

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby Rman Virgil » 13 Jun 2008, 15:12

----------------------->

* Only good will come of this. Good for the game and by extention all it's fans, present and to come. No doubt about that.

* WZ will even be more relevant, vital and viable a year from now (even 5 years from now) than it is today as a direct result of this outcome.

- Cheers, Rman :)
User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
 
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby Chojun » 13 Jun 2008, 16:23

jaywalker_eidos wrote:I may be missing the point here so please help me understand if i am, the last thing we want is to kill off development of this fantastic game.


I sense a minor amount of panic in your post, and for that I apoogize. The last thing that I (or anyone else) wants is to bring about that pit-in-the-stomach "oh crap, what did I do?" feeling.

I have a lot to say in response to what has already been said (this topic has moved really fast..!), but I hope to avoid quoting a large amount of text.

First let me say that I have a lot of respect for Buginator and the work he has done for Warzone. Let me, however, bring something to light that will help explain the situation:

Buginator wrote:This is *very* bad news, I don't know why everyone is happy about this.


It depends on your point of view. The Free Software modus is a philosophy -- a movement, or, a set of opinions regarding software. Because of this fact, I respectfully submit that Buginator's post is his opinion and is purely subjective.

The important thing to remember, as has been pointed out by Cybersphinx, DevUrandom, and Rman Virgil, the source will henceforth and forever be open-source. No matter who does what to Warzone's core source code, it will always be open source (have a little faith in the GPL.. :P ). I think some of the concerns stem from the notion that everything won't be available to be contributed to the one monolithic "Warzone 2100." Pray tell, which is this version? As I've pointed out before, no-one owns THE Warzone 2100. Tomorrow a private group could take any version of the source and use it to open up a wormhole to the Delta Quadrant (and bring down an alien invasion because of how badly-written the netcode is), or cure every disease on earth, and never release the sourcecode and binaries to the public.

As stated in the license readme, the primary intent of the licensor in providing the source code is for "educational and entertainment purposes." This purpose has been served.

DevUrandom wrote:Theoretically you could this way close-source (nearly) the whole game, by rewriting it piece by piece and putting the new code into closed-source libraries. You would only leave as much code in WZ so you could continue to use the name "Warzone 2100". Though: Will this ever happen?


Theoretically it is possible, but the more and more Warzone's core components are replaced by new/other libraries (closed or open-source), the more and more Warzone is Warzone in name only.

[

This is true. Fortunately for everyone here, this affects only us. This brings me to another point. The phrase comes to mind: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." The fact of the matter, that I'm not afraid to admit, is that Warzone, no matter which project is developing it, is an open-source project. A development model that keeps things as open as possible is clearly superior to any other, for open source projects. Recognizing that fact, it has always been our goal to be as open as possible (in our case only members have direct access to the source and all others have access to source snapshots). So back to that old addage, we, being in OSS-land, will do as OSS does (although clearly we will appear as tourists O_o xD ). All we wanted was to be able to legally distribute binaries linked with closed-source libraries so we can entertain the possibility of bringing certain technologies to Warzone. There is nothing more or less to what we want.

Just think, though, the new exception would allow someone to link and release Warzone to the Crytek engine O_O

Of course, if anyone has a pet project that involves a closed-source library that they'd like to "plug-in" to Warzone, they're free to use our version as a test-bed...
Last edited by Chojun on 13 Jun 2008, 17:10, edited 1 time in total.
Chojun
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby jaywalker_eidos » 13 Jun 2008, 16:56

Wasnt a full on panic, just a minor `hmmm` moment.

;)
jaywalker_eidos
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 05 Jun 2008, 10:39

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby rush2049 » 13 Jun 2008, 19:04

Ok so now that all of this is cleared up, I wanna see all the movies converted (or do what I have been doing and use fraps to record them) and I wanna see like 50 copies of every movie up on youtube, titled with Cam 1 M1, Cam 1 M2 and so on..... Lets do it people.....
then we can work on how to release them with the game as far as bandwidth, someone setup a torrent file, that would work....
rush2049
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 05 Sep 2006, 01:52
Location: Lancaster, PA

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby EvilGuru » 13 Jun 2008, 19:07

rush2049 wrote:Ok so now that all of this is cleared up, I wanna see all the movies converted (or do what I have been doing and use fraps to record them) and I wanna see like 50 copies of every movie up on youtube, titled with Cam 1 M1, Cam 1 M2 and so on..... Lets do it people.....
then we can work on how to release them with the game as far as bandwidth, someone setup a torrent file, that would work....

Gna! (the people who provide hosting for Warzone's download, for free, I might add) seem to have no problems with us uploading the FMVs there.

No need for YouTube/FRAPS/Bit torrent/your mates cat!

Regards, Freddie.
EvilGuru
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 615
Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 22:41

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby Chojun » 13 Jun 2008, 19:37

Bit-torrent is a cheap, cost-effective method of distributing large files and that would make the most sense in this case, IMO.

If Warzone were to become popular again (like it was at the time of its release) or comparatively popular to any modern game, the sheer bandwidth required to push those files down to users would be enough to cause GNA to feel uneasiness in their bowel region :P
Chojun
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby EvilGuru » 13 Jun 2008, 20:19

Chojun wrote:Bit-torrent is a cheap, cost-effective method of distributing large files and that would make the most sense in this case, IMO.

If Warzone were to become popular again (like it was at the time of its release) or comparatively popular to any modern game, the sheer bandwidth required to push those files down to users would be enough to cause GNA to feel uneasiness in their bowel region :P

When transcoded to Theora the videos are around 180MiB. Add this as an optional download (so it only happens once, irrespective of Warzone releases) and it really is not that bad.

TeXLive (an open source TeX distribution) is well over 1GiB and seldom seems to pose a problem to distributors. Heck, take a look at Linux distributions, they are 600MiB a pop and open-source hosting companies never seem to raise an eyebrow.

Bit torrent, although nice, is always, in my mind a back-up solution. ISP throttling, potential lack of seeders, potentially overwhelming to new users (would you set-up bit torrent just to download the FMVs?).

So while it would be nice for the FMVs to be available via bit torrent, it should remain as a secondary distribution method.

Regards, Freddie.
EvilGuru
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 615
Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 22:41

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Postby DevUrandom » 14 Jun 2008, 00:34

Last time I was talking to Gna staff about moving files to BT, they laughed at me...
User avatar
DevUrandom
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14

PreviousNext

Return to Development