Updated GPL release readme

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
User avatar
Buginator
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3285
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:20

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Buginator » 14 Jun 2008, 03:48

Rman Virgil wrote:----------------------->

* 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 :)
Sorry Rman, I don't wear rosey colored glasses.

I don't know how you will know what the future brings.

While it might be good for players, it is not good for coders, I guess I should have stated that more clearly, and that I was speaking as a coder.

You can't guarantee what I speculated could not happen, and for the record, I didn't mean to imply what I said, is what warzone22k will do. I just meant to say that the wording of the exception makes it possible for anyone to rip out whatever they want, be it Widgets (GUI), Sound, AI, Rendering (GFX), Scripts, (insert whatever else here), and close source their version, while still piggy-backing on the 'skeleton' code, until they are finally ready for them to release a complete game themselves, and start selling it. (Of course, all the warzone 2100 assets will not be used.)

There are no checks & balances available that would see if any group is violating the GPL rules by using 100% GPL code in a closed source library.

The other reason is, from what I understand, I (as a coder) would be barred from joining up any group that doesn't open their source code up, and share my work with other projects, since you can't mix 100% GPL code with closed source code. Which then means that I can't help out wz22k.
Believe it or not, I have tried to remain impartial to both projects, and was just waiting for the first release of the source code from your project to start helping out. You can check with Chojun about this, and Lav_Coyote, and even Windows ME version 2.0 user Grim. ;) That is what I always stated is what I wanted to do.

I hope I explained my position better this time around. :stressed:

User avatar
Buginator
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3285
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:20

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Buginator » 14 Jun 2008, 04:43

Chojun wrote:
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.
Um, yes, it is my opinion, and it is also subjective. As is what everyone else is stating.
That doesn't mean what I speculated will *never* happen though.
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.
While the original code will always be out there, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
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.
Ah yes, for educational use.
I rather that primary intent, and the spirit of the initial release keep on educating, and entertaining people.
However, if you have anything that is closed source, then it slams the door shut on the educational aspect of it, and instead, you stick up a big :twisted: in its place.
Sure, it still can be entertaining for non coders, but that goes against what I think was the original release, intended for other coders/developers.
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.

[
Looks like Devurandom got the gist of what I was talking about...
I understand your point that as you move away from the open source, and start closing everything off, you would just be using Warzone's name only.

However, as I talked about before, this doesn't help out the community of developers/coders, it only sticks blockades in their way, and then they must reinvent the wheel by rewriting what was closed source. And if the original authors of the closed source portion(s) got sick/POed/other of the project, and they don't want to open their once closed source,then congratulation, you just killed off warzone, and the only way they can save warzone again, is to start from scratch.

I rather have everything open, and people can continue to build upon this game for decades/centuries to come, which isn't a problem with 100% GPL code.

I guess you can call it the linux kernel model versus the microsoft kernel model.
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
Hmm, are you also wearing rosey colored glasses? ;)

Yes, I *am* thinking of that, and while the Crytek engine won't fit in a RTS game, you have just made my point again.
If whoever makes a (in this case) a gfx engine that is vastly improved, and uses it for warzone, but it is closed source, they go against the spirit of the original intent '"educational and entertainment purposes."' And if said party then leaves the project for whatever reason, then nobody can pick up from where they left off.

To make it a bit clearer, the exception should have only allowed the dlls that were needed to view the rpls. That is it. You don't leave the barn yard door wide open to allow what I speculated to happen.

This would have made much more sense, and would still allow (in your case) wz22k the needed dlls to distribute, and would have allowed everyone (coders & players alike) to enjoy the game forever. Nothing to hide, all out in the open for anyone to do with as they please, and will meet the original intentions of the source code release of "educational and entertainment purposes.". :3

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...
Does Kamaze get a cut from all the advertising you guys do? xD

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

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Rman Virgil » 14 Jun 2008, 05:08

___________________>

* No objectively verifiable evidence has been presented that irrefutably demonstrates that the 'exception' will ever violate the original intent of "educational and entertainment purposes."

* Hypotheticals are tested in science over and over, generating objectively verifiable evidence however, in politics, they are the basis of smoke and mirrors to control other peoples freedom of choice. Like I said earlier, the evidence in this matter is in the case law, which is so sparse I've been able to study it all. And NONE of the case law supports any of your suppositions of the adverse affects of a copyright holder granting an exception. There is no evidence. Just smoke and mirrors anecdote or the equivalent of religious faith.

* I'm glad our judicial system operates under the mandate "innocent, till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than the other way round. ;)

- RV :)

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

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by EvilGuru » 14 Jun 2008, 13:25

I don't like to post, however, in response to:
* No objectively verifiable evidence has been presented that irrefutably demonstrates that the 'exception' will ever violate the original intent of "educational and entertainment purposes."
I do somewhat disagree.
Chojun wrote:Third: I want to be able to restrictively license my work on VisiRaptor so that it cannot be used incorporated commercially (I have plans for it for the future, aside from Warzone)
From what I understand:
  • 'VisiRaptor' is a library which is designed to replace/augment the current rendering library in Warzone.
  • Therefore, rendering code is moving out of the current library/source code tree into this new library.
  • The quote above shows Chojun's intent not to open source it -- due to commercial aspirations for it.
  • The library is not currently available and is still in development.
By all counts this is the exact situation which Buggy/devurandom described: rewriting parts of Warzone in a library which one has little to no intention of open sourcing -- exploiting the new blanket exception in the process.

How can anyone learn from the new/improved rendering library when the source is not available? Doesn't even count as vaguely educational in my books.

Checking the points:
  • objectively verifiable evidence: Verifiable -- anyone with access to 'Office' will be able to verify it.
  • irrefutably demonstrates: Straight from the horses mouth (as we say over here), clearing showing that a part of Warzone being re-written will not be released under an open source license due to commercial aspirations.
  • "educational and entertainment purposes.": Not having the source to an important part of Warzone severely limits ones ability to learn from it. I highly doubt the purpose of the exception was to allow people to re-write parts of Warzone in a closed source lib :rolleyes:
Regards, Freddie.

cybersphinx
Inactive
Inactive
Posts: 1689
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 19:17

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by cybersphinx » 14 Jun 2008, 15:17

Chojun wrote:Third: I want to be able to restrictively license my work on VisiRaptor so that it cannot be used incorporated commercially (I have plans for it for the future, aside from Warzone)
As far as I can see, putting your engine under the GPL would allow exactly that: Since it's GPL, it cannot be used in non-GPL programs, and since you're the author, you can dual-license it under any other license you want (you just have to make sure any contributions you include can also be dual-licensed).

User avatar
Buginator
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3285
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:20

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Buginator » 15 Jun 2008, 05:14

cybersphinx wrote:
Chojun wrote:Third: I want to be able to restrictively license my work on VisiRaptor so that it cannot be used incorporated commercially (I have plans for it for the future, aside from Warzone)
As far as I can see, putting your engine under the GPL would allow exactly that: Since it's GPL, it cannot be used in non-GPL programs, and since you're the author, you can dual-license it under any other license you want (you just have to make sure any contributions you include can also be dual-licensed).
Fantastic! :3
I knew once the community was aware of what was going on, that they would step up with a solution that works for everyone, and Cybersphinx, you just made my day!
Doing a little reading, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license , it seems this is just what Chojun can do, and his fears about others stealing his code for commercial endeavors has been satisfied.

I see this as a big win for everyone involved, especially the Warzone Coding Community. We can stick with the original intent of everyone learning from the release of source code.

Now we just need jaywalker_eidos to make a final edit to the GPL Release Readme, and we can get back to our business at hand-- "educational and entertainment purposes." :)

I guess this also shows it is better to do things out in the open, so people know what is going on, before something is made 'public'.

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

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by jaywalker_eidos » 16 Jun 2008, 09:15

*wakes up* eh? what? wats needed?

Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Per » 16 Jun 2008, 11:01

Permissions like these, once granted, cannot simply be withdrawn, so there is no point in going over this discussion again.

Lets move on and be friends, people.

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

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by jaywalker_eidos » 16 Jun 2008, 11:13

That's true.. *goes back to sleep* :)

Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Chojun » 16 Jun 2008, 17:50

I don't feel like I need to do any more arguing and disputing each-other's opinions. I'm not here to argue mine or listen to anyone else's. This is not productive.. In fact, it is negative productive. So, let me state the facts and clear up some misconceptions:
EvilGuru wrote:From what I understand:

'VisiRaptor' is a library which is designed to replace/augment the current rendering library in Warzone.
Therefore, rendering code is moving out of the current library/source code tree into this new library.
The quote above shows Chojun's intent not to open source it -- due to commercial aspirations for it.
The library is not currently available and is still in development.
Point 1 is somewhat correct. VisiRaptor will replace the renderer in our version of Warzone.
Point 2 is incorrect. Legacy rendering code will likely remain where it is in the Ivis02 library. In the event it does move to VisiRaptor, it will be done in a way that will allow it to remain open source (GPL) and used without the other closed-source components. This will carry with it the benefit of using VisiRaptor's interfaces (which would also be open source, in that event). I will likely not do any work to that end since Ivis02 is so... inept.
Point 3 is correct. However, keep in mind that VisiRaptor will not contain any existing component of Warzone, for that very reason (and if it does, as previously stated, those components will be open source).
Point 4 is entirely correct.
EvilGuru wrote:By all counts this is the exact situation which Buggy/devurandom described: rewriting parts of Warzone in a library which one has little to no intention of open sourcing -- exploiting the new blanket exception in the process.
You are incorrect in assuming that parts of Warzone are being rewritten. Also, you are incorrect in assuming that the VisiRaptor source will not be open. Members of our project are privy to the VisiRaptor code, although VisiRaptor is licensed in a way that will likely deter most people from contributing, which I fully understand and accept that consequence.
EvilGuru wrote:Checking the points:

objectively verifiable evidence: Verifiable -- anyone with access to 'Office' will be able to verify it.
irrefutably demonstrates: Straight from the horses mouth (as we say over here), clearing showing that a part of Warzone being re-written will not be released under an open source license due to commercial aspirations.
"educational and entertainment purposes.": Not having the source to an important part of Warzone severely limits ones ability to learn from it. I highly doubt the purpose of the exception was to allow people to re-write parts of Warzone in a closed source lib
Please allow me to refute the irrefutability upon which you lean: Again, you are incorrect in assuming that any part of Warzone is being rewritten using a closed-source license. This is false. Think of it this way: A library (VisiRaptor) is being created outside of and apart from Warzone, which will be used with Warzone.

Also, regarding "educational and entertainment purposes": I am not one so pompous as to assume that whatever I do in the code I write will be better than anything that is already out there. In fact, if you want something "good", you may as well go google "Open source 3D Engine" and study from the results you find (Ogre3D, others). My efforts in VisiRaptor are the culmination of my studies of other freely available 3D engines, my undergraduate work at the University of Utah, and the topics learned from many books and online tutorials, plus practical experience in the field and in my career as a software developer.

If you really want to learn as you say you do, then why are you wasting your time tugging at my shirt sleeve when you can wander over to the Ogre3D website and bask in a veritable educational paradise?

If you all aren't careful your efforts and arguments can be viewed as an attempt at some form of absolute control over the source code. Lets face it -- the GPL is less freedom and more "control" and the exception has loosed a few fingers on its (the GPL's) grip. I can see how you would be anxious over these latest developments (and honestly I feel you are justified, given your political convictions). Please allow me to be the first to suggest that you all would be better off putting your nose into Warzone's code (if your championing cause is for its betterment) instead of in other people's business. Believe me, from a business perspective (in the software industry), development time is precious, and precious time is being wasted bickering over these issues.

Our project is entitled to its sovereignty and I pray that you respect it.

Unless my opinion is sought, this will be my final posting on this issue. I have too little time to spend on this.

EDIT: Some clarifications (indicated in red)..
Last edited by Chojun on 16 Jun 2008, 19:59, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Rman Virgil » 16 Jun 2008, 18:25

by Per on Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:01 am

Permissions like these, once granted, cannot simply be withdrawn, so there is no point in going over this discussion again.

Lets move on and be friends, people.
* Indeed. :)

* This will also be my last post on this topic as i am totally vested in creating new content which is freely offered like everything WZ I've worked on between 1999 and 2008. Creating is what rocks my world. :D

* My last post was entirely miss-represented (in classic sophist fashion, which I guess comes with being an activist, so no hard feelings really).

* The entire point of my last post was the extant Case Law on the GPL as objectively verifiable if you take the time to study it all. Period.

- Peace brothers, Rman :)

Deus Siddis
Trained
Trained
Posts: 235
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 06:58

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Deus Siddis » 17 Jun 2008, 04:35

An interesting discussion this is.

I'm a big fan of FOSS, a huge fan.

But I think that while it is very tempting to want to force everything to be open source so that its betterment of free software can be maximized, you are in fact making things more legally closed and less flexible in doing so. This might dissuade people from contributing things that they would allow used for free, if they don't want to go all the way and surrender all their control over their creation.

Besides that, you have to consider that the code for Warzone 2100 is ANCIENT. If you wanted to make an in anyway competitive commercial RTS in 2008 or beyond, there's really nothing useful to be taken from this engine, unless it was for a gameboy or cell phone, imo. What it is perfect for is FOSS projects that want a game that already works to upgrade and improve upon piece by piece over a long period of time, while being able to release stable builds of a fully working and playable game. So I don't see what's to be lost here.

That said, I for one really do appreciate the work anyone releases as FOS for this or any other project. Alot more than even that of those who release stuff as free to use. You are growing an orchard tree who's offspring will continue to grow, evolve and survive indefinitely and benefit hundreds, thousands or millions, rather than bolting together a machine that will require regular maintenance on your part, eat user's wallets, and then finally rust-out and get dumped in the middle of new jersey. :D

You just can't force others to make that sort of awesome contribution, they have to volunteer to do it themselves.

User avatar
Buginator
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3285
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:20

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Buginator » 17 Jun 2008, 06:06

Per wrote:Permissions like these, once granted, cannot simply be withdrawn, so there is no point in going over this discussion again.

Lets move on and be friends, people.
*Ahem* well, 'we' (community) didn't discuss this at all. :evil: :ninja:
I took this as a 'draft' before the 'final', but, it seems that isn't the case, so with that said, I leave these parting words to this subject:
Que Sera, Sera
jaywalker_eidos wrote:That's true.. *goes back to sleep* :)
Sorry, jaywalker_eidos, I didn't mean to ruin your sleep. Accept my humble apologies. :(

Thanks again for all your hard work in getting the FMVs & music be part of the package! :)


Speaking of FMVs, would you happen to know if the original source of the videos is stashed away someplace @ Eidos HQ? The 3dsmax files/scripts? I just ask, since the original content is pretty low res (320x240, and some are less). It would be nice to rerender them at higher resolutions.

Have a nice day everyone. :3

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

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by jaywalker_eidos » 17 Jun 2008, 09:12

Buginator wrote:
Per wrote:Permissions like these, once granted, cannot simply be withdrawn, so there is no point in going over this discussion again.

Lets move on and be friends, people.
*Ahem* well, 'we' (community) didn't discuss this at all. :evil: :ninja:
I took this as a 'draft' before the 'final', but, it seems that isn't the case, so with that said, I leave these parting words to this subject:
Que Sera, Sera
jaywalker_eidos wrote:That's true.. *goes back to sleep* :)
Sorry, jaywalker_eidos, I didn't mean to ruin your sleep. Accept my humble apologies. :(

Thanks again for all your hard work in getting the FMVs & music be part of the package! :)


Speaking of FMVs, would you happen to know if the original source of the videos is stashed away someplace @ Eidos HQ? The 3dsmax files/scripts? I just ask, since the original content is pretty low res (320x240, and some are less). It would be nice to rerender them at higher resolutions.

Have a nice day everyone. :3
Hmm original source files for the fmv? i dont know about that. i know i've got them all RPL format.. Will check

Kacen
Trained
Trained
Posts: 294
Joined: 19 Feb 2007, 19:28

Re: Updated GPL release readme

Post by Kacen » 19 Jun 2008, 20:11

So basically this means that we finally can use the original videos?

Post Reply