Updated GPL release readme

[EvilGuru]

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

Need I say more?

Regards, Freddie.

[SoofMan]

Hello,

I have registered just to tell you this:

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.

I think you are incorrect, Chojun and you are also going towards a deadly trap with this, and i think you seriously need to consult a good lawyer that knows a lot about GPL.

As far as i know, GPL does not allow you to connect GPLed code with not-compatibile librariers in any way and i'm pretty certain of that.
If it would, Microsoft (and other BIG corporations) would include some GPL libraries as separate programs or extensions to their programs, which they don't do because of the restrictive license, which GPL indeed is.

LGPL allows connecting LGPL-licensed librariers to proprietary software, but I'm 99,9% certain that there is even no license to do the backward thing and **pure** GPL for sure does not allow that ! (i mean connecting non-GPL-compatibile libraries to GPL code).

Actually a normal lawyer may not be enough - the best would be to contact Free Software Foundation about this before you hurt yourself and become an enemy of FLOSS.

[SoofMan]

Let me clarify the matter some more:

GPL is really a **VERY** restrictive license.

To close-source some of (EDIT: or EVEN link to) the already-GPLed code, you would need to rewrite every-GPLed code that exists in the WZ2100 Resurrection project, and essentially do everything from the scratch.

Under GPL, the GPL program cannot be connected to the NON-GPL programs/libraries/code in **any** way, such as including GPLed code, linking compiled libraries together, or linking GPL executable with NON-GPL library (DLL i mean).

So i understand, that if you want to go on with this closed-source-warzone thing, you would have two options:
a) Rewrite everything that is GPL from the scratch
b) Make the new, CLOSED code run as a "Client" of some sort and make OPEN, GPL-ed Warzone a "Server" of some sort, so the GPLed code connects to the non-GPLed code through some defined interfaces (like Network Protocol or some system comminucation protocol). EDIT: But the new, CLOSED code would need to be a completely separate application - otherwise the license won't allow it.

[EvilGuru]

SoofMan: Please familiarise yourself with the GPL Exception which has been granted by the copyright holders and then refine your posts accordingly. Or better still; stop beating a dead horse. The exception exists -- it can not be revoked (to the best of my knowledge) therefore, no action is necessary.

Regards, Freddie.

[Chojun]

SoofMan: Thanks, but I am very aware of the licensing restrictions stipulated by the GPL.

I also try to keep discussion about "my" project to a minimum to avoid confusion, but I am not using the "WZ2100 Resurrection project" code (I am a member of a different project). However, I take your effort at instructing me as an effort of genuine concern; for that I thank you.

Or better still; stop beating a dead horse.

I am not a dead horse

Also, for those of you who have been following the issue specifically related to VisiRaptor, you may be pleased (or dismayed) to learn that I have decided to release my efforts under a dual license, which will likely be GPL 2 (that's right, GPL and not LGPL). Read about it here:

http://www.warzone2200.com/modules/newb ... 8&forum=22

[EvilGuru]

I am not a dead horse

I was referring to the GPL exception in general.

Regards, Freddie.

[Ursa]

Is there a time estimate on how soon the FMVs can be translated into Theora (or some other open source codec) and run in game?

I suppose there isn't any software conversion program available, but a solution could probably be Macgyverd

[Per]

SoofMan: Thanks, but I am very aware of the licensing restrictions stipulated by the GPL.
Also, for those of you who have been following the issue specifically related to VisiRaptor, you may be pleased (or dismayed) to learn that I have decided to release my efforts under a dual license, which will likely be GPL 2 (that's right, GPL and not LGPL).

Well done.

[SoofMan]

Also, for those of you who have been following the issue specifically related to VisiRaptor, you may be pleased (or dismayed) to learn that I have decided to release my efforts under a dual license, which will likely be GPL 2 (that's right, GPL and not LGPL). Read about it here:

http://www.warzone2200.com/modules/newb ... 8&forum=22

This is enough to shut my face, thank you.

Good job.

[Chojun]

I am not a dead horse

I was referring to the GPL exception in general.

Yeah; I was just being a horse's cousin, an ass.

[viciouslime]

I've read through the entire thread now, but I'm still a little confused... if Eidos/Pumpkin/Whoever released the code under the GPL in the first place, surely no one is allowed to add an exception (except them as they own the copyright to the original code). Even if Eidos/Pumpkin did want to add an exception they could only add it to the original code, not anything that's been contributed since.

It seems at some point in the thread that the exception is only going to be applied to code submitted from now... but surely keeping track of two different licences in the same file is going to be impossible.

Is it not best to just keep everything under the GPL to ensure the best possible future for the project?

[Rman Virgil]

I've read through the entire thread now, but I'm still a little confused... if Eidos/Pumpkin/Whoever released the code under the GPL in the first place, surely no one is allowed to add an exception (except them as they own the copyright to the original code). Even if Eidos/Pumpkin did want to add an exception they could only add it to the original code, not anything that's been contributed since.

* You need to further expand your education on this topic because your statement is indeed confused. The copyright holder can absolutely do what they have done and neither you (or anybody else) can dictate what they choose in this regard.

It seems at some point in the thread that the exception is only going to be applied to code submitted from now... but surely keeping track of two different licences in the same file is going to be impossible.

* Ditto to the max.

Is it not best to just keep everything under the GPL to ensure the best possible future for the project?

* Ditto. For your information there is at least to TWO independent Projects at work on the source.

* Bottom line, this has been a done deal for months already and nothing uttered now can undo the present or future state a single iota. There's an expression apropos here: "Beating a dead horse into the ground."

- RV

[Chojun]

On top of what RV has already said, I'd like to add that the WRP (this project) has already agreed to not extend the optional exception for a number of reasons, one of which includes the problem that each and every contributor would have to OK it and that will never, ever happen.

Of course, I do not speak for THIS project, but I can speak for the OTHER project and say that we will be using the exception so we can link non-GPL software to the game. There are a lot of fairly good libraries out there to choose from but the real interesting ones are proprietary (Voice Recognition, Commercial Physics SDKs, etc etc)..

The controversy surrounding the exception relates to certain OSS dogmatic principles. However, why call software 'free' unless it really is.. free?

[cybersphinx]

Even if Eidos/Pumpkin did want to add an exception they could only add it to the original code, not anything that's been contributed since.

Yes. They added that expection, and everyone starting from the original source is free to use non-free libraries. This project always was pure GPL without exception, and will thus stay that way.

However, why call software 'free' unless it really is.. free?

What is your definition of "software"? A program, or source code? People seem to confuse that a lot when talking about free software.

The BSD/public domain/... kind of "free" means freedom for the source code. Everyone can use that source code for whatever purpose they want. The resulting programs however are not necessarily free.

The GPL ensures the freedom of the program. Someone using a GPL program always has access to the source of that exact program, and can (pay someone to) for example port it to other platforms, fix bugs, add features, or see the exact layout of file formats and use that to write exporters to other programs (ensuring not only freedom of the program itself, but of the data created with it).

In short, GPL means freedom for users, BSD-like means freedom for developers. That's the fundamental philosophical difference. Do I want free code, or free programs? Do I write code for other developers, or programs for people to use?

Anyway, that's quite off-topic for this thread, and anyone who wants to discuss this further, please open a new thread for it.

[viciouslime]

Thanks cybersphinx you've cleared it up perfectly! I'm very happy to know this project is staying pure GPL. I hadn't realised that it was Eidos that had added the exception to the original code, though I knew they were allowed to. Thanks again