Updated GPL release readme

[kage]

hmmmmm... interesting debate (as always). one could always assert that 'free' includes the ability to deny the freedoms of others. of course, it's not as though Chojun would have GNU-style freedoms with those proprietary components in the first place, in which case, he is not restricting the freedoms of others (on the platforms he supports), as much as enhancing a program with proprietary extensions (especially if those non-free parts were all runtime-linked and optional, there would be zero "damage" done to users).

[mcdebugger]

ooohh... too hot
I think if WRP will stay totally GPL we have no reason for concern
What about other projects? I think people who may care about it stays on these project's sites/communities... We have some disadvantages here (for example some prop. engines developed in other projects can't be a part of WRP) but it's not the thing that we must care.
Just another question. What about some parts of code that sometimes was released under GPL (in old versions) and then sources was closed? Can we use old versions of this work? And is it real to close something that was already released under GPL? =)

[cybersphinx]

Just another question. What about some parts of code that sometimes was released under GPL (in old versions) and then sources was closed? Can we use old versions of this work?

Well, the GPL requires that someone who offers a binary (the program's exe etc.) of a GPLed program also offers the source (for that exact version). No binary offered, no requirement to offer the code. So someone who worked on the code, but never offered any binaries has no obligation to offer his code. Are there any binaries out there where the code isn't available?

And is it real to close something that was already released under GPL? =)

If a program was released under the GPL, the code for that version has to be available under the GPL. A modified version of that program can only be released under a different license if all contributors to the code agree to that (which is as good as impossible for larger/older projects).

[cynicman]

So tell me then, can I distribute this game with the original movie files? and if so, where can I download the movie files... this game rocks so hard, and I love playing it...

Personally, I believe that releasing games like this as GPL is a good thing, and the game houses can always make a return by offering only set amount of game data for free and after that you buy the game data... both worlds win... open source community get's to ensure the game is wide spread and compatible with all platforms, and the game house gets to make some money on extra levels and videos and stuff...

[cumandgetit]

i looked at the docs in the distro and didnt see this one.
maybe i missed it some how.

[Dalton]

i looked at the docs in the distro and didnt see this one.
maybe i missed it some how.

Last post - April 24th, 2009, 3:25 am - This is an old topic.

[cumandgetit]

i looked at the docs in the distro and didnt see this one.
maybe i missed it some how.

Last post - April 24th, 2009, 3:25 am - This is an old topic.

so what. gee, i can read dude and know the date. doesn't change the posts relevance at this time. if the text isn't in the distro that is something significant, i would think. were you at a loss for what to post ? might i suggest the corrupt-a-wish thread in the lounge.

[Dalton]

doesn't change the posts relevance at this time. if the text isn't in the distro that is something significant, i would think.

I did not go through the entire topic, the point was that things change over time and usually have a reason behind that change.

were you at a loss for what to post ? might i suggest the corrupt-a-wish thread in the lounge.

No, some people miss obvious things like when a post is over a year old...

[cumandgetit]

doesn't change the posts relevance at this time. if the text isn't in the distro that is something significant, i would think.

I did not go through the entire topic, the point was that things change over time and usually have a reason behind that change.

if this was changed then the reason for it needs to be made public. this is not trivial.

were you at a loss for what to post ? might i suggest the corrupt-a-wish thread in the lounge.

No, some people miss obvious things like when a post is over a year old...

same here. you can't answer the question, that's obvious, so why insinuate im some fool ?

let someone that can answer the question do so and get on with something else. simple. makes sense to me.

[Zarel]

...what was the question?

[lav_coyote25]

...what was the question?

read up a few posts - a statement was made and it went from there... something about missing something in this thread and then being told it was an old thread... people like to make mountains out of molehills....

[Zarel]

read up a few posts - a statement was made and it went from there... something about missing something in this thread and then being told it was an old thread... people like to make mountains out of molehills....

Well, yes, I saw that, but now cumandgetit is talking about "you can't answer the question" and I never saw a question.

[Per]

He said the license text was not in the distro. However, it is installed as part of 'make install', so if he uses the source or one of the linux distributions of the game, it should be there. I cannot speak for the MacOSX or Windows distributions.

[cumandgetit]

He said the license text was not in the distro. However, it is installed as part of 'make install', so if he uses the source or one of the linux distributions of the game, it should be there. I cannot speak for the MacOSX or Windows distributions.

correct. thank you. windows distro here. sorry if i was not clear enough.

the license in the distro is the generic GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991.

this thread was all about updating the original source Pumpkin / Eidos README release license from 2004 with the following quoted revised text and I do not see this text in my window distro. this revision was sought for years and was the reason, among other things, for the campaign FMVs not being a part of the distro for all those years.

Updated GPL release readme

Postby jaywalker_eidos » Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:53 am
Warzone 2100 Source & Data
----------------------------------

This document replaces the file "readme.txt" as present in the Warzone 2100 GPL release on December 6th 2004.

1. These source and data files are provided as is with no guarantees:
* No assistance or support will be offered or given.
* Everything you will require to make a build of the game should be here. If it isn't, you'll have to improvise(*).
* None of us here at Pivotal Games are in a position to be able to offer any help with making this work.

2. Everything included (source code and data), as well as the not included videos and music, is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your option) any later version.
Please be sure to read the entirety of this license, but the summary is that you're free to do what you want with the source subject to making the full source code freely available in the event of the distribution of new binaries.

3. Following exception to the GPL is granted:

Linking Warzone 2100 statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on Warzone 2100. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of Warzone 2100 give you permission to combine Warzone 2100 with code included in the standard release of libraries that are accessible, redistributable and linkable free of charge. You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the GNU GPL for Warzone 2100 and the licenses of the other code concerned.

Note that people who make modified versions of Warzone 2100 are not obligated to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public License gives permission to release a modified version without this exception; this exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which carries forward this exception.

4. Permission is granted to use the name "Warzone 2100", the logos, stories, texts and related materials.

5. Permission is granted to copy and distribute unaltered copies and/or images of the original game discs in any medium, provided that they are distributed free of charge and retain their original copyright and trademark notices.

Finally, the primary motivation for this release is for entertainment and educational purposes. On the subject of the latter, don't be surprised to see some pretty gnarly old-school C code in here; the game was a classic, but large areas of the code aren't pretty; OO design and C++ evangelists beware! We haven't spent any time cleaning the code or making it pretty - what you see is what you're getting, warts n' all.

Thank you to Jonathan Kemp of Eidos Europe for permitting the release. Thanks to Martin Severn for allowing to use his soundtrack. Thanks to Jason Walker for helping to facilitate the release of the movies and sound tracks, as well as clarifying the meaning of this license. Thanks also to Frank Lamboy for assistance with the release and for campaigning along with many many others over the years for the source to be made available. The correspondence, online petitions and persistence made this possible. We were constantly amazed at the community support for Warzone even after all this time; it's nice to be able to give something back, assuming you can get it to compile...

Original - 6th December 2004
Alex M - ex Pumpkin Studios (Eidos)

Amended - 10th June 2008
Jason W - Eidos

i do not think i am making a mountain out of a molehill as these are the wishes of the copyright holder in perpetuity. the above text / doc should be in every distro.

unless there is a local gremlin on my box that eats the above revised doc but it is in everyone elses windows distro then there is something significant here and raising this thread, however old, is in order.

[Buginator]

i do not think i am making a mountain out of a molehill as these are the wishes of the copyright holder in perpetuity. the above text / doc should be in every distro.

unless there is a local gremlin on my box that eats the above revised doc but it is in everyone elses windows distro then there is something significant here and raising this thread, however old, is in order.

Looks like it wasn't added by the installer, next release should have a COPYING.README & COPYING.NONGPL file like linux/macs have.