cybersphinx wrote:
In December 2004, the source was released, unexpectedly for those having lobbied for it (the RTS.net members, hereafter referred to sloppily as a single entity rts.net), under the GPL. That meant a sudden interest of Linux people in the game, who (judging from the reaction of rts.net) didn't deserve the game, since they didn't lobby for the source, didn't spend the last five years playing the game, and wanted to start hacking at the source immediately instead of revering it as it deserved. And the Linux people dared (some quite vocally) to point out the incompatibility of the GPL with only publishing binaries and keeping their modified sources private.
ah yes, rts.net. when i said pumpkin-2, i meant rts.net. anyways, i was admittedly one of the people at rts.net that had been petitioning, hoping, and planning for the source release. we have about a 3 page todo list (which we really out to recover for use here), and when it was released as GPL, not knowing what that was, and seeing it as a threat (as many windows users seem to do), wanted to find ways to get around it, as it was felt that, at least by me, and certainly without reason, that we were in competition with a few other warzone communities ("linux" hadn't even entered the equation at this point), and that without centralized control by the largest active community (rts.net), development would flounder. since then i've actually learned at least something about how both group-oriented code development and the gpl work. i'm pretty sure a lot of users back at rts.net who were trying to give a lot of input on code direction were like me, and didn't have a clue. furthermore, development did flounder: after the code was finally released, it was like most of us had finished the task we set out to complete and had nothing more to do, and a lot of the people who said they'd try to contribute to the development effort (myself included) didn't bother putting in the slightest effort; the potential number of developers dropped from more than a dozen it seemed to just a handful. the lack of the "feature explosion" that the average user was expecting and hoping for may have driven a lot of active users to leave the community altogether, while many others were seen only occasionally.
cybersphinx wrote:
Heh. Not necessarily. The thing is, as copyright holder, Pumpkin is allowed to do anything. They can put together GPL code with binary stuff as much as they like, they don't have to care about the GPL. YOU have to care about the GPL, when you use their source. Like "Here's the source under the GPL, and everything else (that's small enough) that might be useful to you. But you have to replace all that closed source stuff, since you have to comply with the GPL, it's just there for demonstration." Possibly they weren't aware of that, as of the confusion the missing data in point 5 would cause...
according to u.s. law, at least, the company who owns copyright can revoke any applicable licenses at any time, too -- pumpkin, or eidos, could at any time say "this isn't gpl anymore, you can't use
our code... go away". granted, given that it was licensed under the gpl, they couldn't use our code contributions after doing such a thing unless we licensed our own contributions under something like a bsd-style license. also, the copyright owner of the license itself can control who uses the license and if it is valid at any time: the fsf could, though extremely unlikely, say that the gpl no longer exists and that we can't use anything by that name, though all we'd have to do is make a copycat license and contact all developers to approve the changeover.
as to what chojun specifically said: that's not universally true, depending on the context: the gpl allows you to load a closed source library at runtime as long as it's not
required for correct operation -- thus, if you try to load the rpl dll during runtime, and if it's not available, you just continue on without that functionality. further, the gpl explicitly says that gpl software can be bundled with non-gpl software, and doing so does
not force the gpl on all bundled software.
Chojun wrote:
In my opinion, since basically ALL of the source developers are linux folks, this project and wz2100.net ought to be designated as the Linux development project. Warzone2100 is a great game and deserves full attention in the Linux arena. This concept needs discussion, as well.
there really is no "linux area"... the codebase for all the ports is in a single repository, and the linux specific code is no less stable than the windows code. most of the linux developers seem to be working on platform-agnostic fixes/improvements. the code has markedly improved since it has become cross platform, and aside from use of the rpl dll, there's
nothing one platform can do that the others can't, "now that the program is loaded into memory", and support for that dll does not by any means need to break cross-platform compatibility -- it's enough to put it all in an #ifdef clause that ties into gerard's implementation of the video playback code, and give it the windows equivalent of a ./configure option. so it really sounds like you want to take some version of the code and make a windows-only codebase, which is fine by me, but since almost all development is spent towards fixing problems and creating improvements that are platform-agnostic, if you want any new shiny improvements or bug fixes this community comes up with, you'll be spending all your time integrating those instead of making your own improvements.