Your lack of faith in the Windows crowd is pretty apparent. Does anyone else share the same views? I'm not being critical of it at all. You all are entitled to your own views. I completely agree with you about the culture clash, though. For us at RTS.net, the thought of the source going the Linux route was COMPLETELY unforseen. There was almost a knee-jerk reaction to the new people coming into the project which even caused people to mull circumventing the GPL in whatever way they could to protect Warzone. To clarify a comment I made earlier, I really believe that THIS project should become a Linux only project. Even though fork()ing the project would seem unintuitive, the clear fact is that the vast, vast majority of the developers are linux folks. Warzone has already evolved in that direction, so Warzone should continue in that direction, without windows in mind. The simple fact that the community, based on a technicality, refuses to accomodate those who own the original CDs makes it pretty clear to me that this is what would be best for Warzone and for those who are working on it.cybersphinx wrote:And totally unprepared for the Linux hordes. It looked like you had a plan, and some kind of organisation. Perhaps my impression of that was wrong, and it didn't fall apart, but wasn't there to begin with. Anyway, the Linuxers were eager for action, rts.net wanted careful examination and documentation of the source. Not quite the same goals, but more or less independent of each other. But unfortunately the culture clash prevented a successful cooperation...
People around here still haven't answered the questions I've asked about the legal issues. Would we get sued if we made the contents of the CDs available? ...no, really? That's right, it is possible, but is it probable? The liklihood would certainly increase if any profit were made from the game. Also, if the source were not distributed properly (though, technically, a group could charge a $1000 media, handling, and transfer fee for the source, although that would be legal but unethical).cybersphinx wrote:From my point of view it's what I said above: no available code, and most movies not freely available. Now you might be right, and noone will ever care if the videos are officially offered for download here, and ten years ago, it might have happened that way. But the overzealous protectionism of copyright holders these days makes you think twice (or probably more) before even considering that.
I would argue that the license can indeed be implicitly revoked if all parties involved withdraw from the license, or if one (or more) of the parties breaks the terms of the license.Per wrote: That is only the case if revokation is part of the license in question. The GNU GPL does not have a revokation clause, hence it cannot be revoked. (Unless someone asks a court to declare the license null and void because the original licensor did not have adequate permission to give the license, which is a corner case, and, after all this time, extremely doubtful to succeed.)
..Interpretations?Can I have a GPL-covered program and an unrelated non-free program on the same computer?
Yes. The "mere aggregation" clause in the GPL makes this permission explicit, but that only reinforces what we believe would be true anyway.
So, by distributing an alleged non-free program with the source, by what you're saying Alex McLean unwittingly breached the GPL by distributing them together. So it seems that the Warzone source could be free of any copyright license altogether. Also, his non-legally binding readme that he uploaded with the source has left a lot of confusion for the GPL purists.cybersphinx wrote: But distributing both a GPLed software and a nonfree plugin for this software together violates the GPL. And according to the FSF, every plugin [...] for a GPLed program has to be under the GPL, too (was mentioned in the previous link also).
Glide2x and at least DirectX7 is required. I installed the directx7 SDK to avoid any compatibility problems since a lot changed with directx from versions 7 to 8 (and even 9). I'll answer any other questions in the other thread... I'd like to keep this one about the FMVs and the fact that they work as-is with the original source compile. Anyway, long story short, the only other thing required for the FMVs to play are the FMVs themselves... Just plant them into the "sequences" directory ("Data\sequences") I believe (but I don't have it in front of me right now). They work without a hitch.cybersphinx wrote:I'm curious, as you've just gotten the original source to run, what exactly was missing? Or what parts apart from the codec aren't available in source?
It is only fair that people be honest with people and tell them (especially those who have the CDs or who have "unscrupulously" acquired the FMVs) why they cannot view them currently. I would suggest an effort to reinstate the original functionality, but that would break my suggestion for this project to move entirely to Linux.I have the retail version of Warzone, can I play the cut-scenes/Full Motion Videos from the CDs?
No.
Neither the videos themselves nor the source code for the RPL player .dlls were released with Warzone under the GPL. So Linux users can not ever play FMVs from the retail CDs. Because of the unavailability and licensing issues of the FMVs, RPL playback for Windows users was removed in the early releases of the Warzone Resurrection Project.
This is not true,I think the developers 'ratio' between windows-only and linux-only and windows-and-linux is like 1:1:1.Also being deteriorated by using a piece of software called windows or linux is absurd,and those who judge ppl by the software they use is usually biased.At the end of day all ppl are equal,they should be referred as windows user or linux user,GPL is something to help open source project,not something to make ppl who uses GPL'ed software to feel vastly superior to others.People who find themselves offended by racism are usually racists themselves,it's as simple as that.Chojun wrote: To clarify a comment I made earlier, I really believe that THIS project should become a Linux only project. Even though fork()ing the project would seem unintuitive, the clear fact is that the vast, vast majority of the developers are linux folks.
That is not my intention at the moment. And don't get me wrong, any work I do on the source is for my own personal benefit.kage wrote: [...] so it just comes down to whether you want to go off and make your own windows-only community, imho. at this point, [...]
Question: How did the project go about acquiring the converter? Is it being written by one of the devs, or is the code for it available somewhere?[...] we've already got a mostly-working rpl2avi converter [...]
Yes.[...] would you still have any interest in the dll, especially given the appearant licensing clash?
I am still seriously considering seeding most of the CDs contents (if not all) in the effort to preserve the game, since it is not commercially available anywhere, the publishing studio has gone out of business, and the original copyright owner has been aquired by another company, which in many cases causes (through the maelstrom of paperwork that is involved in mergers or aquisitions) causes lesser copyrights to be lost. Lesser, as in copyrights that represent an extremely insignificant portion of the company's assets. Warzone2100 has zero market poential.[...] the number of active users that own the original discs is small, and as time goes on, that percentage will decrease: every feature that this project supports is also supported on the windows build, and for most users, who can't legally play the original fmv's (their platform of choice is irrelevant), this community releases versions that do not give any supported platform a shorter end of the stick.
No, because, as I said, as copyright holder, he is NOT bound by the terms of the license he imposes on others.Chojun wrote:So, by distributing an alleged non-free program with the source, by what you're saying Alex McLean unwittingly breached the GPL by distributing them together. So it seems that the Warzone source could be free of any copyright license altogether.
It is on topic insofar that not only the dec130.dll was included with the source, but edec.dll, qmixer.dll, winsdec.dll and winstr.dll, all presumably including necessary functions, and all not compatible with the GPL. I guess your build uses all those as well.Glide2x and at least DirectX7 is required. I installed the directx7 SDK to avoid any compatibility problems since a lot changed with directx from versions 7 to 8 (and even 9). I'll answer any other questions in the other thread... I'd like to keep this one about the FMVs and the fact that they work as-is with the original source compile.
Good plan. If you're not just asking about making the CDs available but also code/license issues, you could ask about including the reverse engineered decoder for the videos. Does anyone actually KNOW of a patent on the codec, or is this just assumed as well? Because of the unclear status of the data, Warzone isn't pure GPL anyway, so the decoder doesn't really make a difference, does it?Chojun wrote:But I'm still looking into it and waiting for advice from lawyers, etc.
I wonder where I evolved in that direction... I remember me taking care to not break Windows users. Even supporting Win9x. Adding Minidump support to improve bugfixing for Windows only bugs.Chojun wrote: I really believe that THIS project should become a Linux only project. Even though fork()ing the project would seem unintuitive, the clear fact is that the vast, vast majority of the developers are linux folks. Warzone has already evolved in that direction, so Warzone should continue in that direction, without windows in mind.
No, this would not mean that WZ becomes Public Domain, but that it was never licensed. Which would mean: End of story, everyone go home.Chojun wrote: So, by distributing an alleged non-free program with the source, by what you're saying Alex McLean unwittingly breached the GPL by distributing them together. So it seems that the Warzone source could be free of any copyright license altogether.
So what is really your suggestion? Could you get clear at some point?Chojun wrote: I would suggest an effort to reinstate the original functionality, but that would break my suggestion for this project to move entirely to Linux.
This forum software will mark your post as unread by everyone if you edit it. This also means that the thread will show up as unread again.Chojun wrote: Note: I edited my previous post. I want to make sure that everyone sees what I posted about the FAQ.
I second that.Watermelon wrote: This is not true,I think the developers 'ratio' between windows-only and linux-only and windows-and-linux is like 1:1:1.Also being deteriorated by using a piece of software called windows or linux is absurd,and those who judge ppl by the software they use is usually biased.At the end of day all ppl are equal,they should be referred as windows user or linux user,GPL is something to help open source project,not something to make ppl who uses GPL'ed software to feel vastly superior to others.People who find themselves offended by racism are usually racists themselves,it's as simple as that.
xxxI think it is not written by one of us, but I am (a) not sure about this and (b) I don't know who wrote it.xxxChojun wrote: Question: How did the project go about acquiring the converter? Is it being written by one of the devs, or is the code for it available somewhere?
We obviously care about the legal fine print. You obviously do not. Let us just leave it at that. It is not going to change.Chojun wrote: People around here still haven't answered the questions I've asked about the legal issues. Would we get sued if we made the contents of the CDs available?
Now why on Earth would we want to cut off a large portion of our userbase like that? To the contrary, we actively support ports to new platforms (eg MacOSX) to reach a wider userbase. Making code intentionally un-portable is really silly idea. Quite against the spirit and idea of open source.Chojun wrote: I would suggest an effort to reinstate the original functionality, but that would break my suggestion for this project to move entirely to Linux.
Yes, my build uses all of these .dlls. They are statically linked, and so the only .dll that is required to be distributed is QMixer.dll. I have dealt with QSound before and I have never been impressed with the library. I think a QMixer SDK is available but I don't know why anyone would use it since OpenAL and DirectX offers better alternatives anyway (I don't even know if QSound offers new versions.. it could be a similar sitiuation as 3dfx).cybersphinx wrote:It is on topic insofar that not only the dec130.dll was included with the source, but edec.dll, qmixer.dll, winsdec.dll and winstr.dll, all presumably including necessary functions, and all not compatible with the GPL. I guess your build uses all those as well.
Well I was planning on asking about the nature of the files on the CDs and his interpretation of Alex McLean's intentions in his readme from a legal standpoint. I don't know what kinds of answers he will have for me though since I am merely meeting with him about starting up a new company. But the real question I want to ask him is (from a business perspective) under what conditions a company might seek to protect their copyrights (when no money is at stake) and how copyrights may be abandoned. But $45/hr isn't quite pocket change so my questions for him will likely be pretty limited.Good plan. If you're not just asking about making the CDs available but also code/license issues, you could ask about including the reverse engineered decoder for the videos. Does anyone actually KNOW of a patent on the codec, or is this just assumed as well? Because of the unclear status of the data, Warzone isn't pure GPL anyway, so the decoder doesn't really make a difference, does it?
Please do go into details, because the FAQ is misleading. Plain and simple. Also, tell me where I suggested (in my proposed FAQ revision) that the Windows users are not bound by the GPL, where they are segregated from Linux users. Now let me clarify my FAQ proposal and show you where it is correct.DevUrandom wrote:Your FAQ update is also extremely faulty... I wont go into details, since I did that like a dozen times in the last few days, but the major point is that the GPL is binding not only for "Linux folks", but also for the know-it-all "Windows crowd". There is no "Windows users are not bound to this terms" clause in the GPL.
It is just a suggestionWell, whatever... The Linux only suggestion will not be followed by me. You can turn yourself upside down, I still wont.
I'm not asking you to change. In fact, I'm not even asking the project to re-include the FMV source and libraries. I'm asking for explanation as to why it has not been made generally known that the FMVs work perfectly in the first build of the source...Per wrote:We obviously care about the legal fine print. You obviously do not. Let us just leave it at that. It is not going to change.
I'd say this project is cutting off a large portion of the userbase by not supporting those who are entitled to enjoy the FMVs (those who hold the retail CDs in their fat, sweaty, windows tainted fingers). By the way, how many of the Linux-only people have a windows-key on their keyboard? ;DNow why on Earth would we want to cut off a large portion of our userbase like that? To the contrary, we actively support ports to new platforms (eg MacOSX) to reach a wider userbase. Making code intentionally un-portable is really silly idea. Quite against the spirit and idea of open source.
Also, open-source"ness" has absolutely nothing to do with portability. At all. There are many *nix-only and Windows-only open-source projects. Linux is open source... How come we don't see any Win32 builds of Linux?by supporting directsound, you would be leaving out a potentially large number of windows users, since, as we all know, microsoft has abandoned hardware accelerated directsound in vista... anyone who has bought a half-way-decent (or better) sound card will actually get less out of their investment than if you just stick with the existing openal code used by the wz engine. ah, now here lies a great example of how the cross-platform compatibility of this project's revisions to warzone not only does not hurt windows users in this aspect, but in fact improves their experience over using that platform's own proprietary backend.Chojun wrote: Yes, my build uses all of these .dlls. They are statically linked, and so the only .dll that is required to be distributed is QMixer.dll. I have dealt with QSound before and I have never been impressed with the library. I think a QMixer SDK is available but I don't know why anyone would use it since OpenAL and DirectX offers better alternatives anyway (I don't even know if QSound offers new versions.. it could be a similar sitiuation as 3dfx).
by all means, please take a linux shared object file (.so*) and, without the source code being used in any way, build a windows executable to use that: "they won't even compile for linux" is no more valid an argument than saying: "chojun, your steam locomotive won't even fly." if you tip-toe around the gpl and provide the videos as a seperate and completely optional download for an as-released windows-only build, i have no objection, but obviously, doing so will also shut those users out of any improvements that this project has made that you, or anyone else aren't willing to take the time to backport, and either way, they will be shut out of each feature for as long as it does take to backport... there's is no "golden path" to be found with a project split, and more than likely, many users will switch back and forth several times, have both installed simultaneously for various modes of play, and complain to both projects with "have you ever thought of merging your project with the 'warzone resurrection' project? i like the fmv's in yours, but i have to look at the crappy low resolution terrain while playing campaigns, and multiplayer features x, y, and z are something that i can only use with wzr."Chojun wrote: "So Linux users can not ever play FMVs from the retail CDs." -- It seems you may have taken this personally, but it's true. You question the "free-ness" of the RPL .dlls. They won't even compile for linux. According to the GPL philosophy, the FMVs themselves aren't free. Also, warzone retail will not run in a native Linux environment. So the linux folks are up the creek without any paddles when it comes to the FMVs. The FAQ proposal stands correct.
if you are a windows user and you own the retail cd's, then with what you're proposing, you can either install a fresh-built version of your rpl-inclusive post-release warzone package, which iirc is code that predates 1.10, or you can install... the retail build of warzone, potentially get the extra benefits of a few more patches, and in either case, as of right now, have it look and function at least as well as your version, if not better, plus you don't even have to blink your eyes when gpl vs fmv licensing clashes appear.Chojun wrote: "Because of the unavailability and licensing issues of the FMVs, RPL playback for Windows users was removed in the early releases of the Warzone Resurrection Project." -- This is why the devs removed the RPL sequence code, is it not? So those windows users who do not own the retail CDs are up the creek with only one paddle. If you DO own the CDs, then what is preventing you from playing the FMVs? The only thing I see is that this project has removed all possibility of viewing the FMVs, what seems to be a largely political decision. You all have shut out those who legitimately own the CDs. The dlls in question were linked to their copies of warzone so shouldn't "fair use" entitle them to playing the FMVs..?
because we knew about it as much as you did a year ago (unless you knew about it a year ago and said nothing, which wouldn't be odd since you were admittedly one of the first people to view the source). and strictly speaking, whether or not you ask us to re-include the actual fmv's in this project... we never will, until such a time, if any, that those are also released under the gpl, or a more liberal license. that, however, does not preclude the possibility of supporting rpl's by non-dll means in the future: user's would just have to obtain the fmv's through a third-party if such support were implemented. along those lines, you seem to have repeatedly ignored (possibly to emphasize your point) that there is an extant open source rpl decoder that, if not already, can easily be made to be completely cross-platform compatible, and its only reported deficit is that longer movies (such as the intro), does not decode quite right, and as always with open source, such problems can, without doubt, be fixed. by continually insisting on the dll option, you are not only providing windows users with a version that's feature-identical to the retail version (in other words... "worthless"), but are now shutting out users who own the retail cd's, would like to watch the original fmvs, but have decided to not use windows for various reasons: the most effective argument you could use to rally fmv support is not "windows owners of warzone discs want the fmv's", but is instead "all owners of warzone discs want the option of using the original fmv's", since no platform is currently without at least a partially extant solution to this problem.Chojun wrote: I'm not asking you to change. In fact, I'm not even asking the project to re-include the FMV source and libraries. I'm asking for explanation as to why it has not been made generally known that the FMVs work perfectly in the first build of the source...
linux has very high hardware compatibility in general, so most linux users tend to use the keyboards they already have, which would usually have a "windows" key. in linux channels, it's officially referred to as a "logo key", and many linux users find it a use as their meta key. i have to wonder at the purpose of this comment though... when i'm gaming, i don't have to worry about accidentally pressing a key that sometimes results in a bsod, and failing that, will always make me unable to continue playing for anywhere from seconds to minutes depending on whether or not the game crashes (or is crashed by the os, which has happened), and whose only solutions are a specialized and expensive keyboard, a piece of software that specifically asks windows to ignore that keypress (only works with 2000 or later), a hacked together input driver for the keyboard, or a screwdriver with which to pry off the key... the average windows gamer certainly would be better off without that precious windows key (well, the underlying functionality of that key, really).Chojun wrote: By the way, how many of the Linux-only people have a windows-key on their keyboard? ;D
uh... do you do any research on these topics before posting? i sure know i don't, but i do remember this: http://www.colinux.org/. game, set, and, what's the word? oh, right... "match".Chojun wrote: Also, open-source"ness" has absolutely nothing to do with portability. At all. There are many *nix-only and Windows-only open-source projects. Linux is open source... How come we don't see any Win32 builds of Linux?
that line implies that even if you did have a native version of linux for windows (like colinux), you'd want to remove it, since users haven't used the windows add/remove programs applet to do anything but remove third-party programs or install basic windows "services" since windows 95. in contrast, many foss users will have something like vmware with windows running on top of linux (not because it's necessary, but because it's sometimes useful -- if it were necessary, they wouldn't be virtualizing it), or running cygwin on top of windows, for those unix programs they just can't do without, and for which they can't find a suitable or efficient windows replacement. foss doesn't teach you to be completely biased against everything non-free, but then again, you do like seeing money in your wallet, and all of a sudden, you'd rather spend that $200 usd on better hardware. nor is there the feeling that there's a lack of niche programs that are foss, or even mainstream ones (the only lacking area i've noticed in foss that could possibly matter to me is tax-preparation software, and since i can now do that online using firefox...)Chojun wrote: Start->Settings->Control Panel->Add/Remove Programs->"Linux for Windows"
How come it is our responsibility to do so? It is not like the linux coders were the first to compile and run the code. If memory serves me right, people on rts.net were playing with the code for a good while before the SDL (linux) port was finished and available.Chojun wrote: I'm not asking you to change. In fact, I'm not even asking the project to re-include the FMV source and libraries. I'm asking for explanation as to why it has not been made generally known that the FMVs work perfectly in the first build of the source...
Does it make you feel good to insult us? I really do not get your motivation. I am sure you are a talented person, and could help this project a great deal if you just wanted to.Chojun wrote: I'd say this project is cutting off a large portion of the userbase by not supporting those who are entitled to enjoy the FMVs (those who hold the retail CDs in their fat, sweaty, windows tainted fingers). By the way, how many of the Linux-only people have a windows-key on their keyboard? ;D
Start->Settings->Control Panel->Add/Remove Programs->"Linux for Windows"
So, all differences aside, how about implementing that RPL support in the next release?That, however, does not preclude the possibility of supporting rpl's by non-dll means in the future [...] there is an extant open source rpl decoder that, if not already, can easily be made to be completely cross-platform compatible, and its only reported deficit is that longer movies (such as the intro), does not decode quite right, and as always with open source, such problems can, without doubt, be fixed.
) can use the Videos. I don't really understand the reluctance to implement reengineered RPL support without DLLs. As far as I know there is nothing illegal about it.There is no such reluctance. The only real problem (implementation wise) is that we currently don't have any code to display a video (on screen and speakers). Reading and decoding it from a file is the last of our problems really.Tycho wrote: This way people with the original CD (like me
No, I shall not and will not go into details. You are obviously either too lazy to actually read and think about all of what we say, or you're trying to convince us that we all suck because of not including the decoder dll with a rather religious zeal.Chojun wrote: Please do go into details, because the FAQ is misleading. Plain and simple. Also, tell me where I suggested (in my proposed FAQ revision) that the Windows users are not bound by the GPL, where they are segregated from Linux users. Now let me clarify my FAQ proposal and show you where it is correct.