Warzone 2100 Forums

OK.

So I have a question for the wz2100.net community about the FMVs.  I want this question answered once and for all.

Everything I've read on these forums (as well as RTS.net) about the FMVs and the source, etc etc is that the FMVs are not available for our use, and (from the FAQ) it is not possible for those who own the original CDs to view the FMVs.  It has also been said that what was available from the source is not useful for playing back the ESCAPE (RPL) sequences (a post by Kage somewhere).

Now, I want everyone to think very carefully about the above statement.  This subject has been beaten to DEATH over the years and the answer has always been the same.  RPL FMVs are dead.


So, for the ultimate question that will probably get this post deleted and have me banned forever:

Why, when I compile the original source release, DOES THE FMVS WORK WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL?  It seems to me that the FMV issue is a largely political issue.  I have suspected this all along, but I never got around to proving it.  Essentially the linux folks are imposing their values and their limitations upon everyone by saying essentially, "nope, the FMVs are not available, it doesn't work, look into the bright light, you'll forget that you ever wanted to try the FMVs, have a nice day."

Let me clarify the linux developers' statements:

What the linux folks MEANT to say is that they don't have the source code to the RPL .dlls, so THEY can't get the FMVs to work IN LINUX (or any non Win32 platform).  So if THEY can't have the FMVs working, then NOBODY can!  Since this project is the "official/unofficial development project for warzone" they're essentially imposing their FSF value system upon EVERYONE who will play the game by removing the capability and refusing to work with us (those who want the FMVs) to distribute the original FMV content (or even coordinate it, I've offered to seed the FMVs but that was clearly, strongly frowned upon).

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 were released with Warzone under the GPL. So we can neither distribute the videos nor play the files from the CD.

Bulls***!  That is a LIE!  The linux developers PURPOSEFULLY removed the FMV capabilities.

Now, dammit mods and admins, let this topic stand up to debate and DON'T delete my post.  The devs have some answers that they need to provide, and explanations for all those people out there who blindly accepted their statements by faith alone (as I did).

If you put the game's original sequences in the sequences directory, they will play JUST FINE.  I can provide the executable for anyone who has the FMVs (retail CDs) and would like to try.

Your post looks like a conspiracy about 9/11 or something... ???

actually - go and read all the posts... it is true there has been and is still a lot of controversy over this very subject. 

chojun.  no one is going to ban nor delete this post...



all the links have been given.  go. read.  decide for your selves.

i may have said that, but keep in mind three things: first, i was reiterating what was told to me by people who had initially worked with the source as released (whoever they were at the time), and at no time did i make a qualified statement that i had personally reveiwed the source for this information. second, to the very best of my knowledge, the first people to work on the source immediately after release were windows developers, and it was from them that i was told that playback control code was included, but the rpl decoder, as well as tie-in code was not. third, at the time i would've made such a statement for the first time (certainly during the pumpkin-2 days), i had never before used linux, nor had i encountered much of the libre-software ideology.

now, i'm a linuxer, and not only am a proponent of new vids if only for removal of doubt concerning copyright issues, but i'm also advocating allowing those who do own a copy of the original game to choose between the the original fmv's and new ones at will, so you cannot make such a universal statement. in regards to actual use of movies, gerard has implemented ogg/theora playback, and there is what appears to be a mostly functional rpl -> avi converter, so in theory, most of the movies should be playable in warzone after conversion.

Chojun wrote: Why, when I compile the original source release, DOES THE FMVS WORK WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL?  It seems to me that the FMV issue is a largely political issue.  I have suspected this all along, but I never got around to proving it.  Essentially the linux folks are imposing their values and their limitations upon everyone by saying essentially, "nope, the FMVs are not available, it doesn't work, look into the bright light, you'll forget that you ever wanted to try the FMVs, have a nice day."

well... do they work at all? i can understand one developer independently wanting to get rid of all references to non-open code out of spite, and since without more information i cannot be sure what happened and what does/does not work, but i very seriously doubt there was a concerted and deliberate effort amonst multiple devs to remove the all remnants of rpl-related playback: the redevelopment project wasn't nearly organized enough for such a conspiracy at that time, and the infrastructure for inter-developer communication was not, at that time, solid enough to be able to carry out such a group effort in the time constraints, not that it'd need more than a single developer to remove in short time.

mellow out chojun

I think the problem is that most linux package distributors are hypersensitive about the non-free or free-but-not-gpl-compliant contents and codes,even if wz code only has the slightest connection/inclusion to some so-called properiery codes/contents,most linux package distributors will still refuse to put warzone in their official repository.

I dont think they are so mean as 'you cant use cause i cant use'...though I do think assuming everyone else is running linux and only take into account linux specific features/compatibility when developing is wrong.

OK, quick history lesson.

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.

Then the Linuxers started porting the game to Linux, leading to the development projects first on Berlios, then Gna. Upon this iniquitous treatment of the holy Warzone source, rts.net threw a tantrum and wasn't ever heard of again. Very few people stayed with the open projects, others hacked privately on Warzone, modernising it, porting it to modern Direct3D, getting around the GPL requirements by never publishing their binaries. Most just moved on, I guess.

Anyway, at that point, the Linuxers were on their own. Porting the game, they noticed that RPL playback was only available via a certain binary DLL. The container format was known, but the codec wasn't. There was no sign of anyone having reverse engineered it, noone showing any signs of being interested in it, so video playback was removed not specifically to piss off every single Windows user (admittedly a laudable goal), but because NOONE CAPABLE OF KEEPING VIDEO SUPPORT SEEMED INTERESTED IN THE DAMNED THINGS (behold the power of the mighty caps!). And now, almost three years later, people slowly come back and complain about that.

There is even a reverse engineered specification of the codec now, and I think someone posted an RPL decoder based on that on the mailing list some time ago. Since there were some RPLs included with the released source, I don't really see a problem adding that to Warzone (perhaps the nonfreeness of decoding algorithms, though I think the kind of clean room reverse engineering done here is legally sound), to play the included videos, and people having the original CDs can watch the original movies. That none of the people responsible for this website want to have to do anything with possibly illegal offers posted on their board (not to speak of actively advertising those) is just some necessary paranoia regarding such matters these days.

EDIT: The FSF value system was imposed upon everyone by Pumpkin choosing the GPL for their source code. Distributing an executable of a GPL program together with a non-free DLL is a violation of the GPL.

Watermelon wrote: mellow out chojun

I dont think they are so mean as 'you cant use cause i cant use'...though I do think assuming everyone else is running linux and only take into account linux specific features/compatibility when developing is wrong.

Hypersensitivity.  Yeah, that's a good way to put it.

Now, the above quote is essentially my sentiments, exactly.  I'll explain below after some more quotes...

OK, quick history lesson.

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.

Then the Linuxers started porting the game to Linux, leading to the development projects first on Berlios, then Gna. Upon this iniquitous treatment of the holy Warzone source, rts.net threw a tantrum and wasn't ever heard of again. Very few people stayed with the open projects, others hacked privately on Warzone, modernising it, porting it to modern Direct3D, getting around the GPL requirements by never publishing their binaries. Most just moved on, I guess.

Mmmm! Smells like sarcasm!  It's sorta like a combination between athlete's foot and taco butt.

Now, let me explain something here, and I'll use small words.  I have asserted all along that there were two types of people involved with the project.  The RTS.net people and the Linux people.  Or you could say the fans of the game (the intimately familiar), and the developers.  Or, the people who talk, and the people who DO.  RTS.net was a fan community, not a development community like this.  RTS.net people were somewhat capable (generally) of carrying out source development in a general sense, but admittedly we were disorganized, ill-prepared for the task, and generally lacking of the man-power it requires to work with the source.  So, anyway, the linux folks DO while the RTS.net people DON'T and Warzone travels down a path toward Linux.  It's as simple as that.

[...] so video playback was removed not specifically to piss off every single Windows user (admittedly a laudable goal), [...]

This is the same kind of anti-windows sentiment that I've witnessed since the source was first released.

And now, almost three years later, people slowly come back and complain about [the FMVs].

People?  Me?  I r a peepell!!1

EDIT: The FSF value system was imposed upon everyone by Pumpkin choosing the GPL for their source code. Distributing an executable of a GPL program together with a non-free DLL is a violation of the GPL.

So this brings the question that I essentially asked at the beginning of the topic.  We KNOW why the FMVs and music was not included with the source release.  That has already been discussed in another thread.  But it seems that people are unwilling (and largely unable due to the lack of contact with Alex McLean) to accept that word by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses.  The question your statement begs asking is this:  Is that REALLY the reason why RPL playback was removed?  Non-free DLLs?

... you DO realize that if the source was distributed (originally) in a way that violates the GNU License, that the contract and source, as it was distributed, may very well be in jeapordy?

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.

Chojun wrote:Mmmm! Smells like sarcasm!  It's sorta like a combination between athlete's foot and taco butt.

Sarcasm? I'd never use that. And I don't know about athlete's feet and taco butts.

Anyway, exaggerated as it might be, that's more or less the impression I got, coming after the source release as one of the Linux people.

Now, let me explain something here, and I'll use small words.  I have asserted all along that there were two types of people involved with the project.  The RTS.net people and the Linux people.  Or you could say the fans of the game (the intimately familiar), and the developers.  Or, the people who talk, and the people who DO.  RTS.net was a fan community, not a development community like this.  RTS.net people were somewhat capable (generally) of carrying out source development in a general sense, but admittedly we were disorganized, ill-prepared for the task, and generally lacking of the man-power it requires to work with the source.

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...

So, anyway, the linux folks DO while the RTS.net people DON'T and Warzone travels down a path toward Linux.  It's as simple as that.

That's more or less what I wanted to say, yes. No bad intentions, just a different focus.

This is the same kind of anti-windows sentiment that I've witnessed since the source was first released.

Well, I largely ignore the Windows world, and leave the useless flaming to the Ubuntu- and Gentoo-kiddies, who, having just installed (and having wasted hours compiling a heavily optimised system in one case) the standard system, see themselves as supreme beings.

People?  Me?  I r a peepell!!1

If not two. But you're not the first one coming "but there's that DLL for the movies!!!!!!!"

So this brings the question that I essentially asked at the beginning of the topic.  We KNOW why the FMVs and music was not included with the source release.  That has already been discussed in another thread.  But it seems that people are unwilling (and largely unable due to the lack of contact with Alex McLean) to accept that word by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses.  The question your statement begs asking is this:  Is that REALLY the reason why RPL playback was removed?  Non-free DLLs?

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.

... you DO realize that if the source was distributed (originally) in a way that violates the GNU License, that the contract and source, as it was distributed, may very well be in jeapordy?

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...

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?

I do _not_ want to see this become a flamewar. If you have comments about what others said give them, but if they're related to what you think someone's state of mind was at the time of writing (e.g. being sarcastic), keep your hands off the keyboard!

so far so good... no flames.  excellent.  please lets keep it this way.  thanks.

I have stated this like a dozen times in the last few days, but for those with selective hearing:
Here comes my POV:
The original Readme stated that the sourcecode is covered by the GPL. NOTHING else.
We assumed (It's called Good Faith as I have been told. I am not too much into copyright law.) that they also meant the rest of the data.
As a binary, patent covered, 3rd party dll doesn't fit in there and would heavily break the GPL, we can't assume that for this dll.
The video files are really not the problem. Those which were included (and which are by our assumption under the GPL) could even be convered to some other format, if we would like. And for the rest we could provide a convert script or something like that.

Additional reasons:
- Apparently no one who is able to code tried to provide any kind of video support, especially no crossplatform one.
- dec130.dll only works with MSVC.
- There are loads of other things to do.
- There are a dozen ways to tell the story and there were as many ideas in discussion, from which one may end up in one of the next releases.

For those who like conspiracies: Please allow me some advertising: The Da Vinci Code is a good book.
If you want to blame us for working on the source, please go an fork().
And please stop the distro/os flaming...

I'd just like to point out that I, as one of the linux developers,...:

• never had the original game
• do not have the original FMVs
• do not have permission from the copyright holder of the proprietary codec to distribute their binary DLL
• do not have permission from Eidos/Pumpkin to distribute the original FMVs, even if I had them
• would bend over backwards to support someone who wanted to maintain the old codec code
• have never seen anyone interested in doing so
• do not have Windows, but would go to great lengths to make sure the game works just as well on Windows, and on MacOS X, as on Linux
• note that requiring things we cannot distribute is a dead end for further development and attracting new users
• am also not very interested in the barely legal "here is the program; you need the original game data to use it properly, which we cannot distribute, but it is not hard to get...wink wink hint hint" approach to software development

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.

kage wrote: according to u.s. law, at least, the company who owns copyright can revoke any applicable licenses at any time, too

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.)

kage wrote: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.

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).