John Carmack Enforcing the GPL on Quake Source

GuavaBerry writes, "John Carmack's latest .plan update is really really interesting. Apparently a modmaker is trying to derive work from the newly GPL'ed Quake source without releasing source to his binaries, and Carmack isn't happy about it. The debate is chilling, but we must appreciate Carmack's no-nonsense approach to enforcing his rights under the GPL. "

No flames necessary.

[dougman]

He HAS to vigorously defend the GPL. To not do so would not only be unfair to his work, the liscence, and the community in general, but who would want to be the first person to weaken the integrity of the GPL by allowing a high-profile violation like this? Sounds about as well-advised as this dern train jump thing on fox right about now. Egads.

Specifics of the GPL violation

[/dev/kev]

I've written to Slade, the leader of the QuakeLives project, regarding the details of the GPL violation. This is not the first time Slade and I have locked horns over the GPL, as it is not the first time that he has broken the GPL.

Read the emails here [zip.com.au].

so now we get to see if it works...

[jdwilso2]

You know what I hope? I hope that the guy releasing the binaries keeps it up. That way, we can see what the GPL is legally made of if John takes him to court. That'd be cool, especially if the GPL prevailed... I've always been a little skeptical about the power of the GPL, and I think a good litmus test would do it wonders.

A quakelives betatester...

[myconid]

As a avid quake player, the source code release of Quake has almost destroyed the community. Through extensive monitoring of servers (which should exist anyways) most popular servers have a no cheating policy that includes instant bannishment. I respect the QuakeLives project, and its programmer, but I feel that Slade is destroying the community further. Mega TF, arguably the best quake mod out, is beginning to move towards QuakeLives only, a dependance that could kill both Mega TF, or regular Quake. The QuakeLives project is attempting to create a server that only THEIR client can connect to and monopolize the community. Slade has attempted to swindle his way around this multiple times, consitering making difs, or other such ideas, including this "click through" of giving up your rights. I wish slade would realize that there ARE ways to get past cheating, and they CAN include not breaking the law. I applaud Carmack for his protection of the community. Slade attacks the fact that no one is attempting to fix bugs, or make Quake better. I ask you, what has Slade done to fix bugs and make Quake better? He himself has closed the source of his tree, and isn't obiding by the wording, or the intent of the GPL.

My 2 cents.

Excellent

[doomy]

Now we have someone who can enforce his GPLed code with a BFG :)

Slade's point is that everyone who is asking for source is just asking for it just for the sake of it and that no one really intends to make the code better. [quakelives.com]

Mr. Slade, the people who are asking for it and asking for it just for the sake of seeing if you would give it out, is the actual GPL enforcers IMHO. They are testing you, making sure (this is the double checking we have in our system) that you and anyone else who violate the GPL are at all times checked.

This checking is important.. not only for popular GPLed code, but also for those tiny little applets that are under GPL. By having ppl bicker about source releases and demand them, we are fostering a way of making sure even those tiny pieces of sotware are protected as well.

Good luck (wouldnt want to be in front of carmack when he fires that BFG10k).

...blessed by Ford Perfect ....

--

Watchout for this

[Crowdpleazr1]

Carmack's got it right about this guy. He's basically trying to rewrite the law because it was inconvienent for him. Too bad, that's the price you pay for using the GPL (why not just post the source on the site and let people download it without having to ask HIM for it). He says he doesn't want to obfuscate the code because that's against the spirit of the GPL, but then neither is denying people access to your code, so the real issue here is protecting his own ego and lashing out at the "bad people."

Unfortunatly, if he can make this hold up in court (if it gets there), then the GPL is screwed and we can all pretty much kiss the Open Source movement goodbye. I can see it now, to install RedHat you have to agree that you have no right to the code. Blah.

That's a surprise

[BlueGecko]

I (and it would seem everyone else) always assumed it would be a major corporation that gave us a test case on the GPL. We've kept our eyes on Red Hat, Microsoft, and Corel, and in the end a tiny one-man team who no one has ever even heard of that winds up being the first deliberate violator of the GPL. I wonder if we've just been looking at the wrong bunch...

mirrors

[Barbarian]

If the link doesn't work (planetquake tends to puke under load), here's a few others:

3dshack finger server [3dshack.com]

bluesnews finger server [bluesnews.com]

You could always just finger [e-mail], but I really don't recommend it.... I don't think the id server can take the load.

The offending page is here: http://w ww.quakelives.com/main/ql.cgi?section=dlagreement& file=qwcl-win32/ [quakelives.com]


--

IRC Logs Amendment....

[myconid]

[00:11] <Slade> i made diffs(esentially
[00:11] <Slade> let me show you
[00:11] <Palisade> right
[00:12] <Slade> lets pretend that this is the quake source code
[00:12] <Palisade> that means there is GPL'd code in there as well
[00:12] <Slade> 12345
[00:12] <Slade> and thats the code needed to make quake run(its oversimplicfication i know)
[00:12] <Slade> now iD owns the license on all that right?
[00:13] <Slade> and the license they've granted is the GPL
[00:13] <Palisade> ok
[00:13] <Slade> with me so far?
[00:13] <Slade> ok
[00:13] <Slade> now.. if i make code thats 123945
[00:13] <Palisade> so you link in some modifications
[00:13] <Slade> who owns the copywrite on the 9
[00:14] <Slade> i do right?
[00:14] <Palisade> ok 9 is your modification, but by linking it it becomes a part of the whole
[00:14] <Palisade> you own the copyright, but for you to be able to link it it must be GPL compatible license
[00:14] <Slade> hang on
[00:14] <Slade> you're jumping the gun
[00:14] <Slade> keep with me
[00:14] <Slade> ok
[00:15] <Slade> so technically
[00:15] <Slade> its ok for me to have that binary on my system right?
[00:15] <Palisade> slade, you can make as many binaries as you want
[00:15] <Slade> even if i say this code is everything against the principles of the GPL(hypathetically)
[00:16] <Palisade> if you distribute that binary though you must provide the source code
[00:16] <Slade> correct
[00:16] <Palisade> and so you're saying you're just providing a patch and not the "actual" binary
[00:16] <Palisade> right?
[00:16] <Slade> i'm providing the
[00:16] <Slade> diffrences between my code and the GPL code
[00:17] <Palisade> literally you are the one who linked it, not the end user who applies the patch...
[00:17] <Slade> who did i link it?
[00:17] <Slade> err
[00:17] <Slade> how
[00:17] <Palisade> you had to compile the binary which you made a patch available for
[00:18] <Palisade> therefore you had to link in your non-GPL'd code
[00:18] <Slade> thats one way
[00:18] <Slade> but i didnt distribute that binary
[00:18] <Palisade> you distributed the binary in essence
[00:19] <Palisade> just because a method was used that cut down it's size doesn't mean you didn't distribute it
[00:19] <Slade> ok. lets go back to the code issue
[00:19] <Slade> 123945
[00:19] <Slade> 12345
[00:19] <Palisade> otherwise people could use encryption or compression as an excuse to pirate... "well the binary isn't *exactly* the same"
[00:19] <Slade> the dif is '9' right?
[00:19] <Palisade> well the diff would be:
[00:20] <Palisade> 123
[00:20] <Palisade> +9
[00:20] <Slade> byte[4]9 shift 1
[00:20] <Palisade> 45
[00:20] <Slade> yeah
[00:20] <Slade> now i own the 9
[00:20] <Palisade> diff cuts code and places it in front of and behind the code you changed
[00:20] <Palisade> or in this case the binary
[00:21] <Slade> not the method i use
[00:21] <Slade> if does it like this
[00:21] <Slade> byte[4]9 shift 1
[00:21] <Palisade> is that how your patch was really made?
[00:21] <Slade> in kindergarden basics, yes
[00:21] <Palisade> so you didn't use diff?
[00:21] <Slade> diff is gpl'd code
[00:22] <Slade> and i cant find a good diff for win32 :(
[00:22] <Palisade> diff is a program
[00:22] <Palisade> oh you're against using GPL'd programs?
[00:22] <Slade> no
[00:22] <Palisade> there is a commandline diff program available, i should find out the url for it
[00:22] <Slade> but that would make part of my patch GPL
[00:22] <Palisade> oh you were making it so the end user can just run a program that patches it, ok
[00:22] <Slade> yeah windiff. but its buggy
[00:22] <Slade> right
[00:23] <Slade> point and click, win32 style ;)
[00:23] <Palisade> ok and no GPL'd code from the Quake 1 engine slipped into the patch at all?
[00:23] <Palisade> just location jumps
[00:23] <Slade> how could it have?
[00:23] <Slade> if you notice
[00:23] <Palisade> that reminds me i should write a nifty front-end to patch
[00:23] <Slade> i released the source to 2.52
[00:23] <Slade> so 2.52 is perfectly legit
[00:24] <Slade> under the GPL
[00:24] <Palisade> did you write the patch program?
[00:24] <Slade> nope. its shareware. under the general license 'you can use it all you want for as much as you want any way you want so long as you dont use it for commercial purposes'
[00:24] <Palisade> slade, ok so we aren't really sure how it patches
[00:25] <Slade> on their site
[00:25] <Slade> they explained the method
[00:25] <Palisade> slade, which means some GPL'd code from the q1 engine could be in there (or rather object code of that code)
[00:25] <Palisade> ah
[00:25] <Slade> i think its nasty compared to diffs
[00:25] <Slade> but it works
[00:26] <Palisade> mm
[00:26] <Palisade> well it certainly must work well on binaries
[00:26] <Slade> which is part of the reason i picked it
[00:26] <Slade> no it doesnt :(
[00:26] <Slade> it wouldnt even patch the GL server
[00:26] <Slade> err client
[00:26] <Slade> it failed its compare
[00:27] <Slade> but that method is much cooler for binaries then diff
[00:27] <Palisade> ah
[00:27] <Slade> if they wrote the code right
[00:27] <Palisade> ok so anyways, so assuming it doesn't insert any of the original code, just your modification and locations
[00:27] * Slade nods.
[00:28] <Palisade> in order to create the patch you had to link it... so literally you were the one who linked, not the end user who applies the patch
[00:28] <Slade> i linked it, which is legal, so long as i dont distribute the GPL code
[00:28] <Palisade> no
[00:29] <Palisade> that's false logic...
[00:29] <Slade> how so?
[00:29] <Palisade> you see in order to actually provide the patch, you had to link the proprietary code with the GPL'd code
[00:29] <Slade> correct
[00:29] <Palisade> it doesn't matter what you do to it afterwards, compress it, encrypt it, rearrange it, diff it
[00:30] <Palisade> in order to get it to the end user
[00:30] <Palisade> you still had to link the incompatible licensed code together to create it
[00:30] <Slade> correct
[00:30] <Palisade> which is illegal
[00:30] <Slade> not that i see
[00:30] <Palisade> the license doesn't allow that
[00:31] <Slade> what i see is its only illegal if the binary is distributed
[00:31] <Palisade> as i said it doesn't matter how you want to obfuscate the resulting binary
[00:31] <Slade> so you're saying that the patch is under the GPL
[00:32] <Palisade> the fact that exact locations were calculated is exactly as if you had distributed the full executable
[00:32] <Palisade> no i'm saying the patch violates the GPL
[00:32] <Slade> how so?
[00:32] <Slade> well let me ask you this
[00:33] <Palisade> since it is proprietary code linked with GPL'd code
[00:33] <Slade> are we both in agreement that the binary does not violate the GPL so long as its sitting on my own machine
[00:33] <Palisade> slade, i'm not sure about that
[00:33] <Slade> or is this the point we are arguing right now?
[00:34] <Slade> from talking with Carmack, he said that was the hazy part
[00:34] <Palisade> it is a pretty hazy part ;)
[00:34] <Slade> after i explained it
[00:34] <Palisade> btw have you talked to [e-mail] yet?
[00:34] <Slade> and linux people cant really say anything about it without being hypocritical
[00:34] <Palisade> slade, JC is under the misconception that you're going to release the source code later
[00:35] <Slade> Palisade: i cleared that up and told him i wasnt
[00:35] <Palisade> slade, ah what did he say?
[00:37] <Slade> Palisade: Well I had told him that if he says the word I'll do it just as he says it. and he said it was kind of hazy so I removed the patches from the site until we could figure out more. I told him I had done that, he basically said ok. and we continued our conversation on other ways to make a more secure client
[00:37] <Palisade> slade, ok, so you're waiting to hear back about that until you do anything further
[00:38] <Slade> um. its not that. its basically we've gone on
[00:38] <Slade> he wasnt to concerned about if it was a violation of the GPL or not. more that it didnt really matter because the situation was remided to his satisfaction
[00:38] <Palisade> slade, i see where some people are getting upset of course, if we assume that you're wrong then of course that's why many are demanding the source...
[00:39] <Palisade> slade, the problem seems to be that everyone is confused as to the details, on both sides...
[00:39] <Slade> I'm not confused. :)
[00:39] <Palisade> slade, you've gone on?
[00:39] <Slade> yes. we're moving on to ql 2.54
[00:40] <Palisade> ok
[00:40] <Palisade> so what's all the fuss about?
[00:41] <Slade> people still want the source
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, ah
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, well... here's how i see it
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, you made a mistake (or rather, decided not to bother with the proprietary patch and moved on, whichever way you want to look at it)
[00:42] <Slade> the way i look at it is the copywrite holder was made happy by it being brought down for review
[00:42] <Palisade> slade, and you stopped distributing the patch
[00:42] <Palisade> slade, now since code 9 was yours
[00:42] * Slade listens
[00:43] <Palisade> slade, and you reversed your decision
[00:44] <Palisade> slade, then the code is yours, the code is under a proprietary license, and you are no longer distributing it linked to the GPL code, then you have the right not to provide that code
[00:44] * Slade nods.
[00:46] <Slade> then whats the problem again? :)
[00:46] <Palisade> no idea
[00:46] * Slade chuckles.
[00:46] <Palisade> well i think i have an idea
[00:46] <Palisade> you see you pissed off a lot of people who really like the GPL
[00:47] <Palisade> and so basically they've decided to hassle you about it and see if they can get you to release the code so they feel that they've won somehow
[00:47] <Slade> thats the way i see it

Email me for the complete log if you really want it :-)

Just goes to show

[Chris Johnson]

It's good to see this, because it confirms that the GPL is ideally suited to protecting the interests of proprietary software developers who understand their closed code loses its value after a while.

Carmack gets to release older engines and such things under the GPL, _knowing_ that nobody can take his work and build it into a competing closed source project. Granted, he can't cherry-pick ideas from the GPL stuff he seeded and use them in his closed stuff, but he doesn't need to, he has plenty of ideas of his own to use. The point is, Carmack does not want people to be 'free' to take the stuff he's giving to the opensource hackers, and turn it into a rival engine. He wants it to stay in the domain of the hackers, stay visible and accessible to all. If his GPLed works end up becoming terrific enough to compete with him (the recent GPLing of Bungie's Marathon 2 source resulted in the fixing of all the engine bugs, and a flurry of new mapmaking!), he'll make the effort to remain competitive, but that's still a very different thing from allowing his old code to go out there under a license that lets other companies take it, do proprietary mods on it, and then start selling that.

It's immensely gratifying to see that the GPL suits Carmack's purpose so well, what with the constant bashing it gets. Fact is, the only reason to bash the GPL is if you want to rip somebody off. If you are a creator and want to share, it's the single most effective way to ensure that sharing will happen _and_ that any resulting projects won't get in the way of any separate, proprietary projects you're depending on. I wish John Carmack the best in working out this little problem of his, and totally support his hard line. GPL means GPL. People choose it for a reason.

I hope he doesn't release the code...

[Anonynous Coward]

Personally, I hope this guy doesn't release the source code.

Why? Because I'd really like to see the GPL tested in court. Having never had a serious test, the GPL current is just a bunch of words, nobody knows how big the legal bite is. And it would be better to set a precedent against a Quake mod author than a large big-money, lotsa-lawyers megacorp.

Here are "Slade"'s words:

[Evro]

In case the site is slashdotted:

I've been around and working with software under the GPL license for almost 10 years now. I've seen some very good things come out of it, and in the past I have been a strong supporter of the GPL, I still am to a great extent, well the spirit of the GPL at any rate. For without this great license, it is very doubtful that Id would have made their (in)famous release of the code that most of our work is based upon. In the past months I've had a great deal of problems with the GPL people regarding the QuakeLives project. I am very sad to say that my experiences with these people show that the GPL community as a whole has completely forgotten what they set out to do in the first place, people coming and expecting source codes and explanations and other favors because they believe they have a right to it, not because they wish to use this code to improve it, or use it for their own works, but simply because they wanted it. Out of everyone who ever asked me for the code, everyone demanded it saying it's his or her god-given right to the code. Not a single person said they wanted it for fixing up the numerous bugs, or adding to it, or anything that the GPL is supposed to stand for. So, disappointed with what the community has become, I've decided to take a stand, not for the purpose of avoiding the GPL(most of our sensitive code is not under the GPL so this would not be important at any rate), but to improve the condition of the GPL community as well as the gaming society as a whole. People who speak to us, do it publicly and have their own public intentions and not the benefit to the public(the P in GPL is public) as a whole. And even one of the head coders of Id Software suggested obfuscating the code before releasing to aid in making it difficult to figure out. This defies the real purpose of the GPL as well. So the basic limitation here is the legal letters of the law, where obfuscating the code is 'legal' according to the letter of the law. It completely violates the purposes of the GPL. The legal issues, however, are easily overcome. You do have a right to the source code, under the GPL. This is law. However much like the Constitutional American "Right to Bear Arms". I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right. While you can bear a concealed handgun, you are not allowed to bring it on a public bus, or many places of business. The signs usually say something like 'No firearms beyond this point'. Which is basically making people to give up their Constitutional rights to bear arms. The rules here will be similar.

To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL. Specifically the rights regarding access to the source code. And while we are obligated to offer you the source code, for up to 3 years until we stop releasing this. To gain access to this site, you are obligated not to ask. Please note that you have no right to access the binaries, source code or artwork ("Content") produced by QuakeLives or the content herein without specifically agreeing to this. Any other access is illegal. And being as the GPL only regulates HOW we distribute, it does not regulate WHO we distribute to, if you do not agree to this, QuakeLives does not give you permission to access the Content of this site, hence, you legally are not allowed access to these files and doing so is punishable by law. Also note that you are still allowed to distribute the works within freely, but please be aware that software contained herein is still under the GPL and you personally will be responsible for the licensing restrictions of the GPL. So I strongly suggest that you have people you send to agree to similar terms. For all those who really don't care about this and just want the game so they can play, I apologize for the delay this has caused. -- Slade

I wonder if this guy has any CLUE what he's bringing upon himself?

_________________

QuakeLives

[D2Deek]

As a member of the QuakeForge [quakeforge.net] project, I'm almost glad to see this on slashdot, though I'm also saddened to see that it has had to go this far. We (QuakeForge, and the other groups like QuakeWorld Forever [challenge-world.com]) have been struggling to get the word out of what "Slade" has been pulling for the past month.

QuakeLives in general, and Slade in particular, have been trying to violate the intent and letter of the GPL any way they can. It's a great insult to work diligently on improving the Quake source, doing all our damn-good merge work, only to see somebody try to do an end-run around the community process by keeping their source secret and making alliances to ensure that their secret source version becomes the de facto standard.

Re:That's a surprise

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

"the first deliberate violator of the GPL"

Ha ! That's funny. There have been *many* deliberate violators of the GPL. Anyone who has managed a large, successful GPL'ed project will have come across these people (I know Samba has).

What usually happens is that after some polite legal words the violators back down (in all cases I know of). This is why the violators have never ended up in court.

This is a testament to the legal security of the GPL, in that no violator has yet had the courage to challenge in court what they did (and some have been *very* well funded indeed).

I expect the same thing to happen here that happens in most of these cases - the violators will back down before losing in court.

Regards,

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.

more than a month...

[Barbarian]

I think I submitted my first request under the GPL for source code to the quakelives project in mid January...


--

Re:I hope he doesn't release the code...

[Signail11]

This is an extradinarily insightful comment. This Quake mod author, in all probability, does not have anywhere the legal resources of a MPAA or Microsoft. No legal precedent has ever been set about the GPL in any court of law; it would be far wiser to establish one against someone unable to corrupt the judicial process to the extent that are able to do through their massive warchests. Who cares if we don't get the Quake modification's source code for a couple of years if we can obtain a reasonably firm assertion of the validity of the GPL?

I despise the GPL, but I agree w/ Carmack...

[kbonin]

Personally, I consider the GPL evil - it forever locks reusable code into a non-commercial model. I used to release reusable code under LGPL, now I use BSD.

That said, I completely agree w/ Carmack. This is his commercial work, he could release under a license stipulating that licensees were required to pour Cherry Slurpees over their head before redistributing, and he could sue anyone who chose to circumvent said clause.

If Slade doesn't like the GPL, he shouldn't have used GPL tainted code. Now he gets to pay the piper, or we get an interesting (and LONG due!) test case for the GPL's working.

Separate programs, no?

[rhyac]

Okay, a quick question here... Everyone's already started screaming and everything, but... is what he's doing wrong?

The way that he's spinning it on his web page, it sounds like he's creating two entirely separate programs that simply verify that the quakeworld client hasn't been modified. Now, if this doesn't use any of the actual Quake source code, it seems to me that the GPL doesn't apply...

I say 'the way that he's spinning it,' because I really don't know if this is how his system works. But if it is, ... doesn't he have the right to do this? And close-source his programs if he chooses to?

Re:Umm

[doomy]

Actually Mr. AC

The site has been /. ed.. Look below for a complete posting of what Slade had to say.
--

Two sides to this one

[Nicholas Vining]

Everybody is posting that this is a major test case for the GNU GPL to see how well it will stand up in court. This it is. This is the first major conflict over GPLed source code, and its enforceability. Granted, he's not trying to make any money off of it, which most of us thought would be the reason that the GNU GPL would be taken into court, but he's still in violation of the principles of the GPL. It's a good thing that it's John Carmack, who has enough energy, time, and money to attack this thing fully. We're guaranteed a good advocate. Give 'em whatfor, John.

The second thing that this concerns is what I'd eventually like to see: games released under the GNU GPL. The outcome of this affair, if Carmack wins, may convince some game company out there to experiment by releasing their source under the GPL and then selling the data on CD-ROM. If Carmack doesn't win and this mod maker guy does, then I'm very likely going to change the license agreement on the game I'm making (which does operate in this manner) from GPLed source code to either closed source or some license agreement which gives me more control.

It'd be interesting to see RMS's reaction to this.

Sandwich-board law, at best

[effer]

From the statement on "quakelives":
"You do have a right to the source code, under the GPL. This is law. However much like the Constitutional American "Right to Bear Arms". I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right. While you can bear a concealed handgun, you are not allowed to bring it on a public bus, or many places of business. The signs usually say something like 'No firearms beyond this point'. Which is basically making people to give up their Constitutional rights to bear arms. The rules here will be similar."

By this logic, I can strap a sign on stating that by allowing me to enter the building, you are negating your posted sign and thus I CAN bring my firearm in!?!

I guess by this logic, all I need to do is send an email to them stating that "By recieving this, you agree that I am not legally bound to any of the restrictions displayed by, and implied by, your website." prior to entering.

"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to make one's living by it."-Einstein

Re:A quakelives betatester...

[fsck]

Hi how you doing?
Slade attacks the fact that no one is attempting to fix bugs, or make Quake better. I ask you, what has Slade done to fix bugs and make Quake better? He himself has closed the source of his tree, and isn't obiding by the wording, or the intent of the GPL.

Try this

quake.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]

hope this helps.

I feel sorry...

[Wah]

...for this guys mail server.

For those of you that want it from the horse's mouth.. click here [quakelives.com].

If this is to be the first test of the GPL (conspiracy theorists get to work) then we have an easy go of it. A vastly popular, mulit-millionaire, with the law on his side vs. Slade "Source code is like handguns". The claims he makes are ridiculous, but it looks like he wants to test them.

If you read the above you'll see the basis of his argument.

I've seen some very good things come out of it, and in the past I have been a strong supporter of the GPL, I still am to a great extent, well the spirit of the GPL at any rate.

which is to say, "not the letter of it."

courts don't like that.

You do have a right to the source code, under the GPL. This is law. However much like the Constitutional American "Right to Bear Arms". I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right.

I think this "right" came with a box of Cheerios.

To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.

his emphasis.

and finally..

For all those who really don't care about this and just want the game so they can play, I apologize for the delay this has caused.

Yea, and "for all those who really care about being able to fix bugs as they happen, instead of waiting for an official release, here's my finger, stick it up your ass."

At least that was my reading.

If anybody wants the binaries without the agreement, email me. .... (guess I'll have to get them after the /. rush crushes all servers in its path)

--

GPL violation

[divec]

> he'll be forced to open up the source

He only has to open the source to anyone who can prove they downloaded binaries from him. He can stop distributing completely, and keep the source private.

> he'll put it on a 56k uplink on a windows box

That's not too bad - only one person has to download the source like this, then they can put it somewhere sensible (e.g. GeoCities) for everyone else.

it's not seperate programs.

[Barbarian]

The page proclaims that they have proxies, but the programs are just modified versions of the standard qwcl and qwsv that come with quakeworld, in other words built from the q1 source code with some extra modules.

This is what happens when you have as many PR + webpage people as programmers.

--

Secure Quake

[Mugsy2000]

I realise I'm preaching to the wrong audience here, but the release of the Quake source code was the worst thing to happen to the Quake community. This community was still alive and thriving on a piece of software developed many years ago, how many games or even software projects can say that? The quakelives project is attempting to restore the security in quake against anyone, anywhere fabricating cheats and ruining the game for everyone.

Did John Carmack intend to turn away the countless loyal members of the quake community by releasing the code? I dont think so. He probably wanted to see what other projects could come out of it, considering it to be an outdated project. So when someone attempts to create a free, secure product that would be used by many many people, they have to give up the whole point of their project by releasing the source? Shame on John. He created Quake a long time ago and it is less his now and more property of the people who work with it and play in it day after day. Mr. Carmack should try to file the source under a better agreement that would allow Slade to release a secure version of his interpretation of the quake source. Mod makers have pushed iD up to the level they are at now. Free mod makers are the last people that should come under fire for legal issues.

The issue of cheating is so great in Quake that it will make or break the community. Allow someone to release a secure, standardized version now that iD has given up that right.

Matt Boone

Re:A quakelives betatester...

[nyet]

As a server admin I can tell you that OpenSourcing quakeworld was a total disaster to the gaming community. At one point my ban list was 50k of IP addresses and subnets.

While quakelives actions are completely deplorable, and I truely believe Slade really has zero clue, we are nowhere nearer to a real solution than we were when the source was released.

Gamers who cared about a cheat free server were not coders.

Coders who wanted to play with the source didn't care whether public servers were even marginally viable.

This is a situation in which NOBODY won. The real gamers gave up and moved to another game. The real coders told the gamers "good riddance, we don't like you anyway" and decided that public servers (let alone competitive matches) were pointless. The cheaters rejoiced and now make my hobby as a public server admin a total pain in the ass.

At the same time, Slade assumed (wrongly) 1) that security by obscurity is viable and 2) that he could completely ignore the GPL.

I challenge any of you to due useful work in securing the client/server AND keep the source open. Nettrek has some good things, as does DNet, but I have yet to see any progress other than the bletcherously horrible speed cheat checker.

In the end, I'm guessing a secure online game solution that is opensource will not emerge, because its just not interesting to coders.

Re:That's a surprise

[Uruk]

It's really not a testament to the strength of the GPL, even though I wish it was.

There are a myriad of reasons why somebody would not want to go to court over something, not just because they know they're wrong. After all, OJ taught us that America's real motto is "Freedom and Justice for all those who can afford it". If a company really wanted to fight it and win, I have no doubt that sufficient funds could pull it off.

But there are loads of other reasons why a company wouldn't want to do that. (Or an individual, which lacks the funds a company has). First, you've got the fact that the GPL holds the moral high ground, and you would be seen as stealing from people who give things away for free. Robbing what the public might see as the poor is bad PR form. Also, win or lose with regard to litigation, it's a very LONG and EXPENSIVE process. For something to be worth litigating over, not only does the individual have to have a lot of money, but the product itself has to have a large amount of value.

GPL misinterpretation

[Some Strange Guy]

Carmack gets to release older engines and such things under the GPL, _knowing_ that nobody can take his work and build it into a competing closed source project. Granted, he can't cherry-pick ideas from the GPL stuff he seeded and use them in his closed stuff, but he doesn't need to, he has plenty of ideas of his own to use.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding about the GPL. There are two distinct issues here, and it's easy to get them confused.

In licencing something under the GPL, you do not give up your own, personal right to distribute your code under some other license at a later time. As copyright holder of that code, you are free to use that code any which way you please, including in other commercial projects if you so desire.

What the GPL does specify is that code released under the GPL cannot have that license revoked. In other words, if I, as copyright holder of foo.c, release it to Sally Hacker under the GPL, I cannot ever revoke Sally Hacker's GPL license to that code. In other words, I can't suddenly force Sally Hacker to not distribute the code I gave her under the GPL at any future date.

However, assuming I'm the sole copyright holder of the code I gave Sally, I am perfectly free to reuse that code in another product that is completely closed source and commercial, if I so desire. As copyright holder on that code, I can release it multiple times under whatever license I please. That's a basic part of being the copyright holder on something, and it is not a right you give up by releasing under the GPL

Close-sourcing GPLd code

[PhiRatE]

Its unacceptable. I don't care how he attempts to justify it, even if he finds a loophole of some kind, or the law ends up supporting him, it is just plain wrong.

There is a reason for the GPL, people don't GPL code because they love TLAs, or because they like making other people miserable, they do it because they believe, and I believe, that Open Source software is the answer to the problem that software solves.

Yes Quake is having problems with cheats due to the source release, No close sourcing the code is not the answer. There have already been numerous articles explaining this is depth, some by very influential people, and it is annoying to see them so disregarded in this manner.

It has long been known in security circles that security through obscurity is the worst method available. Yes it is useful, but only in concert with other, heavier forms of protection. Nobody argues that giving away login names is ok, just because hiding those names is security through obscurity, but on the same token, nobody believes their system safe if the only thing between an attacker and the system is that they don't know the login names.

In this case, John has already, in a previous .plan, outlined a way of creating a pre-compiled security system by use of an external proxy. However I suspect this gentleman has realised what is obvious to anyone who has done reverse engineering before, the smaller the code you're trying to reverse, the easier it gets. Just finding the relevant procedures can be tough, especially if they've encrypted it somehow, and attempting to figure out the protocols used from the original quake binaries was difficult in the extreme, because it was a large binary with a lot going on in a very short space of time.

Creating a closed-source patch or external server would have far less effect, it is dedicated to its purpose, and no matter how many layers of self-encryption it used, unwinding those using a debugger would be far easier when the levels that communicate with the closed-source section themselves were already know and the unknown code was known to be dedicated to its task.

There is only one real solution to this problem, and it has already been stated. Information is on a need-to-know basis. The security point is at the server, not at the client.

Unfortunately, this leads to a performance hit as the server has to take much greater account of what is visible/doable and what is not. However there have been many fine open-source-compatible suggestions that would help with the problem, including:

Conflict resolution by scoring: Doing things that are suspect, like hitting invisible targets, moving places you shouldn't, or hitting with remarkable accuracy constantly, would lose you points, other actions such as losing a game, or being on for some time would gain you trust-points. These points would then be used in conflict resolution. One client says you died, the other says you didn't, the one with the highest trust-score gets decided for.

Baiting:
In concert with the above, a variety of non-visible targets etc are left lying around, shooting one loses you trust points and is indicative of a cheat, many other concepts along these lines are possible. its an arms race, but one that does not need to progress far before there are so many limitations to cheating that it hardly becomes worth it.

Logins:
Utilising logins, the scoring method could be enhanced, allowing the trust of a given player to build up over time. Anonymous players would have extremely low trust, thus be pretty much unable to cheat, as if a logged-in client disagrees with any of their movements, they would be overruled.

These are just some of the ideas I have heard about automated cheat damping, there were lots and lots, many ingenious and clever, on the previous discussion of this on slashdot. I suggest that if you're really concerned, solve the problem right, don't rely on a method that will be almost as easily broken as the plain source itself.

How I avoided the GPL

[Mongoose]

I've written at least one bot and/or mod for each Quake. I'm currently working on a bot that can play all three. I don't wish to GPL my AI code for the sake of interfacing with Q3A.

How do you avoid the GPL?

1. Write CS bots. ( Prepare to be witch hunted. )

OR better...

2. Write a GPLed 'hook' into the Quake game code.
Then have the AI off in another program.
Use networking to pass info - this is legal.

I've worked on QuakeForge for a short time, and I got flak for doing this - however this is legal. I may want to use this code for commerial or educational use.

( i.e. sell my AI or use for my senior project )

It's perfectly legal to have a GPL'ed program work as a client to a closed source server. I want to make that clear. If you don't want to GPL your source just yet, then try this.

------------------------------------------------ --

FYI, the 'quake community' pisses me off - when the eraser bot stole one of my old teammate's code and didn't credit him... the quake *community supported pirated intellectual properity because I quote: "We like the bot, leave him alone."

I'm not bitter. =)

Re:Here are "Slade"'s words:

[ronfar]

You do have a right to the source code, under the GPL. This is law. However much like the Constitutional American "Right to Bear Arms". I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right. While you can bear a concealed handgun, you are not allowed to bring it on a public bus, or many places of business. The signs usually say something like 'No firearms beyond this point'. Which is basically making people to give up their Constitutional rights to bear arms. The rules here will be similar.-- Slade

I just want to point out that this is why Libertarians are so hard line on the Second Amendment, even when people start talking about "reasonable" restrictions on guns. Because all those "reasonable" restrictions undermine the idea of legally or Constitutionally guaranteed rights. See? This guy knows the Second Amendment is weak and poorly enforced by the courts, and he's hoping that that kind of poor enforcement can happen to the GPL.

It isn't as farfetched as it may sound either. Someday a huge corporation with a lot of money and power is going to come along and work very hard to diminish the legal protections granted by the GPL. These people will use legal precedents like the one printed above to undermine the position of the GPL in court.

So, if a person who believes in the Law and also in gun control is reading this, I hope he or she will consider working to change the Constitution, itself, rather than continuing to create laws which weaken it. Sorry to bring it up, it's not directly related. (The same thing applies to Free Speech, though I think the First Amendment still has more popular support than the Second. Every time someone successfully supresses the First Amendment, though, it moves this country more to one of men and not laws.)

Re:GPL violation

[knghtbrd]

That's not quite true... Once someone does prove they have a copy of the binaries he does have to give them access to the source on request for 3 years, whether he continues to distribute binaries or not. I can prove I have them---so where's my source?

The answer to that question is that QuakeLives refuses to give me the source---even now. Go get 'em John!

Re:Separate programs, no?

[D2Deek]

If that were what he was doing, we would have no problem...but that's NOT what he's doing. It's a total snowjob.

The first thing he did was release "QuakeWorld 2.51", without source and in violation of id Software's trademarks ("QuakeWorld" is a registered trademark), and with a trivial change to the protocol. We had a QuakeForge client connecting to and playing on his servers within hours.

After complaints that there was no source, the release was pulled from the Web page so that they would not have to provide source, never mind that he is still responsible for providing source for 2.51 for another 3 years.

2.52 was released with source, so we breathed a collective sigh of relief...until we noticed the 2.53 release.

QuakeLives 2.53 was released _only_ as a patch to the 2.52 binary distribution ZIP file. The patch was actually larger than the 2.52 zipfile itself! All so that he wouldn't have to release the source (he claimed that since he wasn't patching the source, he didn't have to).

With the 2.54 beta, he decided to start forging alliances...with Ambush of MegaTF [backblast.com], who was given a binary distribution of QL with the information that he could redistribute at will...until someone came asking for source, at which point Slade began to claim that Ambush was redistributing illegally, even to the point of claiming he was warezing it.

And that brings us up to today...and this is the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

Re:Watchout for this

[Arandir]

"if he can make this hold up in court..., then the GPL is screwed and we can all pretty much kiss the Open Source movement goodbye"

The Open Source movement is much more than the GPL. A court ruling could stike a fatal blow to copyleft and GNU licenses, but it would hardly affect any of the other Free Software licenses, particularly the unrestricted licenses.

Re:Here are "Slade"'s words:

[pb]

Oh man, that is incredibly stupid. Either he has no idea what he's getting himself into, or he's even stupider than he's letting on. :)

I suppose it's his right to decide who he wants to distribute to, and even if someone got the source code with that disclaimer on it, and considered themselves bound by it, they could still (a) Not Ask, and (b) Distribute the "GPL"ed work to someone else.

It doesn't look like that person would be bound by the original (bogus) agreement, but Slade would still be obligated to give them the source, and that person could give the original party the source.

...and the constitution is a lousy example, considering those "laws" aren't absolutes, but rather manipulated by legal precedent. (is it okay to yell "W1ND0WZ RULEZ" in a crowded Linux forum? ;)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].

other projects that don't violate GPL

[Barbarian]

The QWForever [challenge-world.com] project has a similar model, except it isn't violating the GPL.

--

Re:Here are "Slade"'s words:

[warpeightbot]

You do have a right to the source code, under the GPL. This is law. However much like the Constitutional American "Right to Bear Arms". I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right. While you can bear a concealed handgun, you are not allowed to bring it on a public bus, or many places of business. The signs usually say something like 'No firearms beyond this point'. Which is basically making people to give up their Constitutional rights to bear arms. The rules here will be similar.

What homeboy hasn't realized is that both limitations on the Second Amendment for law abiding citizens and limitations on the GPL for law-abiding Quake players are both stupid and unconstitutional/illegal. The fact that neither of these has been properly tested in court is irrevelant. He's just wrong.

The GPL is an obligation to the distributor of the source, not the recipient. The right/responsibility to bear arms is protected for the bearer, not the business.

Here's to the abridgers of both the 2nd and the GPL having their day in court.... and leaving in shame.

Re:Slade's Comments

[Dr. Evil]

This is just completely wrong. This whole issue doesn't seem to be about the GPL at all. People don't have the "right" to the source code, people who distribute code under the GPL have the legal obligation to provide the source code, at cost and upon request for up to three years.

If the code is being distributed outside of the GPL, the distributor is doing it in blatent violation of copyright law.

As for how "linking" fits into this I have no idea. It seems that Slade could get away with this. Think of two extremes:

• GPL a plug-in interface for his binary-only modular enhancement.
• Write a book telling people how to modify the Quake source to obtain the enhancements.

IMHO there is zero merit to his "waive your rights" argument, but as mentioned elsewhere, the very loose linking argument seems unfortunately plausible.

Gun control vs. source control

[John Miles]

When the Clintonistas spout platitudes such as "Nobody needs an AK-47 to hunt squirrels," they're employing precisely the same rhetorical device as Slade's argument ("Out of everyone who ever asked me for the code, everyone demanded it saying it's his or her god-given right to the code. Not a single person said they wanted it for fixing up the numerous bugs, or adding to it, or anything that the GPL is supposed to stand for.")

The American founders didn't justify the citizens' right to bear arms by citing their need to hunt squirrels. Likewise, Stallman didn't require GPL licensees to justify their legally-granted right to receive source code.

In both cases, we're seeing perversions of both the letter and the spirit of the law. It's a shame that JohnC will have to spend his own nickel to defend the rights of his licensees. But as others have noted, an airtight test case such as this one wouldn't necessarily be a Bad Thing for open-source licensing in general.

Guy has no case per GPL...

[Ravensign]

Guy: "To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL. Specifically the rights regarding access to the source code. And while we are obligated to offer you the source code, for up to 3 years until we stop releasing this. To gain access to this site, you are obligated not to ask." GPL: "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. YOU MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE RECIPIENTS' EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN."

View as a former QuakeLives person..

[Mercury]

To start off, I'm a Debian Developer, a QuakeForge developer, and the former QuakeLives 'InterProject Relations Specialist'..

I joined the QuakeLives project to try and make relations with the QuakeForge project a little better, and to keep QuakeLives in check, to make sure Slade understood the legal and ethical issues..

Things were a little rough, but likeable, and I thought things would work out, until the 2.53 release, which was another attempt to avoid the GPL..

I asked several people, on my word, to hold off any flames on 2.53 until I had a chance to talk to Slade, believing that it was a mistake which could be straightened out, until I talked to Slade, at which point I left the project..

At this point, he has lost all respect and trust that he may have had, and has proven that at heart he does not give a damn about the community, he is a egotistical brat who is in it for the glory, and no matter what happens he refuses to believe that he is wrong..

All I can say, is that this is about time, he has been asking for this to happen for a long time, shoveling shit at people, now, I suppose it comes back at him..

I hope he eventually grows up, and gets a clue, and as I've told him, and others, if he cleans up, and plays it straight, I'm willing to go back to the project to the same position, but I see little sign of him even admitting that he has ever been wrong, so I suppose time will tell..

Zephaniah E. Hull.

Re:Here are "Slade"'s words:

[*igor*]

OK, OK... In the longish COPYING [gnu.org] file that comes with many of the programs I own, paragraph 3 clearly states under what conditions one can distribute GPL'd binaries.

In order to have the right to distribute GPL-covered binaries, you are required to make the source freely available.

Note that it isn't the user's right to have the source, it's your responsibility to provide it. If you do not provide it, you are not complying with the GPL. If you distribute the software without complying with the GPL, you are breaking the law.

It's that simple.

His arguments are bunk.

[aithien]

While you can bear a concealed handgun, you are not allowed to bring it on a public bus, or many places of business. The signs usually say something like 'No firearms beyond this point'. Which is basically making people to give up their Constitutional rights to bear arms. The rules here will be similar.

I'm not a lawyer, but this kind of case doesn't hold up without case law, and precedence to back it up. People were once allowed to jet around strapped, but hundreds of years of case law has shown that reserving your right to restrict such behavior is permissable. Also he's taking the letter of the law, and not the spirit of law, which does not hold up in court.

You need precedence pal to show that restricting others rights reflects your interest in upholding the spirit of the law.

To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.

Isn't this exactly what UCITA promises to make binding. This is the kind of crap that's going to come up if UCITA is passed. In effect throwing away centuries of precedence, just like the DCMA has done with 'fair use' law.

People like you probably caused this...

[Carnage4Life]

Free Software is NOT about making better software, is it NOT about fixing bugs and it is NOT about adding features. It is about MORAL rights and freedoms, it is about the right to study the source code just because I fell like it, about the right to use it to do whatever I want.

If people like you claiming that they have the right to see the source code so they can cheat at Quake are the kind of people that have been emailing Slade for the source no wonder he is pissed. First of all where the fsck did this RIGHT to look at software come from? Is there some country (not the US that's for sure) where this is some unalienable right?
From the GNU site: The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
This seems to imply that the GPL is about bug fixes and adding features.
Also from the GNU page: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
This also implies that the GPL is meant to be applied to people who are actually given the software or receive it in some way. I am not certain that Slade's program is being distributed to it's users and thus qualifies to have its source viewed on request.

Finally as for the original spirit of the GPL I have always likened it to automobiles and Microsoft's Windows. Now if I buy a car and something goes wrong with it (broken tail light, leaky radiator, whatever) nothing stops me from viewing the manufacturer's specs for my car, going over to Pep Boys to buy parts and tools, and fixing my car. Now on the other hand if Windows crashes and I have a Ph.D from M.I.T. in Operating Systems and got a 4.0 all through my college career I can't do shit but reboot and pray it doesn't happen again. This is wrong. It is wrongs like this that the GPL was created to right and NOT to satisfy some unalienable right to read everybody else's code.

PS: GPL is NOT like the public domain because you have no right to ask for code or do anything you like with it if the binaries were not distributed to you. As for Romeo and Juliet, it is in public domain because Shakespare is dead and has been dead for over 70 years. Of course when he was alive YOU would not have the right to do anything with HIS work if not approved by him.

Re:I hope he doesn't release the code...

[gargle]

And thereby affirming the validity of shrink wrap licenses.

Re:Here are "Slade"'s words:

[Daniel]

Out of everyone who ever asked me for the code, everyone demanded it saying it's his or her god-given right to the code.

I get the feeling this guy hasn't read the GPL. That's rather the whole point of the license, that everyone *does* have a God-given right to the code.

Daniel

the mistake...

[TheCarp]

> lets pretend that this is the quake
> source code
> 12345
> and thats the code needed to make quake
> run(it's oversimplicfication i know)
> now iD owns the license on all that
> right?
> and the license they've granted is the
> GPL
> now.. if i make code thats 123945
> who owns the copywrite on the 9
> i do right?

Actually.... people should re-read their copyright
law. This is clearly addressed in the US Copyright
OFfice FAQs...

The new code is a derivitive of the original, and
as such copyright is legally in the hands of the
original author....NOT the modifier.

This means that if you make a simpsons episode (to
use an example) that is not an obvious parody
(which would be exempt under fair use), then the
copyright on your episode is owned by the people
who own the copyright on the simpsons.

In THIS CASE the GPL gives him the right to modify
and redistribute (a right not normally granted).
However...if he choses to ignore the stipulations
of the GPL, then he has no right to distribute.

He either honors the GPL or never distributes
to anyone. (Or gets special licence from ID...
which obviously isn't happening)

Go check the US Copyright office web page...they
spell it all out clearly.

-Steve

Re:Specifics of the GPL violation

[MochaMan]

Since the response from Slade claims that he is not restricting access to the code, he's just licensing the bandwidth, maybe someone would care to mirror the source? Or perhaps he doesn't have the bandwidth for that one transfer?

Hmmm, perhaps he'd be open to us sending him a self-addressed, stamped envelope, a ream of paper and some toner and asking for a printout?

Geez, it's hard to believe people are dumb enough to try stuff like this. Makes you wonder whether he ever bothered to read the GPL before making such a lame attempt at circumventing it...

Re:IRC Logs Amendment....

[penpen]

ùíù Slade [[e-mail]] has joined #console
ùíù mode/#console [+o Slade] by Tilde
<mitch> I wouldn't suppose anyone has seen JC's .plan eh?
<Morg\Away> maybe you should...
<Morg\Away> http://bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/finger.pl?id=1&time=2 0000223184151
<barbarian> http://www.shugashack.com/finger/?fid=johnc@idsoft ware.com
<Slade> i got the carmack thing handled
<Morg\Away> nice
<Slade> apparently carmack does not speak on the behalf of id software
<devkev> slade will the dl agreement stay?
<Slade> however slader is a very serious offense
<Morg\Away> ok back to away... be back in 10
<barbarian> I'd be careful if I were you
<barbarian> He owns a lot of id
<barbarian> If I were you, I would not fight JC + the FSF
<mitch> I wouldn't fuck with JC amn
<mitch> he correct way to stop cheating is to fix the fucking
<mitch> protocol.
!OpServ:*! hunnr is now an oper.
<Slade> nah JC's cool
<mitch> release a binary only proxy server,
<Slade> and yes we are fixing the protocol
<barbarian> ^B^BSlade: I don't know why you didn't just choose to write a client/server side proxy solution, given that there are a few codebases for proxies under various license available
<barbarian> (that is, QW proxies)
<Slade> barbarian: cause it doesnt work :) i have 8 of them.. want a few?
<barbarian> ^B^BSlade: WHY doesn't it work? I have the bottim.tar.gz source (qprox.cc -- which I modified for multiple users in a couple hours) and the cheapo source
<devkev> slade will the dl agreement stay?
<barbarian> ^B^BSlade: I used to run http://anticheat.8m.com/, and I was a couple weeks from releasing a server side cheat detection proxy when the q1 source was released
<Slade> barbarian: cause they are easy to trick. i've been able to get around them with some simple editing of port numbers
<barbarian> ^B^BSlade: there are a number of issues, but if you use a comprehensive client and server side proxy solution it is possible to be very secure
<Slade> barbarian: got better issues
<Slade> barbarian: btw. you have to remember that carmack is already posting against us before we even made a release
<karith> barbarian: the only thing that would really work while keeping everything in the open is a netrek type solution using encryption
<Slade> barbarian: actually i've got 2 companies willing to devote the time for us :)
<barbarian> ^B^Bkarith: the qwforever project is taking that approach
<karith> otherwise you have to do things like use closed source proxies and that's hard
<six|inandout> slade owns
<karith> barbarian: you're not the first person to say that
<devkev> Slade^B:^B are you going to remove the downloading agreement?
<karith> which makes me wonder why QL doesn't just investigate that
<Slade> devkev: are you like that stupid? I've ignored you 3 times, what makes you think i wouldnt ignore you this time
<barbarian> ^B^BSlade: you're going to fight Carmack + id + the FSF + the open source community (i.e. /.) ?
<devkev> Slade^B:^B i want an answer... yes or no.
<mitch> that means Slade doesn't know.
<Slade> devkev: tough :)
<devkev> Slade^B:^B fine
<mitch> Slade: YOU DON"T want to fuck with JC and lawyers over this shit man
<Slade> devkev: you'll find out when everyone else does
<Leviathon> rofl
<Majestic> lol
<Slade> as of right now, JC is nothing but a poorly paid PR agent of quakelives
<devkev> Slade^B:^B fine. you know how i feel about the current agreement (if you've read your email)
<Majestic> lol
ùíù Majestic was kicked off #console by Tilde (Keep repeating and I'm going to bust a move on your ass.)
ùíù Majestic [[e-mail]] has joined #console
ùíù mode/#console [+o Majestic] by ChanServ
<Majestic> hmm
<mitch> Slade: Are you trying to say John Carmack couldn't beat you down with this?
<mitch> If he wanted to legally, he would easily win
<r3m-Dog_away> how bout them leafs eh?!
<Slade> mitch: legally? we havent done anything yet ;)
<devkev> Slade^B:^B except the dl agreement
<Slade> mitch: second, he sues me, I show the judge a nice green piece of cardboard paper, judge says case dismissed and then the judge asks if i want to sue JC for harrassment
<Slade> devkev: nothing illegal about the agreement :)
<devkev> Slade^B:^B read my email
<barbarian> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
<devkev> barbarian^B:^B exactly
<DarkOne> Whine whine whine
<barbarian> specifically: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
<barbarian> from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html\
ùíù You have new email.
<devkev> ?
<barbarian> if you guys are lucky enough, this may make slashdot.org .. if that happens, I hope your forum can take all the posts from the /.'ers
<Gr2[MC]> barb
<devkev> the agreement says you can't get the source otherwise
<devkev> thats a restriction
<six|inandout> barbarian: it's already made bluesnews
<Gr2[MC]> we have already made planetquake, voodooextreme, bluesnews
<Gr2[MC]> and every other gaming page in existence
<Gr2[MC]> we are getting like 5 hits per seconds
<Gr2[MC]> err
<Gr2[MC]> second
<Morg\Away> so everything is ok? quakelives continues to live (pun intended :)
<barbarian> ^B^Bsix|inandout: the wrath of /. is not something you want to get in front of -- bluesnews is small potatoes -- /. is read by a few hundred thousand GPL zealots each day
<barbarian> ^B^BGr2[MC] so put up banner ads...
<Gr2[MC]> no doubt
<Gr2[MC]> exactly
<DarkOne> People suck
<six|inandout> ah
<six|inandout> heh
<Gr2[MC]> heh
<Morg\Away> only linux nuts read slashdot
<Gr2[MC]> i need to figure out file locking for perl
ùíù []AirWorkin is now known as []AirEattin
<Gr2[MC]> all these hits fucked our stats page up hardcore
<Gr2[MC]> heh
<DarkOne> lol'
<devkev> Morg\Away^B:^B actaully the stats show that most ppl reading /. are in windows
<karith> Morg\Away: actually, according to a poll 30% of slashdot's readership is win32 people
ùíù Morg\Away is now known as Morgahastu
<karith> 30%, not most
ð karith/#console bops devkev
<devkev> i meant more than any other os
<devkev> isn't it?
<DarkOne> I'm an anti-social bastard, will you be my friend?
<Gr2[MC]> i haven't looked at our forum yet
<Gr2[MC]> i'm afraid to
<Gr2[MC]> heh
<DarkOne> !!!
<DarkOne> Really?!
<barbarian> ^B^Bdevkev: where do I get those /. stats
<mitch> this is already on planetquake, Voodooextreme, and about to be on slashdot

Re:Watchout for this

[TheCarp]

> The Open Source movement is much more than the
> GPL

I am a definite GPL supporter but...very much
agreed. GPL is Free Software...but only part of
it.

> A court ruling could stike a fatal blow to
> copyleft and GNU licenses,

Well here is the thing...anyone who would
challenge the GPL is a damned fool.

If you challenge the GPL...and win (ie the GPL
is found invalid)...well the GPL was the only
thing that gave you any right, under the law,
to distribute at all...
with no licence....the most restrictive possible
situation is legally assumed. (now if only parts
were found invalid...that would be different...
but I doubt that).

Actually...if ANY licence holds up in court,
then I think the GPL has an even better chance of
standing up then say...the Microsoft EULA.

-Steve

Selective ignorance

[kaphka]

I have the right to deny you access for exercising this right.

Of course that's true. One of the facets of having a right is having the right to waive that right. (This is rapidly changing in the U.S., but that's another issue...)

But he's missing the point: When he "licensed" the original Quake source, Carmack excercised his right to deny Slade the right to deny anyone else access to his code. In other words, Slade's license to use the source is based on his agreement to not require the waiver in question. He's free to restrict people, but the moment he does, his loses his right to distribute the source.

Hmmm... I don't think it's possible to express this clearly. But rest assured that Slade's trick is B.S., at least in my non-lawyer opinion.

Re:Good going, John

[TheCarp]

> This is bad for the gaming community, since some
> important mods have been lost on more than one
> occasion when people's hard disks crashed

Once upon a time, I used windows (years ago). This
was, needless to say, prior to my illumination.

I wrote a program and released it as shareware. I
always felt that prices should be "fair" so I
only charged $5 for it (I think in total 4 people
registered).

A couple of hard drive crashes, and OS change
later...I decided I would fuck it and GPL the
sucker...however...I could not. The source code
had been lost forever in a crash....I couldn't
even modify it to take out the nag box (the only
real difference between the shareware and "full"
versions).

In the end I just pulled it from circulation and
deleted my final copy of it.

Slade on Carmack...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/02/23/20142 05&threshold=-1&comment sort=0&mode=thread&cid=131 [slashdot.org]

Re:A quakelives betatester...

[Weezul]

This is a situation in which NOBODY won.

No, John Carmack wins when people switch to Quake3 and pay for it. That a part of the point to releasing the source. This is part of why the GPL is so cool, it provides more commercial incentive (then Artistic or BSD) and more freedom for the consumor.

There are open source solutions to the quake1 cheating problem, but they require more bandwidth (you need to change the protocolls to give less advance information -> more bandwidth -> only dorm room kids can play). These solution also require a health redefinition of cheating from a coders perspective, i.e. the game is the protocoll. A combination of reducing the possible cheats (via protocoll adjustments) and making the less profitable but more intertaining cheats (like an aim-bot) available to everyone (via a scripting langauge) will make the game fair.

It is not unreasonable to hacve a fair open source networked game, but it is unreasonable to make just any game open source and fair, i.e. you MUST redifine what you consider to be cheating.

Actually, if I had more time I'd be tempted to write an X protocoll watcher to allow external cheats to be added to Mr. Slade's binary version of the game.. just to force people to make these games reasonable in the first place.

Re:Try to see this guys side of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It definately is right. Your example of a foster child just is not accurate. Carmack didn't give a child up for adoption, he lent his snowblower to the neighbor and even left him a full tank of gas. in exchange for digging him out of a blizzard, he now wants the right to borrow the guy's weedwhacker. He sees the guy using it, and every time he tries to borrow it, the neighbor say's it's got no gas and he can't.

If Id does not VEHEMENTLY defend the GPL, Open Source is a lark. Do you want scum stealing your software and giving you nothing in return?

Let me put it this way... Do you want Microsoft co-opting Linux, yet try to not return the benefits of source code on the projects they "borrowed" from Linux' head start?

Forget embrace, extend and extinguish. It will just be steal and resell.

The best part of the QuakeLives "license"

[lqd]

To quote the "license" that Slade publishes on his webpage:

Also note that you are still allowed to distribute the works within freely, but please be aware that software contained herein is still under the GPL and you personally will be reponsible for the licensing restrictions of the GPL. So I strongly suggest that you have people you send to agree to similar terms.

Um, yeah. Basically, he tells me that if I download his closed-source binary and then give this binary to a friend of mine, I have to adhere to the GPL, thus giving the source to the binary to my friend if he asks for it. With the slight problem that I cannot give him the source because Slade chose to not give me the source in the first place - chicken and egg all the way. For a person (i.e. Slade) that personally states that he has been involved with the GPL for 10 years, this is a pretty whacky statement to make.

The perfect precedent

[roystgnr]

I always thought (and I suspect this goes for most people) that the first time the GPL was challenged in court it would be by some massive corporation stacking high-priced lawyers up against whatever trickle of legal funds the FSF could provide to some starving Linux programmer.

Now, instead, it's some starving programmer trying to rip off John Carmack, a recognized programming god among both Windows and Linux users, and a man with a successful company and a Ferrari collector's level of personal wealth backing him. Sweet. Could we ask for a better opportunity to get some legal precedent to back up the GPL? I'm sure Slade will back down... but ironically if he really "is a strong supporter of the GPL" the most helpful thing he could do is throw away a bunch of money on legal fees and lose a court case attacking it.

He should lose, of course. He claims:

To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.

Whereas, the GPL claims one of the conditions of distributing binaries is:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

That's it. Either you distribute modified work under the same license or don't distribute at all.

Otherwise you make Carmack mad. And between the Quake player and the Linux advocate in my soul, there's some kind of sweet righteousness in the image of Carmack pouring a can of whoop-ass on a GPL violator.

Re:Try to see this guys side of it.

[Ig0r]

...except that when you 'found' the girl, she was carrying a large sign that explicitly stated what would happen with her in the future, so that you could be prepared.

Re:Two sides to this one

[iCEBaLM]

Is that what you think the GPL is? A way to get more control? Glad to see that you GPL advocates are finally getting honest.

This is precisely what the GPL, and any software license, is about. Controlling what end users can do with the software. Thinking anything less is naive. In its most fundamental way, software licenses are all about making people stay within the authors belief system, in the case of the GPL, that would be open source.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:Secure Quake

[John Carmack]

There are valid, legal ways to provide a level of protection equal to closed source binaries (which is really only a level of obfuscation).

I realize that they (proxies / loaders / obfuscated modules) may be more of a hassle, but he doesn't get to choose to break the license to avoid a hassle. I traded several emails with Slade over the past month, and I still have a degree of sympathy for his position, but I can't just let him walk around the code license.

All the conspiracy theories about me wanting to destroy the Quake community are silly. I loved what happened with the DOOM source release, and I hoped that the Quake release would have similar effects.

John Carmack

Re:Try to see this guys side of it.

[rebrane]

This is the most absurd analogy I've ever read. Comparing things like information with things like children is exactly what got intellectual property into the ridiculous mess it's in today. You don't lose any of the quality of use of your knowledge if you allow others to do it too, unless you were somehow using it to others' expense, which is of course bad.

Bad analogy.

Re:Try to see this guys side of it.

[Wah]

So the girl doesn't go home, or back to the streets where she gained the depth of character that served her so well in later life. She goes off to college, learns about life, meets another guy. Together they have two wonderful children. These children (unlike their mom) have no appreciation what her mother had to do to succeed. Living pampered lives, they later emerge to the world, pretty and proper, but basically useless for any real work. However, because of their "proper" upbringing, they are denied the truths of life outside their homes and are stuck only learning what thier parents tell them.

This goes on for a few generations and eventually you are left with incredibly expensive to maintain and administer grandchildren. They must be put to bed each night, and if they aren't watched carefully, they eventually go crazy and commit suicide. Heavy medication from various third parties is the only way to make them useful. Beautiful to behold, and great at having a good time, they are totally useless when it comes time to get work done, with no idea on how the real world is or functions, they force those that depend on them to eventually believe that all people are unstable, incomprehensible, and expensive.

-The End-

(don't ya just love silly analogies?)


--

Re:Solution: Repeal The Second Amendment

[TheCarp]

> The second amendment is inherently flawed. It
> was passed at a time when America had no
> standing army.

I dunno about you....but I am all for getting rid
of the standing army again.

> Yes, Guns kill. Guns kill people.

What is your point?

Guns kill people...so do knives. So do any host
of other things.

How would you propose that we not only get rid
of guns, but stop people from making them on the
black market? (we know how well things like drug
prohibition work...its just IMPOSSIBLE to buy
Methamphetimine now thats its illegal right?)

Is it ALWAYS wrong to kill people? If a man
attacks me with a knife or gun, is it wrong of
me to kill, or otherwise wound, him? Perhaps I
should just stand there and allow him to attack
me? Perhaps I am suposed to run and hope I can
run faster than this person?

I will now iterate the stance of people who agree
with me. "Guns do not kill people, people kill
people". This means that a gun is a tool. Guns
are USED to kill people, they do not kill people
unless a person makes them.

Your argument is equivalent to that of "Hammers,
and saws build houses". No, people build houses,
and they use hammers, saws, and other equipment
to perform this task.

In any case, this is immaterial to this case.

Windows culture vs. Linux culture

[ttyRazor]

This is a good demonstration of the fundamental differences between how Windows people and Linux people regard software. In the Linux world, open source code is sacred and the GPL (and similar licenses) is not something to be treated likely.

The closed nature of Windows, however, treats software like magical objects whose inner workings need not be understood. As a result, users have little contact with source code, and frankly don't even want to see it. The software provider is actually doing the user a favor by hiding the code, since they can't break what already looks like a complex and fragile thing. Even scarier is the idea that someone else could modify the code and do something evil with it. Since the average Windows user wouldn't know malicious code if they saw it, better safe than sorry. This attitude has been reinforced in the Windows gaming world every time a game is hacked or the game source modified to cheat. So to most Windows users something like the GPL is purely academic and outside the realm of their concern, and anyone who actually would want the source code would be up to no good. They don't care who gets the code, as long as it works, and if it means someone else getting the code means it doesn't work then it's more convenient to just not bother releasing it.

Did that make any sense?

Re:Here are "Slade"'s words:

[Mindwarp]

Just putting up a sign saying 'by entering here you waive your right to protection under the law' doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Try it yourself. Put a sign over your front door saying 'By entering here, you waive all rights to protection under the law' and then kill the next person that comes into your house.

You'll be the new 'best friend' of a 6'8" tall Troglodyte in your nearest jail before you know it.

Unless your waiver is backed up by specific federal or state exclusions, you're shit outta luck.



--

Re: to all of the replies.

[jon_c]

to all of the replies.

I know it's not the best analogy. It's just the best I could come up with during my lunch break., but thank you for the constructive criticism.

Do I think this guys doing "the right thing"? NO, can I see his side? Why he's doing what he's doing, yeah maybe. At least I'M TRYIING.

EVERYONE here is just singing a long, kill the non-GPL, burn the Microsoft. Etc.. RELIZE everyone has a story to tell, for fairness, it's important to tell all sides of the story.

I know if I was in his place, I would feel somewhat compelled perform the same actions. I just don't think I would, I don't have the balls.

-Jon

Re:Similar to DeCSS?

[HoserHead]

Of course you can do whatever you want - but you can't distribute that "whatever you want." Quake is copyrighted. Copyright covers copying, distributing and modification only - not use. So of course he could modify the GPL'd Quake source, compile it, print it out and burn it in effigy, etc.. but if he ever distributes it, it has to be in compliance with Quake's copyright and license, which in this case is the GNU GPL.

Re:Guns (half offtopic)

[buysse]

This is correct and this is why Slade must be stopped. It really would not hurt to launch a slashdot style harass his hosting services and discurage people from using his stuff attack.. just to get warmed up for when someone with money tries it. It would also help increase mindshare for the GPL which brings me to your other point:

Not a good idea. Really, do you think that this makes GPL advocates more credible? There are other legit users of the same hosting service, and you'd be subjecting them to a DoS as well (that is what you're talking about). Going down to his level, or worse, a 133t skr1pt k1dd33 level, will not do any good. Just don't download, don't play it, and send him a calm letter telling Slade how you feel about his abuse of the GPL.

Re:I despise the GPL, but I agree w/ Carmack...

[kbonin]

(sigh) Here restarts the classical and purely semantic debate about what the GPL does or does not do.

I do agree that "forever" was arguably too strong a term, as it could imply alternate license negotiations are prohibited, which as you point out is not the case with single author GPL source.

So what's your point? That GPL tainted code isn't tainted if I obtain untainted code from the authors? Yes, I'll agree with that, but then it isn't GPL code, is it.

I am tired of hearing GPL defenders making such ridiculous assertions over what is essentially a semantic issue. Lets see - you also object to my use of the term "taint" on moral grounds. Look, if you believe that the GPL will make us all free, then stand up for the GPL - and all of its clauses, with all of their implications.

Please don't try to deflect criticisms of the GPL by pointing out that by negotiating terms other than the GPL you can resolve specific complaints with the GPL - most defenses of the GPL I have heard attempt this. As to negotiating licenses external to the GPL, I've been there and been asked to pay exorbitant fees for the "privilege" of not wishing to post my own source, numbers in excess of $1M. I would stipulate that use of the GPL functions as a significant deterrent to releasing code under a non-GPL license, as I would argue was part of its intent. Additionally, it is sometimes impossible to craft satisfactory terms for release of previously GPL'd code into a source base under other terms such as BSD. The use of the ex-GPL is often restricted to the point that it severely limits the reusability of the code using it, due to the need for all subsequent uses to negotiate license terms. I'm not talking commercial code here, just unencumbered open source.

The GPL debate to me is summed up simply: GPL code cannot be used in non GPL code, and GPL prevents the use of any traditional business model (other than VC/IPO fed burn rate games), and serves primarily as a "poison pill" to commercial developers. To GPL code is to say "you can use my code as long as you don't make any money with it, and I get all of your code too." In some code niches the GPL is appropriate, in most larger application spaces it is not, as someone does have to pay the bills, and not all of us are willing to work as waiters to subsidize our coding.

If you want to argue GPL vs. open and truly unencumbered source licenses, I'd be glad to entertain the discussion, online or off. Lets not waste time arguing semantics or pretend the GPL does less than it does.

What it says in the constitution

[Norge]

Article the fourth [Amendment II]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Constitution makes it very clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is granted because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. So when gun control advocates claim that owning uzi's to hunt deer isn't protected by the Constitution, they actually have some pretty firm ground to stand on. The constitution does NOT say that the right to bear arms is unconditionally granted to all people for all purposes. The Economist has an excellent essay on the history of guns in America; I suggest anyone who is interested in the subject take a look. Go to www.economist.com and click on "The Best of The Economist". Scroll down to Guns in America.

Re:Slade is using civil disobedience - NOT

[coyote-san]

IANAL, but I *do* know that civil disobedience has a very specific definition.

<b>It does *not* apply to civil contracts - such as the GPL.</b>

<b>It does *not* allow you to harm others in any significant manner.</b> You may cause a minor inconvenience by a sit in, for instance, but not by punching somebody in the nose.

Finally, <b>civil disobedience *requires* that you be willing to pay the full legal price for your actions.</b> You refuse to sit in the back of the bus? Fine - but be prepared to sit in jail as well. You think the draft is immoral? Fine, but be prepared to send the next year or two in prison, not Canada.

These rules sound strict - and they are - but that's to prevent the common crook from wrapping his actions in the flag. Even if we ignore the fact that this is a civil, not criminal, case, let's ask some other questions. Is Slade being forced to use the GPL software? No. Is Slade being prohibited from developing his own software free of the GPL "encumbered" code? No.

Further evidence against QuakeLives

[/dev/kev]

This is not the first time that Slade and QuakeLives have pulled this kind of stunt. I've been compiling a lot of material against QuakeLives ever since they started being generally disagreeable to the GPL and free software communities.

I've managed to make it into a fairly clean website, The QuakeLives Files [zip.com.au].

At the moment, there's only the verbatim material, without any commentary. However, it still makes for very interesting reading, and the agenda and methods of QuakeLives and Slade are still very apparent...

Re:Secure Quake

[knghtbrd]

John, have you looked at QuakeWorld Forever yet? They have an encryption-based solution which is far more effective than any obfuscated code ever could be. And they're not walking on the GPL to do it.

The QWF people even offered to help Slade implement their techniques if it would guarantee GPL compliance. Their offer was declined. I made a similar offer. Also declined.

I don't have much sympathy for the guy anymore. He's where he is because this is where he's decided to be. He's also stated that he intends to fight you in court if necessary on this, going so far as to say he may sue you for slander.

Re:Solution: Repeal The Second Amendment

[Daniel]

Yes.

They do it, but there's an old saying about might and right. You may have heard it.

Daniel

Uh, no.

[Draxinusom]

Is that what you think the GPL is? A way to get more control? Glad to see that you GPL advocates are finally getting honest.

You're missing the point: what matters is who controls the code. There's nothing wrong with having someone control a public resource. The great thing about the GPL is that it places control of the use of the code in the hands of the law and on the public record, instead of at the whim of the creator. In other words, it uses the court system to ensure that the code is being used in the community interest. If you think that kind of control is a bad thing, so be it.

If you want an analogy, say that I have a plot of land that I want other people to be able to use as a park. Now I could just throw open the gates and let people use it, but what happens if in a few years, after the community has spent a lot of volunteer time and effort to landscape the park and plant grass and build a swingset, I decide to take the land back? Moreover, someone needs to make sure that some greedy individuals don't build condos and highrises on land that's meant for public use.

In the the analogy, the GPL is the Public Parks Office at City Hall to whom I could donate the land. Since it would be on the public record, I couldn't take the land back if I change my mind. Furthermore, the Parks Office would administer the park and use the law to make sure that the park is being used for the public good.

This is one of the basic functions of government: to make sure that public resources are being used for the public good, and to enforce licenses that stipulate a given resource as public. Even libertarians acknowledge that in this respect, having the law control GPLed software isn't a bad thing.

Re:Here are "Slade"'s words:

[Daniel]

Good point. He's still wrong, though, since he was referring to people who had downloaded the source from him. :-)

Daniel

Re:Specifics of the GPL violation

[/dev/kev]

Since the response from Slade claims that he is not restricting access to the code, he's just licensing the bandwidth, maybe someone would care to mirror the source? Or perhaps he doesn't have the bandwidth for that one transfer?

Even that's not good enough. Section 6 of the GPL says that he can't impose additional restrictions on the distribution of the software, which he is doing.

Hmmm, perhaps he'd be open to us sending him a self-addressed, stamped envelope, a ream of paper and some toner and asking for a printout?

The GPL specifies that machine-readable copies of the source must be made available.

Re:That's a surprise

[Daniel]

I think that should have read 'deliberate, determined, persistent, and stubborn' -- from what I've read that this guy has written, if anyone would be foolish enough to take this to court it would be him. (I doubt he will, though)

Daniel

oh c'mon...

[Danse]

You can look at it from his point of view all you want, but his point of view is wrong.

He agreed to the GPL when he used the Quake source. He knew what it meant, he's tried this before. He wants something for nothing. He wants to use someone else's work to help him make something and give nothing back. That's exactly what the GPL is supposed to prevent. If he wants to make something and keep it to himself then he should write the damn software from scratch instead of trying to rip Carmack off.

Help yourself to Slade's files

[Anonymous Coward]

On a completely unrelated note, Slade is generous enough to share a wide variety of his files with you. Just connect to his computer at adsl-61-0-42.dab.bellsouth.net (if you don't believe it's him, go to irc.gamesnet.net #console and /who Slade) and leech away! He's got all sorts of stuff, including lots of MP3's, Quake 1 registered (and other games), and full length movies. Isn't this nice of him?

It's very simple

[Jason Earl]

It's really quite simple. ID Software did the work, they paid the money and they developed the software (Quake 1). They then licensed that software to the rest of the world under the GPL. They could have just as easily sunk the software to the bottom of the Pacific.

That's where your foster child analogy fails utterly. Quake 1 is ID Software's property and what Slade is doing is just as illegal as if he were making pirated copies of Windows 2000.

If Slade didn't like the license, then he should have written his own software from scratch. I can't make copies of MS Office and sell them to people at Costco, and Slade can _not_ distribute binary copies of Quake 1 derived software without distributing the source as well.

Straightforward as can be, ain't it?

GPLed software is just like commercial software in the fact that it is copyrighted material. In fact, it was just this type of behavior that the GPL was written to prevent. What gives Slade the right to rip-off ID Software? If everyone would just share source code then we would be able to cut lawyers clean out of the deal. Unfortunately there is always some doofus that wants to wreck it for everyone, and someone has to call in the attack dogs.

It's a crying shame.

Re:"green piece of cardboard paper"??

[mabinogi]

Maybe he's got a 'Get out of jail free' card?
*grin*

Here's the QuakeLives source

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes - and check out this directory -

\\adsl-61-0-42.dab.bellsouth.net\C\WINDOWS\Deskt op\quakelives

(especially current-source2-19-00.zip)

Viva GPL!

Re:Difference between GPL and shrink-wrap licenses

[jareds]

• We can't have it both ways: if the GPL is upheld in court, that gives some legitimacy to the notion that you can be held to a license that you have in some way agreed to, without having explicitly signed a contract.

(1) Imagine you receive a disk from me with a file foo.c on it. The first line of this file is:
/* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter */
No other copyright notice or license notice is given.

What rights do you have? Under US copyright law, you can compile and use foo.c, and make copies for archival purposes.

What rights do you not have? You cannot distribute copies of my code to third parties. You cannot distrbiute binaries without source (or with source, for that matter) to third parties.

(2) Imagine you receive a disk from me, with a file foo.c on it. The file states:
/* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation.*/

What rights do you have? All the rights in (1), plus some additional rights, if you follow the terms of the license which gives you these additional rights.

What rights do you not have? Since you did not sign the GPL, you are not bound to obey it. However, whether or not you agree to the GPL, the code is still copyrighted by me. So, if you do not agree to the GPL, you will have exactly the same rights as you would in (1). Note the in (1) you did not have the right to distribute binaries without source.

Just because you didn't agree not to distribute copies of my binary without source, doesn't magically give you the right to do what would be illegal under ordinary copyright law.

(3) Imagine you receive a disk from me, wrapped in plastic. A sticker prominently states: "By opening this package you agree to the terms of the End User License Agreement." You open the package, and find an EULA that says: "Every time you run this program, you must dump a glass of milk on your head. If you do not agree to these conditions, you must destroy the disk." Because you have not signed the agreement, you throw it away, and have the same rights as you would in (1).

In conclusion, under normal copyright law, the theory that agreements are not binding unless signed is compatible with both the validity of the GPL and the invalidity of shrink-wrap licenses. This is not having things two ways: the asymmetry exists because the GPL gives you additional rights, while shrink-wrap takes away rights. You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights, but you do need to sign something to waive your existing rights.

Re:GPL Clarification Question

[Bishop]

Totally false. The copyright holder can do anything with their code includeing relicensing. What they can't do is take code that is GPLed away from you. The authors don't lose any rights to their code.

This happened with Debian, Corel, and libapt. Corel wrote a QT frontend using libapt. Libapt is covered under the GPL (not LGPL). Corel would have been a violation of the GPL except that the author(s) of libapt gave Corel a special licence.

Carmack's motives re: the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to think that part of Carmack's motivation for embracing the GPL was something like this:

The people most interested in the Quake source are part of a Windows-centric "community" to which the GPL is utterly alien and incomprehensible. This is where closed-source shareware came from, right? Those people don't even give away the source for "freeware". Hell, I'm a Windows programmer, but I can recognize the fact that these people are mostly (though not all!) yutzes. It was goddamn inevitable that some asshead was going to build something on the Quake source and then turn Libertarian and refuse to abide by the GPL. If you drop a rock, it will fall. If you drop source code onto a gang of Windows programmers and Libertarians, somebody's gonna try to steal it. This is a law of nature. Carmack damn well knew this was going to happen.

It's great fun and damned cool that somebody just happened to release The Code Most Likely to Be Subject to GPL Violations . . . under the GPL. And that the code happened to be released by somebody willing and financially able to hire dozens of savage, bloodthirsty lawyers to send howling after the blood of malefactors. I've seen comments from Carmack about how much he likes the GPL as a user, because (as Stallman intended) he can fix bugs in drivers instead of waiting for vendors to make excuses. I think he cooked up a test case. I think he's been a nice guy and given this Slade moron a lot of rope. And now I think he's going to nail Slade's ass to the wall, and it's going to be a beautiful and instructive example. I don't think that was his only reason for GPL'ing Quake, nor even a major one, but it is what it is. When a guy with a machine gun in his hand throws meat into a tank of sharks, I don't think he's just exercising his throwing arm.

Re:Encryption for QW - QWF

[Wumpus]

Ok, I looked at it, and that's not what I meant. They're trying to authenticate the client/server binaries. I'm proposing to authenticate the players. To play, you need to generate your online ID, and a key pair. When you first log in to a server, you give it your ID. The server checks a database for your ID. If the server doesn't know you, it asks you for your public key, and stores it in the database. Your key is marked "untrusted", because the server has no reason to trust you.

Other players see you on the server, and can play against you, but they know not to trust you, because the server marks your ID "untrusted" in the UI.

This is where things get complicated. How do you gain players' trust? There are several possible ways. You can gain trust with time. Play long enough (a week? a month? The period of time should be long enough that people will be discouraged from playing straight for a while, and then going on a cheating spree, until servers and players recognize them for the jerks they are).
A trusted player can recommend you to the server. This can be done automatically when you log in (I think this will cause problems for players with low-bandwidth connections, when the server starts sending ID's of newly connected players to everyone who's already playing, basically asking "is it ok to trust this player?"). This can be done between games, through e-mail, or through a menu option on other player's menus.

When connecting to the server the next time, you submit your ID, as before, except that now the server knows you, and challenges you to prove your identity, by sending you a challenge packet, containing a random number. You sign the random number, with your private key, and the server authenticates the signature with your public key, which it stored during your first log in. Now, when players see you logged in, they know that no one can pretend to be you.

The end result is that players can build up reputation, based on other players' recommendations. No one can pose as another, honest player, and cheat, lowering the true player's reputation. New players can be introduced to the game by friends who are already trusted, and the Quake community will become just that - a community.

Another advantage(?) for anyone who'll try to implement such a system is that the complexity of the protocols (not so much the authentication protocol, which is quite standard, but the automatic maintenance of the web-of-trust, possibly with servers updating each other periodically, causing reputation to propegate through the Net much like Usenet news, players' votes to lower or raise reputation values being adjusted based on the voters' reputations, etc. etc. etc.) guarantees some interesting design and coding experiences.

Carmack HAS to defend this

[Millennium]

What people don't seem to realize is that a lot more is at stake here than just the source to QuakeLives. While there have been other GPL court battles before, this one may well be the first to become truly high-profile. Businesses, particularly Microsoft, will be watching this like hawks.

If Carmack doesn't defend the GPL tooth and claw, then the GPL has neither teeth nor claws. If the beast has no teeth, you need not fear its bite. Companies will be able to steal GPL'd code left and right, using this as a precedent. It's likely they will do it too.

I'm going to be straight. I don't like John Carmack all that much. Particularly after that bit about forwarding information about people's computers to Id whenever they used Quake3. My opinion of him has been improving tremendously as of late, due to his recent actions in various areas. But I see we have no choice but to count on him; I hope he does a good job.

And as for Slade... I want to know his real motives. To all appearances, he's nothing but a software pirate (pirating by not distributing the software; an interesting paradox but that's the way it works with the GPL). But I think there's more to this than appearances. I don't buy the things he's said. They echo the words of some of the most monumentally stupid anti-OSS zealots out there, and I don't believe Slade is a stupid person. He's made a fine program; a stupid person can't do that. I don't believe he's just in this to spite the GPL, either.

So why would he do this? Judging from what I've been hearing people say here, sheer arrogance seems to be the currently accepted theory. He modified Carmack's program and now he thinks he is John Carmack. He's in for a very rude awakening if this is the case.

IRC Log

[absolute]

*** absolutek (absolute@207.210.168.194) has joined #console
< Slade> nah. rsa was licensed to iD software for their project.. and they rereleased it
< MORG> Deek: when you created this , IF you did.., did you distribute with it information on how it should be dsitributed? maybe a copyright? patent (heh) or anything of the sort?
< Slade> its under iD's license now
< Slade> not the rsa
* AnimeMan[Rams] is back - ( Groceris, i am missing the bowl ;_; ) - ( Away for 1hr 46mins 48secs - ( IrcX )
< MORG> Slade, where did you get this code?
< Slade> quakesource1.zip
< Slade> ;)
< Majestic> =P
< MORG> then its ID's
< MORG> so wtf is Deek's problem?
< Slade> deek coulda made it for all i know
< Slade> iD didnt
< Slade> hey deek.. its floating away.. getter go get it
< Majestic> lol
< Deek> Slade: You must get the software to me. Whether you mail it on a disk/CD or send it to me, it must arrive as per section 1(b) of GPL.
< synOs> Deek: please site the passage in this channel
< Slade> deek: first you dont own copywrites on any binary strings, second that code is licensed from iD.. not you
< Deek> If you refuse, I would like your name so that you may be subpoenaed.
< Slade> no deek. i have the right to remain anonymous.
< Slade> you dont
< synOs> Deek: haha you're a fucking idiot. You may be right, and the source may be yours, but you're still a fucking idiot.
< Majestic> he he
< bish\aoe2> 15 seconds!!!!!!!!
< MORG> yip yip
< Slade> you havent proven who you are
< bish\aoe2> Woooo
< bish\aoe2> ao2 now
< MORG> hurray!
< Majestic> btw
< Deek> Slade: If I have to track this through your ISP, I will. No problem, it'll just add to the settlement.
< synOs> Deek: why do you want the source that bad?
< Majestic> where did it say Deek a.k.a Jeff Teunissen invented those parts in the source Slade used?
< MORG> to create cheats for it
< Slade> synOs: GPL freak. QF put him up to it
< synOs> you must be a fucking loser in real life if you're willing to take it to court.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> ghey
< MORG> i know its a faken game
< Majestic> Hm?
< Majestic> Give us Proof.
< Majestic> On a Official Site.
< Deek> Majestic: I am not required to, dumbass.
< synOs> Deek: you're not required to give proof?
< Deek> GPL. Period.
< AirRazor> umm wrong
< Slade> yeah synos. the way the rules go. if you're going to sue you dont have to say who you are.. hehe
< synOs> Deek: if you could answer the question on why you want the source, maybe that would help.
< Slade> GPL's in compliance deek
< Majestic> Hes Giving it to you,Just get it..its floating away..go get it
< Slade> if you want to take this up futher i suggest you do it with the BSA
< Slade> if you even know who they are
< Deek> Slade: Oh, please.
< r3m-Dog_gfx> Oh please Slade...oh PLEASEEeeeEEEE..................
< Majestic> lol
< r3m-Dog_gfx> ........*unf*.................
< MORG> if you were serious about this i doubt you would come to him like this through IRC
< MORG> get lost
< Majestic> hahahaHAHa
< Deek> Slade: Name. Address. Now. If not, you will be hearing from my company's lawyers within the week.
*** MorgBS has quit ( Leaving )
< Slade> deek: a/s/l
< synOs> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAA
< synOs> Deek.....
< synOs> GET
< synOs> A
< synOs> LIFE
< AirRazor> ahahhahhhaahhahaah slade
< synOs> seriously.
* AirRazor is dieing here
< Deek> Actually, you will still be hearing from my lawyers, this will just keep avoidance off the list of charges.
< AirRazor> if any of it was for real slade would get a letter in the mail
< MORG> there will be no charges even if you try
< AirRazor> not the net
< Slade> deek: its in the river. feel free to go get it
< MORG> you cant expect anyone to trust anyone on the internet
< MORG> you should know this
*** []Phoenix[cs]-FF has quit ( It's all about the Jedi, and you know it. Yeah... )
< synOs> Deek: I suggest you leave and call your lawyer, cause you arent getting any where here.
*** r3m-Dog_gfx is now known as John_Carmack
< Slade> deek: since you are going to be anal about it. you cant request a copy of the code and not give a place to send it
< DarkOne> Deek, stop hiding behind your lawyers and get a fucking life.
< John_Carmack> the code slade..gimme gimme!
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol
< Majestic> lol
* AnimeMan[Rams] rapes John_Carmack
< Deek> Slade: 2155 Avon SW, Wyoming, MI 49509-1754, USA.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> wow
* John_Carmack likes it
< Majestic> 49509-1754
< AnimeMan[Rams]> everone spam snail mail deek
< Majestic> is that possible?=P
< AirRazor> public knowege
< DarkOne> lol
< MORG> lol
< Mercury> DarkOne: Intrestingly enough, QL has been hiding behind lawyers much more then this..
< synOs> Deek: where is the proof that you are entitled to the source?
< Deek> synOs: In the source.
*** Sordid[RAMS]|superbowlparty has quit ( Ping timeout for Sordid[RAMS]|superbowlparty[s11.dial2.fnj.nac.net] )
< synOs> in what source?
< DarkOne> Deek: How do we know who you are?
< AnimeMan[Rams]> he gave us his adress duh ;)
*** Wn-Onze`S ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to Wn-Onze`S
< DarkOne> Dood, I coulda made one up just a quick
< AnimeMan[Rams]> that must prove he is a real person
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe
< Deek> DarkOne: Because I told you, and gave you my address. You can verify that my name and address are really what they are.
*** Wn-Onze`S ( [e-mail]) has left #console
< AnimeMan[Rams]> as opposedf to a bot
< synOs> Deek: why do you want the source?
< synOs> explain.
< John_Carmack> Deek...gimme your phone #
< Deek> synOs: I don't need to.
< DarkOne> Deek: OK, lemme just hack into the US Government.
< Mercury> synOs: It does not matter.
< synOs> Deek: I'm just asking.
< DarkOne> It does matter.
< Deek> synOs: I am a developer.
< DarkOne> If he's doing all this just because he can, then he's got mental problems.
< synOs> Deek: and so you need the source because what?
< Mercury> He is a programmer, he wants to see the code.
< Deek> synOs: uhh, to develop it. [duh]
*** John_Carmack has kicked Deek from #console ( ITS GOOD! - ( IrcX ) )
*** Deek (~[e-mail]) has joined #console
< DarkOne> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> GOOOAAALLL???
< John_Carmack> being superbowl and all..
< AnimeMan[Rams]> ooh wrong futbol
< Mercury> If you can't understand that, then its going to be pretty hard to explain..
< Slade> deek: again. you cited something from GPL that i do not see
< Deek> Slade: section 1(b)
< synOs> Deek: cut and paste the part explaining it.
< DarkOne> You have 10 seconds
< Slade> deek: lemme look
< DarkOne> times up, you lose.
< Deek> also section 3(b).
< synOs> where can I find the GPL info?
< Slade> k
< AnimeMan[Rams]> www.gnu.org
< Slade> nothing here says when i have to deliver it
< John_Carmack> www.wildebeast.com was taken?
< AnimeMan[Rams]> yep
< Slade> or that i have to make the initiative to send you the code
< Deek> ... valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution ...
< Slade> right the offer is valid
< DarkOne> That's really really vague
< Slade> which means by the letter of the law
< Slade> doesnt mean it says when
< synOs> doesnt that mean that you have to send Slade $5 first, and then he can FEDEX it?
< Slade> no. it doesnt say that either.. says i can charge him for the source distribution
< Slade> which doesnt say how
< DarkOne> Dood, this is going no where
< Slade> so theoretically i could have him pay for the jet and everything used to transport it
< John_Carmack> Slade..send it by moose
< DarkOne> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i have parakeets
< AnimeMan[Rams]> you can attach it to thier legs
< DarkOne> Use a fox.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> they arnt smart tho
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe like in men in tights
< Slade> GPL's got holes in it.. hasnt been revised in a while.. it needs to be
< DarkOne> Yup
< Slade> i mean its only 9 years old
< DarkOne> Slade: Fox him and make him pay for all the vet bills and shit.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> didnt linus try to revise it once
< Slade> he did.. in 91 ;)
< synOs> Deek: are you willing to send Slade $10 so he can FEDEX you there source?
< Deek> synOs: Absolutely.
< Slade> synOs: not fedexing it.. i dont trust them
< synOs> hrm.
< synOs> I think you'll have to deliver is personally.
< John_Carmack> fedex=evil
< MORG> we need to send it by Brinks armored vehicles with armed guards
< synOs> that's a big jet fare.
< DarkOne> moose? moose are trustworthy, right John?
< MORG> its top secret
< Slade> synOs: he can pay for the cost of physical distribution.. which means he will buy me the jet i use to go to the helicopter i will use to land on his porch and give it to him
< John_Carmack> use the nuclear materials tranport division
< synOs> I see.
< Deek> Slade: I will cut you a check when you arrive.
< Slade> deek: nope sorry, payment in advance
< synOs> I think prepaid is best.
< John_Carmack> mooses are very trustworthy..i have one on payroll..he does all the Q2 accounting
< Slade> deek: like most other software transactions
< Deek> Slade: Exactly. You come here, I give you a check.
< synOs> Deek: you go to Slade's.
< Deek> Slade: You see, I don't trust you as far as I could throw you.
< synOs> not the other way around
< Slade> deek: doesnt matter I released the code, according to the GPL i make the rules as far as distribution
< Deek> Luckily, I am not required to trust you.
< John_Carmack> Slade..take a roundabout route....goto vegas, new york...fly out to the coast..
< Deek> If I have to sue you to get what it rightfully mine, I will. Name and address, please.
< Slade> Deek: I have given you an offer
< Slade> Deek: for you only
< synOs> Deek: Do you understand why Slade doesnt want to give you the source? It's pretty much his, it makes it less secure. Why do you want to ruin that? Cause you're a prick?
< Slade> Sorry folks.. dog.. synos.. you're not allowed this offer
< Slade> not even you Carmack
< synOs> doh.
< John_Carmack> bah
< Deek> Slade: You have to give anyone else source as well.
< Slade> ok fine
< Slade> you guys can have the deal as well
< Deek> I just have more authority.
< Slade> need jet, helicopter and trained llama to deliver
< MORG> still no proof of who you are, you cant expect someone to react at this level just because you hoped in IRC and told him you were someone
< Deek> go ahead.
< DarkOne> Deek: You have money to pay for all that?
< Slade> please direct all comments to my secretary if you wish me to make the arrangements
< Slade> in the meantime. i'm coding
< DarkOne> Slade: Am I your secretary?
< Deek> Slade: On second thought, I can just revoke your license.
< MORG> Someone should contact the REAL carmack :)
*** synOs has quit ( Read error to synOs[cr2034-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com]: No route to host )
< MORG> yes Slade, your deer hunting license
*** synOs- ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to synOs-
< DarkOne> lol
< DarkOne> I didn't know deer lived way down south
*** John_Carmack has quit ( Ping timeout for John_Carmack[cr744804-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com] )
< Deek> If you do not wish to send me a copy of the source, you are not entitled to use my code.
*** Kornchild-J- has quit ( Read error to Kornchild-J-[wecnet5200-2-30.wecnet.com]: Connection reset by peer )
*** synOs- is now known as synOs
*** aWG ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** Myconid ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< MORG> how do you know hes even using your source? he could of created a string of code
*** John_Carmack ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to John_Carmack
*** Kornchild-J- ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to Kornchild-J-
< DarkOne> OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG!
< DarkOne> This guy just doesn't give up
< Myconid> ?
*** aWG ( [e-mail]) has left #console
< DarkOne> Nothing
< MORG> maybe ID should sue everyone for using their code because of all these new full 3d games
< synOs> Deek: Why cant you let it go?
< John_Carmack> nuh..i'm filthy rich..theres no point
< DarkOne> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe john owns a ferrari!
< AnimeMan[Rams]> the bastige!
< John_Carmack> 8)
< Myconid> John: so is it true you own 50 ferrari's now?
< Myconid> :P
< John_Carmack> 32..rest are porsche
< Myconid> lol
< DarkOne> John: Can I sleep with your wife?
< Majestic> LOL
< Myconid> Dark: got that base covered <g>
< John_Carmack> no, sorry...only family
< DarkOne> Damn
*** Crus ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Crus
< Deek> synOs: Why the hell should I let it go? My license is not being followed.
< Myconid> Deek: whats your problem?
< John_Carmack> Deek..shouldn't you be taking this up with ID?
< John_Carmack> not me...but the company
* Myconid gives deek some morphine
< synOs> Deek: because you should have some respect for what these programmers are attempting to accomplish.
< Myconid> syn: whats deep bitching about?
< MORG> this isnt that actual carmack now is it?
< Myconid> deen
< Myconid> deek
< Myconid> whatevah'
< Myconid> MORG: lol
< Deek> synOs: They are attempting to accomplish a wholesale destruction of open source.
< synOs> BWHAHAHA
< Myconid> [e-mail]
< John_Carmack> synos..i've learned something in the 3 weeks i've been on this project, developers are stringently anal about the gpl/gnu
< Myconid> John sold his T3 and got cable
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe myconid
< John_Carmack> hey...its my bacjup
< synOs> Deek: you know that's not what they're trying to do.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> yeah all t3's in dallas are out
< AnimeMan[Rams]> thats why iam on my dialup ;)
< Myconid> hehe
*** silntkiss ([e-mail]) has joined #console
* AnimeMan[Rams] calls john up
* Myconid has a dialup T3
* John_Carmack answers the phone
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i had hishome phone #, but never called it
< Myconid> lol
< MORG> AnimeMan, you gotta gimme some work to do so i dont make stupid comments
< MORG> hehe
< Deek> synOs: Bullshit.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hehe
< synOs> The only reason they're modifying the source is to keep a community alive, as well as personal satisfaction. If you want to attempt to destroy that, then fine, but you're a worthless human being with little respect anyone around you.
< Myconid> Deek: are you bitching about QL being closed source?
< MORG> Deek: your stupid
< synOs> Myconid: dont get into it.
< Deek> synOs: There are legal ways to do that.
* silntkiss goes and sits quietly on the ceiling
< Myconid> heh
< MORG> how can we have fun if everyone cheats? sorry these people arnt a team of 300 godly programmers that could do such a thing and have it open source
*** UnderDog[Titans]|away is now known as UnderDog[Titans]
* UnderDog[Titans] is back -[ party ]- gone 4 hr 36 min 17 s
< Deek> MORG: Sorry, but we seem to have done it.
< Myconid> Deek: I love QL. I go play on QL servers and no one cheats.. I goto servers like the sniper server and such and EVERYONE has freaking autoaim.. you know how boring that is?
< Majestic> lol
< MORG> this is a freaken game. there are more people working to cheat it then to make it
< MORG> whats your problem?
< AnimeMan[Rams]> deek, you with QF?
< Deek> AnimeMan[Rams]: Of course I am.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i see
< synOs> Deek: There may be legal ways to do that, yes. And maybe they wouldnt be following the letter of the law by denying you the source, and I agree that if you have legal rights to it then you deserve to have a copy of the source, but it would be nice if you just respected Slade's wishes not to release the source to you.
< synOs> Deek: all you have to do is say ' I dont want to see the source '
*** raptor ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< Deek> synOs: wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which one gets full first.
< synOs> that'd be a nobel action
< Myconid> lol
< raptor> hi
* silntkiss hops off the ceiling and sits beside Slade
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hmm your speedcheat code doesnt take account of air tunnes etc, you know slade could always help you with that
< synOs> Deek: Are you married? Do you have a girlfriend? Children? Because I pity anyone who knows you.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> not to mention being very secure
< raptor> MORG: btw, "MORG| maybe ID should sue everyone for using their code because of all these new full 3d games"
*** `Chamber- ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< Deek> synOs: Married with kid.
< synOs> porr thing.
< raptor> those other full 3d games paid to have the right to keep the source
< synOs> err poor
< John_Carmack> Deek..you abuse the children?
< Myconid> syn: stooping to personal attacks?
< synOs> Myconid: yes.
< Myconid> Koo!
< Myconid> Can I join in now?
< Myconid> :-)
< raptor> slade recieved the source under the gpl.. if he wants to keep the source private then he must pay like the creators of those other games
< synOs> go ahead.
< MORG> those are commercial games
< `Chamber-> is QL gunna die?
< synOs> Chamber: no.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> hell no
< MORG> this is free distribution
< `Chamber-> good.
< raptor> MORG, that doesn't matter..
< raptor> MORG: no this isn't free distrubution if it was free the source would be released
< Myconid> MORG: So is redhat linux.. yet its commercial
< `Chamber-> when is QL releasin the next beta?
< Deek> If you guys want to pay me $50,000, you can get a non-GPL license.
< Myconid> Deek: who the hell are you anyways?
< synOs> Deek: now that's just lame.
< John_Carmack> we can scratch up maybe 25$ between us...
* John_Carmack writes a check
< Myconid> John: i got $2
< `Chamber-> i got $10
< Myconid> hehe
< Myconid> $50,000 - 12 = hmm
< Deek> Myconid: I wrote code that is GPL, and it is fucking going to STAY GPL.
< synOs> Deek: do you understand that by releasing the source to you Quakelives security loses a LOT of strength?
< `Chamber-> is deek full of shit?
< AnimeMan[Rams]> TOUCHDOWN
< AnimeMan[Rams]> 16 - 0
< Myconid> Hahah
< Myconid> Rams own
< John_Carmack> hey..watch that language..not everyone in here are over 18!
< `Chamber-> oh fuck
< `Chamber-> Anime. u serious?
< `Chamber-> CRAP
< AnimeMan[Rams]> yeah
< `Chamber-> CRAP
< AnimeMan[Rams]> rams on top
< MORG> my virgin ears!
< AnimeMan[Rams]> GO RAMS!
< raptor> Slade: if i rooted your machine and took the source; would you be happy ? no ... but it isn't your source.. not completely at least
* Myconid pittys Chamber
* `Chamber- smells his $40 going down the drain
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol chamber
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i had a 40 on the game too
*** [WM]Dom ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to [WM]Dom
< `Chamber-> for who?
< raptor> Slade: ID software lent you source and you stole it from them
< AnimeMan[Rams]> and mine is looking good
< AnimeMan[Rams]> rams
*** [WM]Dom has quit ( Read error to [WM]Dom[elitedom.res.WPI.NET]: EOF from client )
< `Chamber-> crap
< Myconid> Btw Deek: debian suxors
< raptor> when you borrow you must return
< `Chamber-> i got a 7 point spread though
< raptor> you gotta return man.
*** [WM]Dom ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to [WM]Dom
< Deek> synOs: Not my problem. You want security, make real security.
< AnimeMan[Rams]> want the source? 2.52 is free for d/l
< Myconid> Deek: there is no way to make security w/o closed source bud
*** `Chamber- is now known as `Chamber-[TITANS]
< Deek> Myconid: Please.
< synOs> Deek: make real security? You cant make 'real security" when you release the source to ever yahoo.
< Myconid> Deek: Explain how you could then
< Myconid> synOs: SSL 2 is pretty secure
< raptor> Myconid: you also can't legally have closed source so the point is mute
< synOs> 'pretty secure'
< raptor> Myconid: i think you all should read the Catherdral and the Bazaar
< Myconid> raptor: sure you can.. Quake's code is GPL. Addons arent
< Myconid> I have
< Myconid> :P
< raptor> Myconid: you aren't making addons... if you really want closed source do it right
< John_Carmack> Deek...join out team and help us solve the problem of security, without breaking the gpl/gnu!
< `Chamber-[TITANS]> Slade said everything was cool
< raptor> and it can be done legally
< raptor> make a GPL, modular quake
< synOs> Deek: your code would stay GPL if you wouldn't ask for the code. So just dont ask for it, it doesnt serve any purpose.
< raptor> and make closed source modules that contain NO quake source
< raptor> and distribute those modules separately in an "extras" package
< Deek> John_Carmack: If the GPL is followed, I'll consider helping.
< Deek> John_Carmack: I've heard it before, though.
< synOs> Deek: is Slade breaking the GPL/GNU?
< raptor> synOs: the GNU is an organization you can't break it..
< synOs> err GPL
< raptor> synOs: he is breaking the GPL however :)
< synOs> fuck I dunno.
< Slade> 16 wheelers do a good job of breaking it
< synOs> how is he breaking the GPL
< raptor> synOs: you should readup if you wanna have any argument...
< Myconid> syn: closing source?
< raptor> you don't even know what the fsck the GPL is so shut up
< synOs> I dont want to, this is a game, JUST A GAME. Why cant people leave it alone.
*** [DW]Condor has quit ( ( I was using Polaris IRC ) Version:( .03 Alpha ) Webpage:( http://members.xoom.com/Polaris_IRC/ ) Wasted:( Hours 4 Minutes and 1 )
< Slade> GPL isnt broken. anyone who says it doesnt know what they're talking about
< Slade> please take all GPL conversation out of my channel now
< synOs> Raptor: you do know this is about a GAME, right? not some gayass code, and licensing agreement.
< John_Carmack> how about them Leafs eh?!
< AnimeMan[Rams]> i am getting bored fo it
< raptor> Slade: well your boy over there doesn't even know what the gpl is..
< synOs> I know what the GPL is.
< synOs> basically.
< synOs> but I dont care anyway, it's a FUCKING GAME>
< synOs> why cant you people understand that.
< synOs> it's not that hard.
< Myconid> syn: because you are wrong.
< raptor> synOs: it might be a game.. but it is written in code and this code is released under a license and when that license is broken it is a crime
*** John_Carmack is now known as r3m-Dog_photoshop
< raptor> so it might be a game; but an illegally distributed one
< Slade> !k raptor what did i tell you
< synOs> RAPTOR: I dont care, I just enjoy playing it.
< MORG> when i play this game i dont go
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol chanserv is dead
< synOs> raptor: who made you FBI?
*** ChanServ has kicked raptor from #console (<Slade> what did i tell you )
*** raptor ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< MORG> "whoa, check out how they ripped this code, closed source forever! down with GNU!"
< Slade> !kb raptor scripts are stupid
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** ChanServ has kicked raptor from #console (<Slade> scripts are stupid )
*** Slade removes ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** Slade removes ban on *!*@Dorm-35985.RH.UH.EDU
< Myconid> !kb myconid you suck, no i dont, yes you do
*** raptor_ ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< raptor_> stupid prick
< Myconid> lol
< raptor_> learn how to kick/ban
< synOs> god, releasing the code as GPL was fucking lame, and now all you fucking lameass coders think you're the law. Cant you leave shit alone, it has nothing to do with you.
< Myconid> syn: QL wouldnt even exist w/o the GPL'd code
< Slade> raptor i unbanned you right away to stop your script
< synOs> Myconid: NEITHER WOULD THE CHEATING ASSHOLE
< Slade> synos: this is your warning as well. no more GPL
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> synos..come over..we'll have a beer
< raptor_> Slade: script? no.. just my client
< Slade> you can direct all GPL questions and comments to [e-mail]
< Myconid> Slade: heh
< Slade> if they reguard QL anyhow
< raptor_> Slade: give me your address to send that $10 for source that you offered deek
< Slade> raptor: i didnt offer it for 10 dollars
< raptor_> and ill add something extra too
< Myconid> slade: <ignornat question>have you, or anyone written something on how QL is not breaking the GPL by being closed source?
< Myconid> ignorant?
< Slade> !k Myconid no GPL
*** ChanServ has kicked Myconid from #console (<Slade> no GPL )
*** Myconid ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< Myconid> slade: I wasnt being accusitive at all..
< Myconid> Im sorry..
< Slade> i said. no discussion of it
< Myconid> aight.
< taniwha> bye, morrons. You've been logged :)
< Slade> raptor_: my method of distribution is via leerjet/helicopter/trained monkey you can pay for it that was as well
*** taniwha has quit ( gotta go, l8r )
< raptor_> Slade: you are just being a prick because you know you are wrong.. GPL requires the source be open, closed source is against the GPL; hence illegal.
< Myconid> slade: I have keys bound.. like 99% of them.. when I type stuff the aliases bound to them are activated.. is this a bug?
< Slade> !kb raptor_ GPL is a badword
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** ChanServ has kicked raptor_ from #console (<Slade> GPL is a badword )
*** Slade removes ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** fucker ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< fucker> fucker
< Slade> !kb fucker language
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** ChanServ has kicked fucker from #console (<Slade> language )
< MORG> no need for harsh language
*** Slade removes ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** raptor____ ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< raptor____> yo stop it
< Slade> !kb raptor____ yes boss
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** ChanServ has kicked raptor____ from #console (<Slade> yes boss )
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol
< MORG> 16-6
*** AnimeMan[Rams] removes ban on *!*raptor@*.nni.com
*** AnimeMan[Rams] sets ban on *!*@*.nni.com
*** r3m-Dog_photoshop has quit ( Ping timeout for r3m-Dog_photoshop[cr744804-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home. com] )
< Majestic> lol
*** r3m-Dog_photoshop ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to r3m-Dog_photoshop
*** synOs- ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives voice to synOs-
*** synOs has quit ( Ping timeout for synOs[cr2034-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com] )
*** synOs- is now known as synOs
*** Slade is now known as Slade|scrim
< MORG> that was rather unpleasant
< Slade|scrim> does anyone know whats up with the superbowl?
< Slade|scrim> does anyone care?
*** fynqrvfnqvpx (rapt0r@208.184.88.8) has joined #console
< fynqrvfnqvpx> hi
< MORG> Slade, lemme guess, canadian?
* Slade|scrim grins
< fynqrvfnqvpx> would you believe that shpxfynqr was taken ?
< Majestic> Slade
< Majestic> #Superbowl
< Slade|scrim> sokay Majestic
< Majestic> =P
< absolutek> MORG: I'm canadian, and I know lots of people here who love NFL...
< Majestic> CFL = Gay
< MORG> yeah but its not as huge as it in the states, nutcases
< MORG> its bigger then christmas
< absolutek> MORG: true true...
< Majestic> They Stole Flutie from us
< Majestic> :o
< absolutek> heh...
< MORG> hehehe
< MORG> CANADA ROCKS
< Majestic> they left us with his shitty brother
< Majestic> pfft
< fynqrvfnqvpx> so anyone here wanna break the gpl with me ?
< fynqrvfnqvpx> i heard this is the place to go
< Majestic> ..
< Majestic> Whois --( fynqrvfnqvpx )-----
< Majestic> Address :: rapt0r@208.184.88.8
< Majestic> Realname :: sirc user
< Majestic> Server :: Tucker.GA.GamesNET.net Georgia's GamesNET Link
< Majestic> Idle :: 15secs
< Majestic> Channels :: #console
< Majestic> its Raptor again
< Majestic> laff
< fynqrvfnqvpx> like my nick?
< Majestic> !ban 208.184.88.8
< fynqrvfnqvpx> parce
< Majestic> woops
< fynqrvfnqvpx> try rot13
< Slade|scrim> hes a l33t haxor
< Majestic> !kb fynqrvfnqvpx
*** ChanServ sets ban on *!*rapt0r@208.184.*
*** ChanServ has kicked fynqrvfnqvpx from #console (<Majestic> Later fynqrvfnqvpx )
< Majestic> yep
*** Majestic removes ban on *!*rapt0r@208.184.*
*** bish\aoe2 is now known as [REV6]bishop
*** [DW]Condor ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** b0mb3r ([e-mail]) has joined #console
< Slade|scrim> as a closing statement: its funny how people assume we're under the GPL. because as of yesterday, I dont think we are.. i'll have to look into it more
*** b0mb3r is now known as DaBomb_Dx
< DaBomb_Dx> heh
< DaBomb_Dx> Introducing, QuakeLives Gotwalls
< DaBomb_Dx> Gotwalls 2.53
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> Slade..you said the "G" word..don't make me kick you!
< DaBomb_Dx> Now works on all 2.53 servers
< DaBomb_Dx> THANK YOU VERY MUCH
< DaBomb_Dx> =)
< AnimeMan[Rams]> lol
< AnimeMan[Rams]> no they dont you phroot
*** #console *!*@*.nni.com AnimeMan[Rams] 949284287
*** #console :End of Channel Ban List
*** silntkiss ( [e-mail]) has left #console
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> great..too bad 2.53 is gone for the forseable future
< live-evil> yer
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> thank you..and grow a penis
< DaBomb_Dx> Well we will keep rolling out more
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> they'll come in handy once you reach puberty
< Slade|scrim> dog, have one he can borrow?
< DaBomb_Dx> Oh well say all you want
< DaBomb_Dx> But we dont like this QuakeLives
< Slade|scrim> we?
< DaBomb_Dx> We are not cheaters, we just dont like quake
< DaBomb_Dx> Down with Quake
< MORG> you dont have to play it
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> hehe..well why didn't you say so?
< MORG> neither do you have to ruin it for people who do want to play it
< DaBomb_Dx> =)
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> go play eq or javatetris..whatever turns on idiots these days
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> leave the quake playing public alone
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> remember..just because you shit on the neighbors car...doesn't mean its "cool'!
< DaBomb_Dx> Hey gotwalls for 2.53 server works
< DaBomb_Dx> And as more server/clients come out
< DaBomb_Dx> more cheats
< Majestic> No Such Gotwalls for 2.53 Fool.
< Slade|scrim> we're having our fun. he can have his
< DaBomb_Dx> Wanna bet?
< Majestic> Official Site=www.gotwalls.com
< live-evil> yer there is
< live-evil> yer
< DaBomb_Dx> Heh
< live-evil> but the guy used the gotwalls source
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> yer?
< DaBomb_Dx> There is majestic
*** Richie` (~[e-mail]) has joined #console
< DaBomb_Dx> Belive me
< DaBomb_Dx> and it works
< DaBomb_Dx> =)
< Majestic> hmm
< DaBomb_Dx> it wasnt the same guy
< Richie`> this is pissing me off
< live-evil> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/File/6097/
< live-evil> d/l it
< [REV6]bishop> it's past your bedtime morg
< live-evil> it works
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> gotwalls is copyrighted...don't make ackmed hunt yer sorry ass down
< DaBomb_Dx> ROFL
< Majestic> yah
< Majestic> =P
< DaBomb_Dx> He doesnt care
< live-evil> gotwalls was released under the gpl
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> yesh
< DaBomb_Dx> Im shure its really copyrighted
< Slade|scrim> not the name
< live-evil> ne1 can use his code
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> DaBomb has to release his source code
< MORG> yeah, i should of been in bed by 7 pm
< DaBomb_Dx> No he doesnt
< live-evil> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/File/6097/
< DaBomb_Dx> its a secure program
< DaBomb_Dx> It doesnt use the QuakeWorld source
< live-evil> gotwalls style 2.53 client
< live-evil> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/File/6097/
< live-evil> ...
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> it uses a derivitive of...
< DaBomb_Dx> ...
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> you have to release your source
< Slade|scrim> hey dog. no big deal
< DaBomb_Dx> Yeah I sent out a call to all people on fortresscheats.com
< Slade|scrim> to much spam in here
< DaBomb_Dx> Because im cool like that
*** Slade|scrim sets mode +m
< Slade|scrim> Now i'm gonna go play tf for a while
< Majestic> lol
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> people who hate quake are the ones who sucked at it in the first place
< r3m-Dog_photoshop> thats why they hate quake..and people with working reflexes
< Majestic> lol
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to devkev
*** MORG has quit ( Leaving )
< Slade|scrim> feel free to voice anyone else you think deserves it
*** r3m-Dog_photoshop gives voice to Jackrabbit[12]-away
*** DaBomb_Dx ( [e-mail]) has left #console
*** Crus is now known as Jay[BH]
*** [REV6]bishop is now known as bish\scrimmmm
*** []Phoenix[cs]-FF ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to DarkOne
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to AnTMaN
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to Myconid
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to Richie`
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to `Chamber-[TITANS]
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to UnderDog[Titans]
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to [DW]Condor
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to [DW]Exterminator
*** Slade|scrim gives voice to []Phoenix[cs]-FF
*** ddep2 ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ddep2 ( [e-mail]) has left #console
*** Majestic has quit ( Reboot )
*** Majestic ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Majestic
< ChanServ> [Majestic] <An4rchy> -rs C:\addons\antiban.mrc
< Myconid> gimme voice
< Myconid> oh
< Myconid> nm
< Myconid> hehe
*** DaBomb_Dx ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** Mercury has quit ( Signed off )
*** DaBomb_Dx has quit ( Signed off )
*** [DW]Condor is now known as [DWr]Condor
*** Morg ([e-mail]) has joined #console
*** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Morg
< Morg> did i miss anything?
*** DaBomb_Dx ([e-mail]) has joined #console
21:52:24 < Myconid> Whats the url of that QWC or whatever
21:52:34 < Myconid> the place biscuit east is always talkin about
21:54:27 *** Leviathon ([e-mail]) has joined #console
21:54:28 *** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Leviathon
21:55:21 < `Chamber-[TITANS]> ahh christ
21:55:24 < `Chamber-[TITANS]> 1 yard!!!!!!!!
21:55:32 < `Chamber-[TITANS]> titans lost by 1 yard
21:55:46 *** `Chamber-[TITANS] is now known as `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]
21:55:47 < Myconid> i am banned from BE
21:55:49 < Myconid> wtf
21:55:51 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> why?
21:56:01 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> qsa?
21:56:01 < Myconid> I tried to connect with the QF client <g>
21:56:05 < Myconid> no..
21:56:05 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> quake security agent?
21:56:09 < Myconid> I just tried to connect
21:56:11 < Myconid> it said banned
21:56:13 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> quake security agency?
21:56:17 < Myconid> it didnt say
21:56:20 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> qsa.cjb.net
21:56:27 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> but u wont get no help there
21:56:44 < Myconid> http://qsa.cbj.net don work
21:56:46 < Myconid> I dont want help ther
21:56:48 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> scjb
21:56:49 < Myconid> Wanted to see it
21:56:50 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> cjb
21:57:06 < Myconid> why coulnt they just buy jdsklfjs.net ?
21:57:11 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> go to biscuitservers.net
21:57:15 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> go to banned list
21:57:18 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> maybe that will help
21:57:37 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> myc
21:57:47 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> i will be on irc.microcore.net
21:58:11 < Myconid> it doesnt
21:58:12 < Myconid> work
21:58:19 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> what doesnt
21:58:19 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> work
21:58:22 < Myconid> Talking to whosamacallit
21:58:31 < Myconid> Why are you going to that lame server
21:58:32 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> salesbitch?
21:58:38 < Myconid> yup
21:58:38 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> microcore rules
21:58:41 *** DoW|Huan ([e-mail]) has joined #console
21:58:43 < `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost]> cya
21:58:44 *** UnderDog[Titans] is now known as UnderDog-M
21:58:48 *** `Chamber-[TITANS][Lost] has quit ( Leaving )
21:58:50 *** Myconid has quit ( Leaving )
21:59:28 *** DaBomb_Dx has quit ( Signed off )
22:02:07 *** Jay[BH] has quit ( reboot )
22:05:20 *** Kornchild-J- has quit ( Leaving )
22:05:36 *** Crus ([e-mail]) has joined #console
22:05:36 *** ChanServ gives channel operator status to Crus
22:08:14 *** DoW|Huan has quit ( Read error to DoW|Huan[owen-b-030.resnet.purdue.edu]: Connection reset by peer )
22:08:17 *** Huan|study has quit ( Read error to Huan|study[owen-b-030.resnet.purdue.edu]: Connection reset by peer )
22:09:05 *** AnimeMan[Rams] is now known as r3m-AnimeMan
22:09:10 *** Huan|study ([e-mail]) has joined #console
22:09:38 *** bish\scrimmmm is now known as [REV6]bishop
22:12:05 *** kF|w3rk has quit ( Signed off )
22:12:44 *** Morg has quit ( Leaving )
22:13:29 *** Slade|scrim sets mode -m
22:13:48 *** Slade|scrim is now known as Sladew
22:13:50 *** Sladew is now known as Slade
22:15:27 *** AirRazor is now known as []AirRazor[grls]
22:16:03 *** Clanless ([e-mail]) has joined #console
22:16:22 *** Clanless has quit ( Leaving )
22:17:36 *** penpen (~[e-mail]) has joined #console
22:21:51 *** [REV6]bishop is now known as RICH`WAI_SUCKS
22:22:35 *** RICH`WAI_SUCKS is now known as rich`WAI
22:24:06 *** rich`WAI is now known as [REV6]bishop
22:25:01 *** []Phoenix[cs]-FF has quit ( It's all about the Jedi, and you know it. Yeah... )
22:28:24 *** Slade is now known as Slade|scrimmore
22:29:27 *** penpen has quit ( penpen has no reason )
22:30:09 *** [DwC]Thr3dd ([e-mail]) has joined #console
22:35:31 < r3m-AnimeMan> i need soem linux help..anyone?
22:35:48 < Majestic> lol
22:35:49 < Majestic> Linux
22:35:59 < r3m-AnimeMan> yes you phroot
22:36:01 < r3m-AnimeMan> =)
22:36:34 < [DwC]Thr3dd> who is working on the "Mac solution"?
22:36:45 < r3m-AnimeMan> not sure
22:36:52 < r3m-AnimeMan> you can ask slade
22:37:00 < r3m-AnimeMan> when he gets back
22:37:03 < [DwC]Thr3dd> everyone tells me that but he's never here
22:37:05 < [DwC]Thr3dd> heh
22:37:12 < r3m-AnimeMan> =)
22:37:16 < Majestic> yeah
22:37:19 < Majestic> Slade|scrimmore
22:37:36 *** You have left channel #console

whoa!

[Barbarian]

Well it looks like the source is out now, intentional or not.

http://douglas.min.net/~drw/slade.gif


--

Re:Difference between GPL and shrink-wrap licenses

[gargle]

If someone violates the GPL, they cannot be held liable for violating the GPL, because they did not sign it.

I think what you're saying is this: an agreement to a license (e.g. by clicking on a box 'I agree') like the GPL or a typical shrink wrap license isn't really a binding agreement; it isn't really a contract between the provider of the software and the user.

So if the user has agreed to the GPL, but then proceeds to violate the GPL, then you say that you may sue him for copyright violations, but not for violation of the GPL, because the user has not signed a contract, and there is no agreement between the user and the software provider.

Now suppose he agrees to the GPL, and distributes the software in compliance with the GPL. Can the FSF then sue the user for copyright violations? It seems that your line of reasoning will imply that the FSF can, because there has been no binding agreement between the provider of the software and the user. So the user has no real legal protection but distributes the software merely at the grace of the FSF. So it seems that your interpretation of this is unworkable.

GET IT NOW

[drwiii]

HOT OFF THE PRESS [min.net]

-rw-r--r-- 1 drw drw 3336079 Feb 24 01:34 current_source2-19-00.zip

Re:Carmack's motives re: the GPL

[f1r3br4nd]

It was goddamn inevitable that some asshead was going to build something on the Quake source and then turn Libertarian and refuse to abide by the GPL. If you drop a rock, it will fall. If you drop source code onto a gang of Windows programmers and Libertarians...
Please don't turn this political. Calling opponents of GPL Libertarians is just as much of a fallacy and a disservice to GPL as calling its supporters Communists. Labels like that belong back in the 'brick-n-mortar' age. Anyway, I'm sure a lot of the Open Source community happens to be various shades of Libertarian and Anarchist. I agree with the point you were making, but it would be much stronger without the political baggage.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I steal GPL code daily, is that wrong?

[goingware]

When I worked at Medior, Inc., they used GPL'ed code for graphics effects like screen dissolves, wipes, and so on in their multimedia CDROMs. They just went and took the code and never considered releasing the source code.

The CDROM's were usually document retrieval CD's full of sales lit for such large corporations as Tandem, Northern Telecom and FedEx. I couldn't really tell you which CD's got the GPL'ed code and which didn't; but because we tended to just reuse all the source to all the previous CD's on the next CD, the chance are pretty good that the graphics effects got rolled into an awful lot of programs even when it wasn't actually used.

They also did some consumer titles such as the 2Market Home Shopping catalog CD (with such catalogs as the sharper image with products on the CD) and the CD Version of Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus.

I was pretty angry about them using the GPL'ed code but I really wasn't in a position to do anything about it. It was during a pretty low time in my life and I just needed to keep working.

Medior is defunct now as an independent corporation, but it was purchased by a small networking outfit you may have heard of - America Online [aol.com] who renamed it AOL Productions. AOL inherited all the assets of the company, the source code, rights to everything, most of the engineers and executives. I left just before the buyout.

Eventually AOL Productions was shut down and sucked into AOL. But a lot of Medior people are still working for AOL, including former Medior President and Founder Barry Schuler [cnet.com] who is now AOL's President of Interactive Services.

You might drop him a line and ask for the source code for all the CD's that included the GPL'ed graphics effects libraries.

Regards,

Mike Crawford
GoingWare - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com [goingware.com]
[e-mail] [mailto] Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow

Re: Libertarians + the GPL [ot]

[Tuxedo Mask]

I hope my esteemed colleague the Honorable Coward did not intend to insinuate that the Libertarian Party itself necessarily opposes the use of the GPL. However, it is only fair to note that certain Opportunistic Persons will choose a party based upon a selfish desire for personal Gain, rather than on a true Agreement with the party's Principles and a deep Belief in what is right.

For this reason many welfare recipients may be Democrat, big businessmen tend to be Republican, and many who wish to disregard the Law as it stands claim to be Libertarian. These people, Self Centered as they are, also tend to be 'single issue' voters, and have no Loyalty to true party Philosophy. Thus little Sue Perkins next Door would eagerly support even Bush, if he promised to score her some Good Weed. Vinny down the street would be Gore's friend for life, if he but thought that would aid his Business of Unsolicited Knee Surgery. This of course does not mean that there are no good Libertarians, Republicans, or Democrats, but only that there are a few bad ones, and that the Correlation of their Particular Defects is well known.

I myself have a few Questions and Concerns regarding the Libertarian Platform. In Section 6, Article the Second, it is argued that grants of legal privilege make government "the source of monopoly." Copyright is a monopoly granted by the United States Congress, but of this the Article gives no specific mention. By that Silence, ought I to construe consent thereto? If this matter is elsewhere addressed, please be good enough to let me know, as the question bears Grave Import upon the Libertarian Opinion of Copyleft.

(And, for my own personal curiosity, I must wonder if the Libertarian Party in general favors a government overview of the Purity of Food and Drugs, or is it to be a private contractual matter between Producer and Consumer, whose ultimate arbiter is the Court?)

In any case, I am enboldened by Carmack's Proclaimation, and feel that those who have put their Trust in the Strength of the GPL will not soon be disappointed.

Re:I steal GPL code daily, is that wrong?

[stu_coates]

I also used to work for a company (Eurobase Systems Ltd. [eurobase.co.uk]) that used GPL'd code in their products without distributing any source or acknowledging the source.

They used some of the source from the GNU C compiler libraries (something like regex.c as I recall).

Not sure if they still do, but certainly up until August 1998 when I left they were doing so.

Re:I steal GPL code daily, is that wrong?

[WNight]

By this logic, any contract or license is assumed to be completely unenforceable until specifically upheld? The GPL is a pretty straight forward application of copyright law, it doesn't assume any other laws, or constitutional rights, or anything. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.

It might not be upheld completely by a court in the case where MS accidentally (by the act of one programmer) included some GPLed code, the court might allow them to make financial reperations and rewrite the code instead of open sourcing all of Windows... But that'd only be likely is MS could show (without doctored evidence, this time) that the programmer acted without company authorization.

Update: Carmack's latest .plan file

[Mr. Flibble]

Carmacks latest
.plan [planetquake.com] mentions an important point, Slades development was remotely wrecked. That is not what we need. We don't need vigilantie justice (as much as I admit I got a smile from some of the comments on Slashdot as to what was going on with his system.) This is NOT the way to promote the GPL.

Full text of Carmack's .plan follows:
------------------------------------------------ --

2/24/00
-------
Some people took it upon themselves to remotely wreck Slade's development system. That is no more defensible than breaking into Id and smashing something.

The idea isn't to punish anyone, it is to have them comply with the license and continue to contribute. QuakeLives has quite a few happy users, and it is in everyone's best interest to have development continue. It just has to be by the rules.
------------------------------------------------ --