Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Employees have no copyright over code (Score 1) 237

Then you should already know that RAD offers license and royalty free source releases for the 3rd party game tools prior to 1999. Which is the only licensed 3rd party tool that was used by blizzard at the time for their development.

A source license does not allow the licensee to redistribute source code. If differs from a traditional binary license in that you get the source code so you can fix things or change things and redistribute your own binary. A source license is the only sane way to use a 3rd party library.

Comment Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)

That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not.

It is the same issue, because binaries are a kind of derivative of the source. The GPL treats them as a special case, but that doesn't matter, because the copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the GPL. The GPL acts to grant others a subset of the rights that the copyright holder already has.

When the copyright holder voluntarily uses the GPL that instance of their source code is absolutely bound by the GPL. That is why dual licensing is necessary for proprietary distribution, a non-GPL instance is required.

Comment Re:Employees have no copyright over code (Score 1) 237

Guess you don't know anybody who's worked for Blizzard huh?

That would be a very very bad guess.

That policy changed around the time WC3 was released and they started working on their first MMO.

No, I'm familiar with things going back to SC1/D1 days. Employees had work for hire contracts. Matter of fact anything game related they wrote belonged to Blizzard even when on their own time and computer; they had to explicitly have exceptions put into an addendum to their contract for personal projects they wanted to continue to support. Problems relicensing code are in 3rd party libraries like movie playback, not in Blizzard written code.

The only thing I miss about my friends working for them is it was great to be a part of the F&F Team.

Also known as "visiting hours" by employees, when friends and family got to visit during "crunch time" and play the game before public beta.

Comment Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute...

The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)

That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not. The proprietary version must be built from source code without the GPL.

Comment Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

No. A single code base can be shared under GPL and published in binary form under a different licence.

The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.

It can be built from the same code base. The GPL does not prevent this, where the code is owned by the person creating the non-GPL licenced version.

Yet it is an entirely separate work from the perspective of the GPL, not a derivative as the original post I responded to suggested. Plus the way things typically work i that the non-GPL version is the standard company version and the GPL version is a derivative of that.

Comment Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

There is no contradiction. The code exists in two instances one GPL and one not-GPL. The GPL version can never create proprietary binaries, it can never limit the person downstream. The post I replied to seriously misstated the GPL's working and mixed up things from dual licensing. It is only the non-GPL version that can create proprietary binaries. If its not-GPL, its not a derivative of the GPL. The GPL does not allow a derivative to remove the GPL. The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.

Comment GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute to their hearts content.

To create a proprietary version the original copyright holder has to dual license. Have two copies of their source code, one under GPL and one under something proprietary compatible. Only binaries built from the non-GPL version of the source code can remain proprietary.

Comment Employees have no copyright over code (Score 1) 237

No, it's because some of the people who worked for Blizzard and wrote the original Starcraft code aren't at Blizzard anymore but still have ownership of those snippits of code. Remember how the industry used to be? Where code sections you wrote would remain under your power, as a part of your employment at the company?

No. Never. The Starcraft developers were Blizzard employees. Blizzards Inc owns and controls all code. Employees got paychecks in the typical "work for hire" manner that transfers copyright to the company.

The source code is not being released because it is partly still in use. The game engine is the same code in the upcoming 4K display compatible release, which is network/gameplay compatible with this free version. Its only the graphics code that is changing.

Comment Re:There must be a mistake ... (Score 1) 312

Google is a company, not a person. They support whoever's in charge, although their employees may be quite liberal overall.

The leadership is quite liberal, and their leadership creates a quite liberal culture at the company. Establishing relationships with Republicans when they are in power does not change this nor contradict this.

Comment Its not just asking, its being willing to leave (Score 4, Informative) 312

You don't get raises if you don't ask, and the men seemed to be more headstrong about asking.

Its not just asking, its being willing to leave. I worked at a company part time as a software developer while in school working on a computer science degree. It was a great job, flexible hours to accommodate my class schedule, etc. When I graduated I brought up the topic of my salary, expecting at least the industry average of the region. Management said that would be too large a percentage increase and offered me something below the industry average. I pointed out that I have been with them for over two, am fully trained for their specialties, and have received very good reviews. My manager said his hands were tied, too big a percentage increase. I started a job search that night.

Six weeks later I was back in front of my manager submitting my resignation after accepting a new job elsewhere. He instantly offered to match my current job offer, which was a little above what I had originally asked of him. I asked what happened to the percentage increase problem. He said that in light of the new circumstances that could be waived. I told him I was sorry (I lied) but that I had already accepted the other offer and would not be breaking my word (the truth).

I was happy, liked the work, liked my coworkers, but I was young, aggressive and not going to take that sort of BS.

Comment Re:ATTN: Potential New Hires (Score 1) 312

I think you are confusing mean with median.

I think you are confusing the phrase "about half", especially in the context of what Google's N would be. P.S. The audience is not math/stat students.

There could well be a few very well paid people that skew the mean...

Except that the data being referred to is pay by position. Exceptionally talented people would have very different positions than what most applicants are applying for.

Comment Re:There must be a mistake ... (Score 4, Insightful) 312

I see, you think it is 'evil' what Google is doing.

No, I think it is hypocritical. Google supports the political left which indeed demands pay equality. But like many liberal elites, the rules are for others, not for them.

My post was also satire for those coming from the left who equate those giving away free stuff and offering superficial nice words as the good people. Those who judge other by intentions rather than by results, intentions which can easily be a mask.

Slashdot Top Deals

Yes, we will be going to OSI, Mars, and Pluto, but not necessarily in that order. -- Jeffrey Honig

Working...