On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 11:31, Dennis Schridde wrote: > Am Dienstag, 19. September 2006 22:29 schrieb Christian Ohm: > > (Just to mention it again, I am not a lawyer, so take the legal stuff > > with a grain of salt.) > > > > On Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > We know that the source code itself is GPL, but in the source code > > > files, I think I saw some (c)Pumpkin still there? The novideo.rpl > > > file itself also has a (c) as was pointed out, as do the rest of the > > > video files in the original(?) archive, and all the wav files > > > ..and..so on > > > > > > Doesn't releasing the whole thing under GPL mean everything in the > > > archive is GPL also? > > > > The README doesn't give any restrictions on the stuff contained in the > > source archive, so there is no indication that anything in there doesn't > > fall under the respective license (whatever that may be in the case of > > the data). It would have been more correct to actually remove any old > > copyright notices, but I guess they didn't have the time for that. > > (Parts of) GPL preamble and paragraphs 0 (zero? some legal special sense > paragraph?) and 1: > --- > [...] > We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and > (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, > distribute and/or modify the software. > [...] > > 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains > a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed > under the terms of this General Public License. > [...] > > 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's > source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you > conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate > copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty > [...] > --- > > I get this as: > - The "work" is copyrighted. (pre: "copyright the software") > - Copyright notices must stay. (1: "publish [...] [a] copyright notice") > - The copyright persist after applying the GPL. (0: "copyright holder")
Sorry, yes. Copyright still applies, I meant the copy restriction notices like "all rights reserved" and "for internal use only". > And I still can't understand those people who like to listen to what other > people are talking on IRC, but not wanting to participate in that talk and > rather want to read the logs of it in their own small, dark, secret room... It's a question of time. Reading (or skipping, over the most parts) the logs doesn't take much, but joining the discussion might take a lot more (and I'm already spending too much on that stupid licensing issue...) > > > If we convert to something that has a different license, like this > > > "Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial 2.5 license" Would > > > that work with GPL distros? Was thinking of playing around with > > > www.rakkarsoft.com's game network library it is cross platform. > > As it is not GPL anymore, RakNet is (sadly) out of the question. The > > CC license isn't GPL compatible, so if we use it, no Distribution > > can actually package Warzone. > And SDL_net(2) provides allready a good framework... > PS: To whoever will do the netcode rewrite: Please have a look at SDL_net2, I > think this could ease the process a lot. (Google for it and you will find a > my mail to this list about using it in Warzone to be the first search > result. ;) ) But it's quite more low-level than a networking library like RakNet. A good networking library hides the whole protocol stuff, and lets you just send packets. Read the RakNet introduction, it explains things quite well: http://www.rakkarsoft.com/raknet/manual/introduction.html Feature-wise, RakNet seemed ideal, but the recent license change makes it impossible to use it. Of course, the older versions are still GPL, but not available anymore on the RakNet website (anyone have a newer version than 2.42 from December 2005 lying around that's still GPL (gpl.tx included)? See the date of the readme.txt, and inside for the version number). OpenTNL could be good as well, but the mailing list isn't active, the last release was 2005-02-22. On the mailing list is a request for gcc 4 fixes without any reaction since over a year. The CVS is unavailable right now, so I can't check the activity there. But it doesn't look very promising. Alternatives? There's grapple http://opensource.linuxgamepublishing.com/grapple.php, but it's not crossplatform (yet?). Enet http://enet.cubik.org seems quite low-level (though one step above SDL_net(2)). Everything else I've found seems not suitable as well. I think we have two choices: Keep the code pretty low-level and deal with all problems ourselves, then enet seems the best choice. Or use RakNet and hope someone will continue developing the GPL version (the openanno http://openanno.sourceforge.net/ project included a version of RakNet, but it's adapted to their needs). Hm, we could set up a project for the GPL RakNet, just to keep it working, and hope this attracts developers (there were quite a few open source people unhappy about the license change). -- double-blind experiment, n: An experiment in which the chief researcher believes he is fooling both the subject and the lab assistant. Often accompanied by a strong belief in the tooth fairy. _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
