Dalroth wrote:
> There is nothing in the GPL that stops Open Source
> software from linking to or working with closed
> source software. The GPL guarantees that
> "derivative" works remain open source.

Even if you are correct (Richard Stallman says you are not) QuakeLives is STILL violating the spirit of the GPL. (Not to mention abusing Id Software, Inc's registered trademark QuakeWorld(R))



> If somebody comes along and uses the Quake Audio
> Routines in their program, then the GPL insists that
> this program must be open source, because it has
> then become a "derivative" work.

Correct.


> That is different than somebody modifying Quake to
> use a closed source library. For instance, somebody
> develops a library that is used to verify the
> authenticity of files (they don't even have to be
> executables or quake specific files). They would
> then modify the quake source to link to this library
> and use it to verify that the clients are who they
> say they are. Because this library is *NOT* a
> derivative product, it does not have to be open
> sourced (unless of course it was built using some
> portions of the quake source code, but obviously
> that's not their intent so they wouldn't do that).

Not correct---but not totally incorrect either. Such a utility could be written legally certainly. And quake could use it using a socket or pipe interface (a socket may be more appropriate for a proxy), but that is not the case here.

What is the case is that in order to even compile the source code I must have something which is not available to me. Not in source form as mandated by the GPL or even in object form to link against.

The proxy is not external and is not a seperate entity. It is an object file just like any other in the source tree which has been ommitted because it's not convenient to release source code to the proxy (probably because if there were source to the proxy one could easily fake the proxy's replies--which indicates the proxy is poorly designed and doesn't use a decent protection layer, but that's not a legal issue.


> Now, I believe the goal of the Quake Lives project
> is to do just that. Because the code would be
> seperate, and not based off of the Quake code, they
> can do anything they want with it. However, they
> are obligated to release the Quake code that CALLS
> this library, which I'm sure they will do, in strict
> accordance with the GPL.

I'm sorry, the GPL does not work that way. Else we would not have had the whole KDE mess. As you may or may not recall, neither Red Hat nor Debian would distribute GPL'd KDE linked (in all of our eyes lilegally) with GPL incompatible Qt. Red Hat decided that Troll Tech's and KDE's promises to resolve the license issue in KDE 2.0 (which they have done) was reason enough to begin shipping KDE 1.x, Debian has yet to include KDE because 2.0 is not ready for shipping yet.


> Now, if you're going to be a close minded idiot, and
> not read the actual license and try to fully
> understand it, let me use another example:

It would help if YOU understood the license.


> People
> are currently porting Quake to use DirectX. DirectX
> is an external library used for rendering the
> graphics to the screen. DirectX is a Microsoft
> technology, and it is *NOT* open source, and it does
> not have to become open source if somebody ports
> Quake to use it.

It's also part of the Windows operating system's major libraries in Win98 and in OEM versions of Win95. There is a specific exception in the GPL for such things put there to allow GNU software to be used on non-free platforms. (see the paragraph immediately following section 3(c) of the GNU GPL, version 2)


> That's perfectly legal, and in
> fact it's a necessary part of the GPL. Much code
> that exists out there is not open source, and while
> it's nice to have all code be open source, it would
> be a terrible thing to cripple programmers from
> using much of the code that existed beforehand.

This proxy is not a major system component or system library.

> Now, before you go running your mouth off half
> cocked about this Quake lives project, and how you
> are so high and mighty and how they have to release
> the code... maybe you should spend some time fully
> understanding the issues involved. You might not
> sound like such a moron, and might gain an ounce of
> credibility (which you currently don't have).

Maybe you should flame less and listen more?


> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program
> or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on
> the Program, and copy and distribute such
> modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
> above, provided that you also meet all of these
> conditions:
>
> a) You must cause the modified files to carry
> prominent notices stating that you changed the files
> and the date of any change.
>
>
> 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.
>

QuakeLives' "QuakeWorld" (this is a trademark infringement, Id Software owns the name QuakeWorld and none of us can use it as the name of our derivatives. And none of us working on derivatives have even tried. QuakeLives has some nerve infringing both Id's Copyright and trademark within three weeks of the source release IMO, but I will leave it to John or someone else at Id (I'm sure Id has lawyers and they don't need his permission to do what they get paid for...)) has not been fully released under the GPL. If it were I would be looking at proxy source with GPL notices and the QuakeLives' peoples' Copyrights on them (since that portion of the source is not Copyright by Id Software, Inc after all..)


> c) If the modified program normally reads commands
> interactively when run, you must cause it, when
> started running for such interactive use in the most
> ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
> including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying
> that you provide a warranty) and that users may
> redistribute the program under these conditions, and
> telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
> (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
> does not normally print such an announcement, your
> work based on the Program is not required to print
> an announcement.)
>
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a
> whole. If identifiable sections of that work are
> not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably
> considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do
> not apply to those sections when you
> distribute them as separate works. But when you
> distribute the same sections as part of a whole
> which is a work based on the Program, the
> distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
> this License, whose permissions for other licensees
> extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and
> every part regardless of who wrote it.

Show me how this proxy can be considered an identifyable and INDEPENDANT part of the QuakeLives tree.



If QuakeLives wants a binary-only proxy, that's fine I just won't use it. HOWEVER they better play by the rules if they plan on doing that. So far, I've seen no intent by any of them to do so.