Dalroth wrote:
>> ROFL no it IS a big deal
>>
>>
>> QUAKE IS NOT LICENCED AS FREE SOFTWARE, THAT MEANS
>> EVERYTHING COMING FROM THE QUAKE SOURCE CODE MUST
>> COME WITH THE SOURCE CODE WHEN RELESED
>>
>> thats all I want, is the QuakeLives source code
>>
>> Thank you very much
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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: 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. 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.
>
> 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).
>
>
> -- Key Excerpts --
> 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
> a
> nd 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim
> rights or contest your rights to work written
> entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise
> the right to control the distribution of derivative
> or collective works based on the Program.