Notes have been added in square brackets where necessary so you can follow the discussion more easily.

No claim is made that I'm unbiased. The bracketted portions may or may not accurately reflect the intent of what they reference. They only serve as a pointer.

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> ]

Kevin writes:

I'm very sadly disappointed by what I find the Quake Lives project has become. :(

To start with, I have written an essay on why I believe that your Quake Lives 2.51 release violates the GPL. If you have time, please read it, you can find it at http://www.zip.com.au/~kev/qw/

I find that the argument Dalroth makes at

http://www.gamersx.com/messages/view.asp?id=ubuzn

is flawed, and the post by Joseph Carter at

http://www.gamersx.com/messages/view.asp?id=twcrr

is much better.

Further, as Joseph Carter brings up, I'm disappointed that you are calling your project "QuakeWorld 2.51", because this is a trademark infringement on iD, but moreso because this is a "subversive" tactic to try to gain market share (IMHO). As you'll recall, I'm from the QW Forever project.

Anyway, I'd appreciate hearing what you have to say on these matters.

Slade responds:

2.51 was simply a release(2 days long) to test the waters.. see what would happen and such. furthermore we were completely GPL compliant.. anyone who asked me for the source during those 2 days got it a few days after the release, as required by the GPL. My main looks were to see who was out their going to whine about the GPL.. and who was going to attempt to break it..

I was sadly disapointed with the results... People who have no right to complain about the GPL license breaks(anyone other then ID software) were more intrested in that then playing a good game the way it should be played... and others thinking that it would be fun to spoil everyones fun again... shrug..

However.. real security in the next release along with completely GPL compliance even more bluntness then the first one, will be released soon.

Kev:

[ > 2.51 was a 2 day test release ]

I don't care. Just because it's temporary doesn't mean you can make up the rules as you go. If it was a test release for beta testing or something, perhaps you should have made it a closed beta instead of posting it on the website.

[ > anyone who asked for source in those 2 days got it ]

Did I ask during those 2 days? Or did I come late? If I had have asked during the 2 days, would you really have given me the source to your closed-source section? I could have then taken that source and used it in a hacked (cheated) version of QW...

[ > I wanted to see who'd whine about the GPL ]

You certainly found out, didn't you.

And I resent the term "whine".

[ > ..and who'd try to crack it ]

Which, from what I hear (which may be tainted), did happen.

[ > I was disappointed in the results ]

What a load of shit. Who are you to tell me what I have a right to complain about? I can complain about whatever I want, in any way that is not slanderous.

As a user of software, I care about my rights. As such, I care about the GPL, and when I see it being broken, I will stand up for it, whether I have any legal recourse or not.

And for people who kept hiding behind this "Well iD are the only ones that count, and they're not concerned", you sure seem to respect the GPL now.

[ > We're interested in playing the game the way it should be played ]

Yeah see that's the thing Slade. You told me how you run Linux boxes and stuff, but to me it just seems that you don't get free software. That part of qwlives was closed was fine for you, as long as you can play the game. However, there are some of us who won't pay that price. You shouldn't be surprised that the free software movement cares about the freeness of software.

[ > everyone else wants to spoil our fun ]

Bollocks. You broke the GPL - that's spoiling my fun. And do you think I kicked up a shit for the fun of it? Hardly - a little thing called principles, ones I believe in.

[ > GPL compliance and real security in the next version... ]

Look, I hate to disappoint you, but the first release really did break the GPL. That crap about qwlives not being part of the GPL qw that id released is just plain wrong. It's all on my webpage.

[ > ...which will be released soon ]

Good. I always said that if it was truly a proxy, not just some mod to qw, then it would be okay in terms of the GPL. As long as all the required interface definition files (ie. .h files) are included, that's fine.

I hope your proxy communications channels aren't cracked, and that you truly are GPL.

Incidentally, the QWF project (http://qwf.challenge-world.com) is close to having a fully GPL (ie. no closed source addons) solution to the security problem. I should know - I coded it myself. The beta will be released shortly, once the source is cleaned up and stuff. It's only a beta because I'm not trying hard enough at the moment to hide the key in the binary. But we're confidant.

Slade:

[ > You can't make/break the rules as you go ]

rules werent broken.

[ > Did I ask in those 2 days or was I too late? ]

sure you could have. I gave out the complete source to people. and yes you were to late. and you could have hacked it and such. 2 days was the amount of time i had figured was the amount of time it would take for people to break it.

[ > I resent the term "whine" ]

Then I suggest you not do it, which you did, look in a dictionary if you dont believe me. [ Ed: Yes that's actually what he said, no misquote ]

[ > I heard it (QL) was broken ]

Yes it was broken when I released the source :)

[ > I care about my rights and the GPL.. ]

You have no 'rights' concerning this code, iD does, this is the fundamental rule of copyrights, the GPL can not change this right, and in fact says this right, it says if you have any problems you need to contact iD.. not me.

[ > You seem to respect the GPL now ]

I've always had respect for the GPL, I code for the Linux kernel, it would be rather silly for me not to have any.

[ > You broke the GPL ]

Never broke it. Please prove your accusations before you make them to me.

Kev:

[ > rules werent broken ]

I disagree. See below.

[ > I gave out source, you were too late to get it ]

The GPL does not stipulate that you can make a program free for just 2 days. And you can't change the license from GPL to whatever after the 2 days, because you don't own copyright. The only thing you would own copyright on is your security module, but making that licensed by anything other than the GPL violates the GPL, because the security model was distributed as a part of the GPLed QW.

[ > Then don't whine ]

I could arguably say now that you are whining about me and people like me.

Get off my case. I can say what I like, you can't stop me from doing that.

[ > You have no 'rights' to the code ]

I have no legal right to sue you over the breach of license. I have every right to whine my head off. I have every right to complain to you as well as iD. Perhaps freedom is a better word than right for what I mean here.

[ > I have always had respect for the GPL ]

You have respect for the GPL? Then please show me exactly where in the GPL it allows one to publish a whole without complete sources? Don't quote section 2, it doesn't work in your case. Also see below re: my essay.

You may respect the GPL, but I dare say you're not part of the free software movement, who wouldn't tolerate a closed source solution.

[ > > It seems you (Slade) don't understand free software ]

Further to this - I care about Quake the game, and I care about free software. I'm working on a solution which satisfies both, in my opinion, neither compromising the other. You can see why I'm skeptical of your belief in the GPL.

[ > We never broke the GPL ]

I emailed you some time ago regarding an essay I wrote which details all my reasons. Perhaps the mail wasn't delivered. The essay is at http://www.zip.com.au/~kev/qw/ , please read it and if you still disagree, tell me where you think my argument is flawed.

In a nutshell, there are two distinct breaches. First is that the GPL clearly states that since you are distributing the whole program in binary form, that is, the GPL bits and your security bits, you must release the source for the security bits. It says that the argument that the security bits are not part of QW is not true, because the security parts are being distributed as part of the GPLed whole.

The second is that you didn't release the header files for your security section, which is in direct violation of section 3, just below the end of part (c). Even if you were allowed to keep the .c files closed, you cannot keep the .h files closed. The reason for this is so that a free reimplementation of your .c files may be developed, which can then be used with your .h files to compile the program.

Please read my essay, it says these things better than I have just now.

Slade:

[ > I disagree, see below ]

I dont care if you disagree. You're an idiot for persuring this. First you have no foothold since the only one who can say anything is iD software and second you dont know what we've negotiated with iD. I have no point or desire to 'see below' or anything of the sort.

Kev:

[ > I don't care, you're an idiot ]

Gee, thanks. People with beliefs are now idiots, are they?

I thought you realised this ceased being about your specific GPL violation (in terms of having it corrected) a long time ago. I happen to believe strongly in the GPL, and so when I see someone who I think is flaunting it, I will continue to persue it, however idiotic that makes me.

[ > You have no foothold ]

I've already told you that this doesn't stop me from talking. Is "advocacy" in your vocabulary?

If I think your product is shit, I can say so, as publicly as I like. The only thing stopping me would be defamation laws, but that's only where reputations are damaged, and I haven't personally attacked you or your reputation.

I think it's completely pathetic how you won't come out in the open and argue the issue, rather, you'll sit like a coward behind your "iD is all that matters, noone else matters" reason. Not once have I heard a single argument from you as to how or why the arguments presented in my essay may be flawed. Not once.

[ > You don't know what we've negotiated with Id ]

True, I don't, but quite frankly, I think that's bullshit. We're very, very late in the argument here, and this is the first I've heard of you having an agreement with iD. If you have an agreement with iD, say so, make it public, let it out, and then we'll see. Until such an announcement or notification I will continue my reasonable assumption that you have no agreement with iD and are not affiliated with them.

[ > I have no desire to 'see below' ]

Suit yourself. It just confirms what I'd feared. I'm sorry you won't even admit the possibility that you're wrong, being that proud must be terrible.

And before you flame that, don't worry, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, if so proven. In fact, on my first visit to #console after I heard about the GPL stuff, I was almost wholly convinced that you hadn't broken the GPL. Subsequently, I went back to the text of the GPL and came to the position that I hold now.

I just wish you would read my stuff. You're such a hypocrite - you say to me "I haven't broken the GPL, prove to me how I have." and then you won't even listen when I try to tell you.

I can't believe you're the same reasonable person I chatted to in IRC two weeks ago. I'm very, very disappointed.

Slade:

This is the end of this conversation. It is pointless.

[ entire message text quoted below, sig and all ]