Breaking the GPL

[Baker]

I noticed something in another forum that there is actually a *recent* engine author that broke the GPL.

A developer named who was previous hosted at QuakeDev released a Quakeworld engine called Hyperdrive and at some point announced that it was becoming a closed source engine.

(This guy a couple years ago whined about DarkPlace using some trivial string function without credit and demanded an apology or something from LordHavoc).

The thread on the topic at QuakeDev where engine developer Tomaz noticed a lack of a link to the source:

http://www.quakedev.com/forums/index.php?topic=1245.0

Shadowalker posted he was worried about people "stealing his code" and not giving him credit.

[Canadian*Sniper]

yikes.

word of the wise, everyone uses everyone else's code nowadays. That's the power of google and connections.

[mithril]

It sounds like he just needs to be educated on the GPL. A lot of people who work on GPL code for the first time don't really understand what the GPL is all about. They want to get "credit" for their work which is sort of a natural human instinct, but don't realize that the GPL is there to ensure software doesn't actually have an "owner" so that the software can be of the best benefit to everyone.

Usually in these cases just sending the guy a diplomatic letter explaining what he's doing wrong is enough to fix it.

[Chuck]

We'll sick Carmack on his ass!

[Chuck]

John Carmack on a similar issue a few years back.

I see both sides of this. Your goals are positive, and I understand the issues and the difficulties that your project has to work under because of the GPL. I have also seen some GPL zealots acting petty and immature towards you very early on (while it is within everyone's rights to DEMAND code under the GPL, it isn't necessarily the best attitude to take), which probably colors some of your views on the subject.

We discussed several possible legal solutions to the issues.

This isn't one of them.

While I doubt your "give up your rights" click through would hold up in court, I am positive that you are required to give the source to anyone that asks for it that got a binary from someone else. This doesn't provide the obscurity needed for a gaming level of security.

I cut you a lot of slack because I honestly thought you intended to properly follow through with the requirements of the GPL, and you were just trying to get something fun out ASAP. It looks like I was wrong.

If you can't stand to work under the GPL, you should release the code to your last binary and give up your project. I would prefer that you continue your work, but abide by the GPL.

If necessary, I will pay whatever lawyer the Free Software Foundation reccomends to pursue this.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

It sounds like he just needs to be educated on the GPL. A lot of people who work on GPL code for the first time don't really understand what the GPL is all about. They want to get "credit" for their work which is sort of a natural human instinct, but don't realize that the GPL is there to ensure software doesn't actually have an "owner" so that the software can be of the best benefit to everyone.

Usually in these cases just sending the guy a diplomatic letter explaining what he's doing wrong is enough to fix it.

*cough* Trujen *cough*

[Chuck]

What was that called? Xquake or something? Proquake x? I forgot all about Trujen.

[Spirit]

haha, shadowalker is so damn stupid.

[Canadian*Sniper]

John Carmack on a similar issue a few years back.

What were the details on that case? Who and what?

[scar3crow]

Carmack was actually made aware of this matter along with a few others, he takes GPL violations seriously, especially self-righteous ones such as this when the engine modder is getting uptight about something thats still mostly Carmack's work.

But yeah, closing the source on your Quake engine mod is kind of like having a kid so you can rape it while it's still young.