Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Nexuiz re-make on the 360

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melcar View Post
    The more I read about the subject, the more I start to feel that it was a dick move by AT. Perfectly legal and nothing of what they did seems overly shady, but just messed up when it comes to the moral aspect concerning the community.
    Wait a moment, what is the moral aspect concerning the community? Why does the community feel that the an open-source developer owes them something? Not only has he/she given how many years of his life away for free, now the community demands for more?

    Something doesn't fit here, at least the way I see it.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,100

    Default

    Well, the "community" has been largely responsible for the project in recent years, and my understanding is that the top guys at AT haven't been that active with the project in comparison. The main beef everyone is having is that the decision wasn't made clear sooner and there was no real transparency. I'm sure if AT came out a while back with an announcement detailing their future plan the community as a whole wouldn't be as upset.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Wait a moment, what is the moral aspect concerning the community? Why does the community feel that the an open-source developer owes them something? Not only has he/she given how many years of his life away for free, now the community demands for more?

    Something doesn't fit here, at least the way I see it.
    Community, in this case, includes pretty much all developers (programmers, mappers) except for the original one, who afaik has not contributed for years.
    So morally I'd agree that the developer-community should have a say in what happens with Nexuiz, since they helped making it what it is now.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhick View Post
    Community, in this case, includes pretty much all developers (programmers, mappers) except for the original one, who afaik has not contributed for years.
    So morally I'd agree that the developer-community should have a say in what happens with Nexuiz, since they helped making it what it is now.
    Don't they still have access to the code and the assets? What's stopping them from having a say?

    Edit: I guess I don't see how this affects the community.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,100

    Default

    The original code and assets are still there. There is no "actual" problem in that the community can still pick up the game and keep working on it. The issue is more philosophical and sentimental at this point. The community as a whole feels betrayed from what AT did by not being more open about this whole thing. The issue is not technical or even legal, so yeah, you can pretty much tell the community to suck it up and deal with it. The brand "Nexuiz" is pretty much gone though; some people get attached to those things and it's not surprising when they get upset at things like what's happening.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    I'm still going to have to question its legality..... I dont see how game code that was written outside of darkplaces could be made closed. I can see how darkplaces could do it, but it seems to me ALOT of game code is still being closed that is -NOT- part of it.

    As far as I can tell there is in fact code that is being used that does qualify as a GPL violation. Of course Illfonics claims that all of the code they have has been legally re-licensed, but they've only been working on it for a few months now. I dont think there is any chance in hell that they could have a working demo right now without using GPLed code. ------ Heres the problem of course Illfonics will --NEVER-- show there code, and so we'll never know for certain if they did use GPL code or not.------

    And then there is the moral issues involved. We -ALL- know what is right and wrong, and good and bad.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    As far as I can tell there is in fact code that is being used that does qualify as a GPL violation.
    Meh. If a copyright holder is feeling that his license has been violated, he can contact the FSF for investigation.

    I dont think there is any chance in hell that they could have a working demo right now without using GPLed code.
    I can't see how the human eye could have evolved from proteins, so there must be a god. Double meh.

    Not understanding something doesn't mean it's not possible.

    And then there is the moral issues involved. We -ALL- know what is right and wrong, and good and bad.
    Of course. Wrong and bad is whatever an individual doesn't personally like. Right, good and moral is everything he does. Triple meh.

    Or do you really think that source code has its own morality? Closed-source bad, open-source good?

    As far as I can tell, this guy saw a business opportunity and is pursuing it. As long as he makes sure his effort is legal, I don't see anything wrong with this. If it's not... well, it's going to bite him in the ass (and he seems to be fully aware of that).

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Meh. If a copyright holder is feeling that his license has been violated, he can contact the FSF for investigation.

    I can't see how the human eye could have evolved from proteins, so there must be a god. Double meh.

    Not understanding something doesn't mean it's not possible.

    Of course. Wrong and bad is whatever an individual doesn't personally like. Right, good and moral is everything he does. Triple meh.

    Or do you really think that source code has its own morality? Closed-source bad, open-source good?

    As far as I can tell, this guy saw a business opportunity and is pursuing it. As long as he makes sure his effort is legal, I don't see anything wrong with this. If it's not... well, it's going to bite him in the ass (and he seems to be fully aware of that).
    Your personal beliefs aside, Your right that not understanding something doesnt mean that it isnt possible. However I am a firm believer in probabilities.The number of lines of code, the number of people working on this, and most importantly, the amount of time that has expired just dont add up. Not impossible, but definitely improbable.

    So once again we are stuck with the same problem. The only proof is if he shows the code and that isnt going to happen. And that is whats wrong with it. The only thing we have to go by is HIS word and the people HE paid off. I'm sorry, but I just dont trust it. I think this is just another example from thousands of others where open source code is being used illegally in a closed project without any burden of proof on the jackasses that are stealing this code except of course for their "word"

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    I'm still going to have to question its legality..... I dont see how game code that was written outside of darkplaces could be made closed. I can see how darkplaces could do it, but it seems to me ALOT of game code is still being closed that is -NOT- part of it.

    As far as I can tell there is in fact code that is being used that does qualify as a GPL violation. Of course Illfonics claims that all of the code they have has been legally re-licensed, but they've only been working on it for a few months now. I dont think there is any chance in hell that they could have a working demo right now without using GPLed code. ------ Heres the problem of course Illfonics will --NEVER-- show there code, and so we'll never know for certain if they did use GPL code or not.------

    And then there is the moral issues involved. We -ALL- know what is right and wrong, and good and bad.

    Exactly. The quake 1 engine, which is what DarkPlaces is based on, is GPL 2.0 code. id software does not provide commercial license agreements with the quake 1 engine anymore. You have to use the GPL codebase. DarkPlaces is based on GPL code, therefore is it GPL, and bits of it cannot be happily integrated into a closed engine and become propietary. Yes, the GPL is viral. That's why the big commercial industry hates it so much. Im thinking, yes, the software freedom center should know about this. This is Tivo all over again.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    12

    Default

    I want to clarify that yes, relicensing of my engine is exactly what happened, and id Software may not promote the Quake1 engine license offer anymore but contacting their parent company Zenimax has the desired results, it is my belief that all the companies involved are happy with this deal.

    The name and concept are licensed from Alientrap, not transferred.

    The game was demoed at GDC on 8 Sony Playstation 3 development consoles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •