Releasing Beta copies of games....

[RobertG]

Just because you get something for free doesnt mean you own it.

Yes, I know. I just don't like the idea of code having strings attached. In an ideal world if I wanted to know how to add frustum culling to my 3D engine I could google for some examples, find a suitable implementation and adapt it for use with my engine.

In reality I have to worry about crazy license issues, releasing code, etc.. If you're giving away a program and its sources for free then why should you be bothered by how someone uses it? I can understand you getting upset if you code something for free and someone puts their name on it and sells it. But why would anyone care if L33tH4x0r makes a closed source port of their NES emulator?

The slashdot crowd blabber on and on about microsofts software licensing, the RIAA, how code "WANTS TO BE FREE!" but get into a major strop if anyone dares violate their precious GPL. Code wants to be free guys

 

[CoderArt]

I agree with you totally RobG - the whole GPL is a bit shit really. I mean when is it gonna stop? I thought the whole Idea behind GPL was to stop code being sold for profit and to stop stoopid copyright shit happening?

 

[MojoJojo]

I am a PhD student, and at the moment their is a bit of hooplah about GPL code, because our funding requires the university to have "exploitation mechanisms" in place, and using any GPL code messes that up. The EPSRC (the funding body) are beginning to adapt so that using GPL code is possible, but the truth is the GPL can cause lots of problems.

In reality I have to worry about crazy license issues, releasing code, etc.. If you're giving away a program and its sources for free then why should you be bothered by how someone uses it? I can understand you getting upset if you code something for free and someone puts their name on it and sells it. But why would anyone care if L33tH4x0r makes a closed source port of their NES emulator?

I'm not really that big of a GPL monkey, but the viral nature of the GPL is essential. Basically, if L33tH4x0r makes a closed modification of it that has some amazing improvement in it, then everyone uses it and the original becomes obsolete and redundant. The original author who released their code under the GPL get absolutely nothing - not even recognition and kudos for doing a large part of the work. What is the point of releasing anything as Open Source, if someone can come along, take it, and make it closed.

Ehh, I'm not very good at writing convincing arguments, but there's loads of stuff on this if you're really interested. GPL is free as in speech, not free as in beer. One cost is that you have to donate your work to the Open SOurce community.

 

[skeezix]

Bzzt, wrong.

How about asking the many, many contributers to GPL projects how they feel about people stealing their work?

If you dont release the source, your a fucking asshole and i hate you.

I totally agree with you SwissHead - you are a total arsehole! those fucking emu authors should release everything that *you* want whenever *you* have one of your childish tantrums - it's written into GPL

Christ alive those emu guys do good works - we really don't need idiots like *you* mauling the scene with your rants, the scene is already in a terrible state !!

No, its the way it works.

If you use GPL code, you must release. If you don't want to release don't use the GPL code.. write it yourself. Its not like the GPL or the authors giving their code away for the public good are being jerks.. they're the good guys. The guys not releasing the code are the thieves and assholes and glory hounds.

The GPL explicitly details times when you needn't release; you dont' need to release an update every time you change a single character in the file for instance.. only when modules are completed or published, etc. You never need to publish your changes if the changes are never publicly distributed.

You can private beta all oyu want, derived from gPL code; when you make a public release you have a moral and ethical and legal requirement to release.

jeff

 

[Makenai]

What is the point of releasing anything as Open Source, if someone can come along, take it, and make it closed.

This thread is really starting to piss me off, I am sorry. You don't understand the GPL. This is exactly what the GPL is for! Once something is released under GPL it can't be made closed except for by the original author of the code - and only if there are no contributions by other authors AND if there are, their permission must be sought.

The point of this clause is that IF someone does make a "cool" modification, they have to release the source so that it does go back to the community. The original author can then incorporate the change back into his original source, or ignore it.. or someone else can make another fork etc. etc.

Ehh, I'm not very good at writing convincing arguments, but there's loads of stuff on this if you're really interested. GPL is free as in speech, not free  as in beer. One cost is that you have to donate your work to the Open SOurce community.

You think you should be able to take someone's hard work for free without giving anything back? Aren't you contradicting yourself above?

People, please read and understand the GPL before mouthing off about it, pretending like you know. Read the FAQ at least. It covers all of this. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

If you have a GPL dispute with an author, you can go to the Free Software Foundation which exists primarily to resolve these types of disputes. They work on donations and have lawyers that _will_ make sure the GPL is enforced. http://www.fsf.org/

Also, if you don't like the "viral" nature of the GPL, and don't want to release your source, then don't use GPL'd code and don't port GPL'd code to other systems as binaries only. I don't give a shit if it's the coolest port imaginable. I don't want it if you are stealing GPL code to make it possible. It's that simple.

 

[Makenai]

The guys not releasing the code are the thieves and assholes and glory hounds.

Skeezix, you're my hero man.

 

[MojoJojo]

Makenai - read through my post. I'm agreeing with you. I was trying to explain to RobertG why the GPL forces you to release any derived works under the GPL. You seem to have read my rhetorical question and got the wrong answer.

I may have caused some confusion by trying to get the point accross that complaining about the source not being released with the betas won't do much good, because they simply won't release the betas. I'm not saying they should have special rights, I'm trying to be realistic.

I'm all for the GPL, the first paragraph was just stating some of the difficulties there can be in using it. An academic institution would probably have no problem with releasing 95% of its code under the GPL, but can't due to the way funding is contracted, and therefore can't use any GPL code - even though most of the programs are released with source.

 

[CoderArt]

I think you wrong - open source is quite frankly the *worst* thing thats ever happend to this planet!!
Thing is people only seem to see the short term benefits - they never look at the long term stuff - which is starting to be quite devestating to the IT industry!

I personally think the quicker we shut down this open source lark - the better it's gonna be for all of us in the long run - 'nuff said

 

[kerb]

Now I am not following, exactly why do you mean that open source is the worst thing that has ever happened to this planet?
I do not see the reason to be so upset over a bit of idealism.

Personally, 98% of all my software is open source, and I couldn't be happier.

 

[skeezix]

I think you wrong - open source is quite frankly the *worst* thing thats ever happend to this planet!!
Thing is people only seem to see the short term benefits - they never look at the long term stuff - which is starting to be quite devestating to the IT industry!

I personally think the quicker we shut down this open source lark - the better it's gonna be for all of us in the long run - 'nuff said

I'm assuming this is a joke? A troll?

If not, well, you couldn't be more wrong.. its not even worth discussing

Or do you like paying megabucks for crappier software?

jeff

 

[CoderArt]

It's no troll
It's a shame that people don't use their brains when it comes to OpenSource- like I said people only seemed to view the "easy" short term benefits not the long term effects. - anyway I've said my piece!

 

[RobertG]

Basically, if L33tH4x0r makes a closed modification of it that has some amazing improvement in it, then everyone uses it and the original becomes obsolete and redundant. The original author who released their code under the GPL get absolutely nothing - not even recognition and kudos for doing a large part of the work. What is the point of releasing anything as Open Source, if someone can come along, take it, and make it closed.

If L33tH4x0r made a huge improvement that makes the original obselete then L33tH4x0r deserves the credit. If you're programming for "props" then you shouldn't really be programming.. It's not like coding is ever going to get you head or anything.


I can see where CoderArt is coming from.. For an example look at "Wreckless" on the XBox, it's 90% copy-paste NV sample code. You can put together a game, or any kind of application, by copying and pasting open source code and examples. In the long term that's not a good thing, anyone can copy and paste. The world wont need skilled coders when any Tom, Dick or Harry can do it.

 

[shah]

Guys calm down.. i start a thread and its war.....!

All i wanted to say was if Author X gets pissd off (And hence stops working on the EMU as well) when his beta is pre-released, then he should not release it...

simple..!

Thanks

 

[Meonlyeviler]

I agree, this is a war, lets choose captains. RobertG and Swiss_Cheeseman are my picks for captains.

 

[skeezix]

It's no troll
It's a shame that people don't use their brains when it comes to OpenSource- like I said people only seemed to view the "easy" short term benefits not the long term effects. - anyway I've said my piece!

IT is very much a troll -- you've not provided any evidence

*Why* do you think open source is bad in the long term?

Also consider the evidence *for* open source; say.. you drive a car I bet, and read books, and wtach TV. Those inventiosn exist because of open source -- you think we'd have houses if pythagorean theorem cost $1000/license? *g*

You ever use the Internet? Oh yeah, thats open source too... hell, even Microsofts OS uses code from the public to do its TCP/IP internet stuff.

Pah, you've obviously no idea so I don't need to read this thread anymore; it just burns my ass so I do (I'm a programmer who makes obht open source and closed source software for a living. You can't win this argument

jeff

 

[Axeman]

Coderart, is your real surname 'Gates' ?

 

[rcx21000]

I really don't see why open source is bad? It is like a hobby, and unless your hobby is murdering/terriorism and stuff, no one gets anything bad if you write the exact instructions to do what you are doing, then let ppls add improvements and some people get good things. And if you mean that soon all the software is going to be free, and there will be only a few companies making bad versions of free software, you should be/are on Micro$oft's futer predictions team, they probabbly want all the reasons in the world not to release source

 

[CoderArt]

I like to hear other peoples verdict on this - I'm not saying I'm correct - nobody can - unless you have a crystal bal l(so skezzie there is no argument to win - so please shut yer trap ). The reasons are many and varied and I just plainly think open source is a terrible idea.

what would you rather have - some free half baked junk (I've yet to find anything open source that I rate as quality work) or pay for some good quality software and help the IT economic flow? Yeah in the short term it's great to have "free" software - but I think it is starting to damage the whole IT industry in multiple ways.

And this anti microsoft thing people have is terrible - if microsoft didn't exist a huge amount of IT people would not have jobs - plain and simple.

 

[RobertG]

Those inventiosn exist because of open source -- you think we'd have houses if pythagorean theorem cost $1000/license?

Very good point. But if pythagorean theorem were a modern discovery/invention/whatever then would it not have some kind of license and terms of usage attached? If it could be patented then it would be!

I love the idea of free software, and open source software but hate "not quite free" software. I hate having to agree to a bunch of stupid things ("by installing this software you agree that <evil corp> can spy on your internet usage so that we can sell the info to advertisers so that they can do targetted spamming so that...") when I install software, and I hate that I have to agree to a bunch of things to use source code. Adding restrictions kind of defeats the purpose of something being "open".

 

[Strogge]

I like to hear other peoples verdict on this - I'm not saying I'm correct - nobody can - unless you have a crystal bal l(so skezzie there is no argument to win - so please shut yer trap ). The reasons are many and varied and I just plainly think open source is a terrible idea.

what would you rather have - some free half baked junk (I've yet to find anything open source that I rate as quality work) or pay for some good quality software and help the IT economic flow? Yeah in the short term it's great to have "free" software - but I think it is starting to damage the whole IT industry in multiple ways.

And this anti microsoft thing people have is terrible - if microsoft didn't exist a huge amount of IT people would not have jobs - plain and simple.

How many emulators would you think gp32 would have today if everything were close source?

Would Internet exist today if there werent any open source? And how would the "IT economic flow" look
today without internet? <_<

You have no idea what you are talking about...