NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

WolfeGames and projects headed by Argh.

Moderators: Moderators, Content Developer

Post Reply
User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Argh » 15 May 2008, 07:26

Here is the last major build of NanoBlobs, with revised License.

The License is now Public Domain. Period. No restrictions of any kind, use anything you want from the game. Ignore any remaining warnings about GPL in BOS files, etc., all files are now in the Public Domain, or the least-restrictive rights in your country of residence. No credit necessary.

I thought I'd already done that several months ago, but it appears I forgot to upload it. Oops. It's just a historical curiosity at this point anyhow, but meh, maybe somebody will raid it for effects code or whatnot.
Last edited by Argh on 15 May 2008, 07:30, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Peet » 15 May 2008, 07:29

respect++;
Nice to see that a mod very suitable for new people to work from no longer has the possibility of causing issues for them later on.
0 x

User avatar
clericvash
Posts: 1394
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 01:05

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by clericvash » 15 May 2008, 12:03

I think this should get a dedicated sticky thread with information on it, so new modders can find it easily.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by smoth » 15 May 2008, 15:42

it would be good if you removed the gpl stuff from it. Having the license in the files still makes them gpl. Since this thread is not stored with the content.
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Pxtl » 15 May 2008, 18:39

The mod forum now has something like 10 stickies. I don't think adding another one is going to help.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Argh » 15 May 2008, 19:20

I'll remove the GPL notices from crap with a grep parser later.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by smoth » 15 May 2008, 19:39

word, after you get that done, do you want me to add it to the moder resource thread?
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Argh » 16 May 2008, 19:47

All GPL notices in all the files have been removed (I think- if you find this isn't so, please let me know the specific files), and I fixed the Sheep's script to reflect the change in COB (needed 2-param in StartBuilding()).

Re-download from the above link for the "cleaned" version. And no, I certainly don't care what's done with it, linking, etc., is fine with me, I'm not exactly hurting on bandwidth.
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Saktoth » 18 May 2008, 05:34

Can you do this? I mean release it as PD after its been GPL'd? Legally and all?
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Argh » 18 May 2008, 06:03

Yeah, because I'm the sole copyright-holder. Who am I going to sue over violation of the GPL? Myself?
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20669
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by AF » 18 May 2008, 13:48

He can release it as public domain after going GPL only because PD is a less restrictive licence than GPL and it is compatible with GPL.

Do note that older versions of nanoblobz are still GPL'ed and Argh has no say in the matter just as anyone else who GPLs their work.
0 x

imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by imbaczek » 18 May 2008, 15:05

AF: that's not true. If you are the copyright owner, you can change the license anytime you want. You can't remove the GPL from already released code, but you can release it again under a different license.
0 x

User avatar
clericvash
Posts: 1394
Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 01:05

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by clericvash » 18 May 2008, 17:05

imbaczek wrote:AF: that's not true. If you are the copyright owner, you can change the license anytime you want. You can't remove the GPL from already released code, but you can release it again under a different license.
That is true, the person who makes it always has full right to his own code unless sold.
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20669
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by AF » 18 May 2008, 17:07

imbaczek wrote:AF: that's not true. If you are the copyright owner, you can change the license anytime you want. You can't remove the GPL from already released code, but you can release it again under a different license.
I would have thought that would be violating the GPL licence of the previous release?
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Argh » 18 May 2008, 17:14

Um, under the GPL, the copyright-holder would have to bring action against the violator, pretty much, for something like this.

Imbaczek is essentially right- once GPL'd you cannot take it back, and insist that all copies distro'd under GPL are now (C)- nor can I un-GPL the GPL'd copies, or in any other way restrict the rights of users who have done anything with them, so long as they adhered to the GPL in the first place.

But nothing stops me from re-releasing my work, under a different license. If it was somebody else, yeah, that'd be a problem. I'm the copyright-holder, though... so I can pretty much do what I want.
0 x

imbaczek
Posts: 3629
Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 16:19

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by imbaczek » 18 May 2008, 17:15

AF: No, otherwise there wouldn't be any dual-licensed libraries like Qt. Copyright holder doesn't have to abide to any license, since he's the owner of the original; only copies are subject to licenses.

argh beat me :>
0 x

User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by KDR_11k » 18 May 2008, 17:16

When you violate the GPL it disappears and falls back to regular copyright law. As the copyright holder Argh can relicense the code any way he pleases without needing another license to do so.

Of course that's silly anyway as licenses are between the copyright holder and other people, the holder doesn't get a license, he's issuing them.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: NanoBlobs 0.65- PD

Post by Argh » 18 May 2008, 17:45

Right. If somebody *else* declared NanoBlobs to be PD, it'd be a violation of my copyrights.

If I tried to take away the rights of people using its contents legally under the GPL, then I'd be breaking the terms of the GPL. The GPL goes both ways, according to my understanding- once put on a project, you can't take it away from people using it in accordance with the license. Since the number of projects doing so, so far as I know, is zero, this is a null issue anyhow.

SJ can't come back and say, "gee, letting you people have Spring's source was a mistake, I revoke the GPL status of the project", for example.

However, I'm not doing that. I'm merely re-licensing a new release, which is Ok, since I'm the copyright holder.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Argh's Projects”

cron