Spring RTS Engine

I wanna see you enforcing your license on the internets haahahhaahha

On the game-designer side... I have come to the conclusion that the best way to facilitate this is to not provide any more technological life-support for the OTA mods.

...

CA's team can and will probably support them forever. I don't expect any of the following arguments to move them, although I'm about to do my best to convince them that they should take a serious look at their policies.

...

A. Everybody who is not using OTA content may use my Lua work from P.U.R.E.

...

I'm not doing this in some weird attempt to make you like me or whatever.

Am i the only one seeing BA typed out in the place of ota there D:

Regret wrote:I wanna see you enforcing your license on the internets haahahhaahha

Thats not so hard today.. and service providers can be easilly pressed to remove offending content even without trials. Nobody wants problems.

Licho wrote:Thats not so hard today.. and service providers can be easilly pressed to remove offending content even without trials. Nobody wants problems.

Oh yes I forgot piracy is extinct and not growing.

Low level end user piracy is obviously something else.

Try to release game with stolen content though, is completely different cause :)
Do a google search for "Limbo of the Lost" to find most recent case..
http://games.tiscali.cz/news/news.asp?id=27937&r=top

det wrote:Does Microsoft Windows become GPL if it is found to include code from the Linux kernel? No, of course not. It would be liable for damages and have to remove the code.

bad example

you know the WRT54G (linksys)?

In June 2003 some folks on the Linux Kernel Mailing List sniffed around the WRT54G and found that its firmware was based on Linux components. Because Linux is released under the GNU General Public License, or GPL, the terms of the license obliged Linksys to make available the source code to the WRT54G firmware. As most router firmware is proprietary code, vendors have no such obligation. It remains unclear whether Linksys was aware of the WRT54G├óÔé¼Ôäós Linux lineage, and its associated source requirements, at the time they released the router. But ultimately, under outside pressure to deliver on their legal obligation under the GPL, Linksys open sourced the WRT54G firmware in July 2003.

So Microsoft would have to open their source, the only questions is how much of it.
Then they only could remove the GPL stuff and rerelease a GPL-free version, BUT their old version would still be under GPL and needs to be opened.

Now we have a total different case: we illegally mix GPL work with OTA IP.
OTA IP
First OTA IP does not contain a line like: if you use this work in your project, then you have to make your work free available (PD). (GPL contains a similar line!)
GPL
Also only because some1 use GPL code in their non-GPL-compatible projects, the GPL code doesn't lose its license! This way the linux kernel would be PD only because some ass abused it ...


So instead both parties, the ppl who publish their work under the GPL and the creator of the non-GPL-compatible work, can sue you. But they cannot force you to relicense the work of others, nor will it lose its license. Only the GPL can force you to release your own work under the GPL because it is part of their license! (our work is already under GPL!)

Afaik there were already multiple of such cases, when a company illegally used GPL code, but also used code by others, who never agreed with that (->don't want to release their work under the GPL).
Then only the company who mixed it, has to make their code public, but not the thirdparty company (instead both the GPL side and the thirdparty company can get a compensation)!

I can respect your position and as you singled me out as a singular entity I cannot reply to the post. I do not agree with your position but I will respect it.

The GPL has a provision that you can remove GPLed code that ended in your product accidentally instead of GPLing the product or being liable for copyright infringement AFAIK. Linksys just decided that releasing it was the way to go.

All this is irrelevant.

CA is in violation of GPL because it contains TA content. CA is illegal because it contains original TA content. HOWEVER, this is known and CA content developers are working to remove this TA content, so eventually CA will be legal and original.

Until the last TA content is replaced in the CA svn I don't think its productive to talk about widget <-> widget interactions with licences. And the CA people can just issue a blanket statement saying all their content falls under an umbrella licence unless specified.

People really need to be more concise.

AF wrote:
People really need to be more concise.

The kettle...

Now that's concise!

Saktoth wrote:

Personally I wish that we didn't have to deal with them but thats another story.

The feeling is mutual forb Oh wait, didnt Evo start as FunTA?

Are you stupid?

LOL

no...

I did however use the backend as a basis for my explosions/weapons etc so that I wouldn't have to do a lot of grunt work all over again (which is why botabooms.tdf is still in the explosions, because those are the building and unit explosion cegs).

Seriously. That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever asked me.


Fun;TA was an entirely different Lulz project (lot of fun too for that matter).

No need to insult anyone...

This is the first giant, bloglike post I've made in ages. Probably the last one, too

I doubt it...

re; tis thread

body: needs more lawyers and less self-righteous hypothesizing

You were an OTA mod developer yourself Forb, so STFU and stop being a belligerent arsehole.

Somehow I feel that, depending on which direction the discussion will go, it has the potential to bring Spring into a completely new era, or kill OTA and Spring altogether.
Of course I hope for the former (who wouldn't?).
No, I am not, and will not comment on anything related to the topic because I have been away from this community for a while, and am not aware of recent developments. I am dropping by so that when a few weeks later I come back to this website there wouldn't be nothing but large, flashing words in the middle that says "THE SPRING PROJECT IS OFFICIALLY DEAD. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW, ARGH?"
Note: I am not blaming Argh. Even if this thread really killed Spring I wouldn't think it's entirely his fault. I'm just showing the worst outcome I can imagine.

Protip: argh does not speak for the world.

While his opinions are just that and while I agree that using the TA content is illegal. Legal and illegal are only relevant to the likelihood of enforcement. I don't think anyone cares that the TA mods exist. IF they died they would not take spring with them.

We have had these conversations many times and while argh in the past has been the spearhead of some rather distasteful copyright crusades I do not think this was his intent here. I think it is best to understand that in this thread argh is stating his intentions to the fact that:

He has work he has done.

He does not feel comfortable seeing his work(lua or otherwise) in one of the TA content containing mods because they are technically illegal.

Argh is not going to start some anti-ta campaign, if anything pure is his attempt to replace ta with something else. He has the right to say how his work is used. There is nothing wrong with, so calm down chicken little your ta is safe.

Everyone here knows argh and I have our differences but that doesn't mean I cannot see his intentions are innocent. IF I can YOU can, so calm down.

smoth wrote:Protip: argh does not speak for the world.

While his opinions are just that and while I agree that using the TA content is illegal. Legal and illegal are only relevant to the likelihood of enforcement. I don't think anyone cares that the TA mods exist. IF they died they would not take spring with them.

We have had these conversations many times and while argh in the past has been the spearhead of some rather distasteful copyright crusades I do not think this was his intent here. I think it is best to understand that in this thread argh is stating his intentions to the fact that:

He has work he has done.

He does not feel comfortable seeing his work(lua or otherwise) in one of the TA content containing mods because they are technically illegal.

Argh is not going to start some anti-ta campaign, if anything pure is his attempt to replace ta with something else. He has the right to say how his work is used. There is nothing wrong with, so calm down chicken little your ta is safe.

Everyone here knows argh and I have our differences but that doesn't mean I cannot see his intentions are innocent. IF I can YOU can, so calm down.

^^ My thoughts exactly.

@saktoth

I wasn't being belligerent in my original post. I was belligerent when you tried to make the suggestion that Evolution was a direct decendant of Fun:TA which is simply not true.

When I started Evolution, I took funta, deleted all the Copyrighted stuff and only kept stuff that I had been working on (Ceg's, and some weapons tdfs so that I could use them as a reference), which left me with basically nothing. Evolution was started quite literally from the ground up.

The tone in your post was nothing short of smug and insulting.

Also, something to keep very clear:
Gundam is a Game
Expand and Exterminate is a Game
SW:IW is a Game
1944 is a Game
PURE is a Game
Evolution RTS is a Game

BA and CA are Mods.

SW:IW is just a game, while the others are Games?

I'm surprised that people keep posting in these threads. If there point is not to listen to argh then why are they legitimizing and lending credence to his points by posting in the thread and raising awareness of his arguments?