If you want to protect the method you used the only way is a software patent. Copyright can only control the exact implementation, if he saw the way your script worked and implemented it himself without copying any text from you he's not creating a derivative work for the purposes of copyright law as algorithms are not copyrightable*, only the code that performs them.
*= Supposedly they aren't patentable either but there was a money-induced oversight in the US law that the US is now trying to fester on other nations.
GPL DISCUSSION
Moderator: Moderators
I've never told you to stop sharing or to delete Nanblobs. And no one has. To the contrary, we're unhappy that your enforcing of that GPL clause has prevented and will prevent people from using them.
If your script were like your pretend really yours, and if you weren't trying to infect* the very base files and official Spring release, I would have no problem you using any license, even restrictive ones.
* "infect" does not refer to the quality of your work, but to how the GPL license is viral. Contrary to what you say on forums, but according to the license you include in your files, any mods that is based or links to contents of a GPL mod is forced to be GPL.
And no, changing your license for another license won't help, when you aren't the author in the first place.
Oh, and please, don't pretend like the only thing left to change would require modifying Spring, when you couldn't even be arsed to change Cavedog comments of your so called "STANDARD_COMMANDS_GPL.h".
Also, please drop the stance of pretending you revolutionned animation when all you have are barely edited Cavedog scripts. I can read scripts, you know, and I see what you did there. I acknowldege that you were the first to use custom SFX, that it took lots of work to create Nanoblobs, that it was the first mod made for Spring, the first mod to use Spring-only method such as UV-mapped s3o instead of 3do, custom explosion generator, 'play-sound', maybe also the new weapon tags, but on the scripting side, this is nothing but the same Cavedog soup that third party unit maker used for 10 years. For comparaison, on TAU, people like Boogie, TheRegisteredOne, or Zodius, do are making breakthrough. With stuff like units gaining a scrambler of enemy weapons with veterancy, controlled multiplayer desynching so different player see different things, or walkscript where the feet stay locked into the same position when grounded even if the unit turn.
Ah nevermind I see what you mean now, that smoth wanted to keep ownerships over his model and scripts, and released the effect under CC separatly. Hmm, not that different from you using different license for nanoblobs models and nanoblobs scripts. Save that scripts and models need each other, unlike effects which can be used for any weapons regardless of the unit model and script, and save that it's the effects, not the unit models, that other people want to reuse for their mod most.
I'm very shocked by how, when faced by uncontestable proof you violated the copyright you pretend to be the champion of, instead of admitting being caught red handed, you throw a tantrum about leaving forever and what a great loss you'll be.
I try to confront you with rational, technical points, and instead of facing them you appeal to the lambda forumer emotionnal support. It is not acceptable that you attempt to play with our sentiments in order to hide your shady practice.
If your script were like your pretend really yours, and if you weren't trying to infect* the very base files and official Spring release, I would have no problem you using any license, even restrictive ones.
* "infect" does not refer to the quality of your work, but to how the GPL license is viral. Contrary to what you say on forums, but according to the license you include in your files, any mods that is based or links to contents of a GPL mod is forced to be GPL.
And no, changing your license for another license won't help, when you aren't the author in the first place.
Replace yourself by Cavedog and Joe by Argh and you've got a pretty good idea why I don't like you pretending those scripts are all new and using restrictive license on your scripts.Argh wrote:Joe makes his game, and he wants to sell it to the public. The GPL allows him to sell Spring, that's not a problem. But what about the scripts that Joe has written, which are heavily based on my work? Obviously, they are probably somewhat different- they may even be much, much cooler than my originals. That's irrelevant, though- what's relevant is that the core script wasn't really Joe's idea- it was mine.
Funny, because, that is the exact reason why I started this fuss. You are the Joe that slightly edited Cavedog scripts and then denied the use of that work and derative works based on that work.In short, I want everybody to feel free to use my work. I just don't want people then denying the use of that work, and derivative works based on that work, to everybody else, later down the road. Because while Joe may have, in some important ways, improved upon my work, it's still not his original idea, and original ideas are not exactly common things.
Or maybe, you could give your source some credits, no? No one is going to sue you if you finally admit your files are based on Cavedog. About everybody agreed that headers are no copyrightable anyway.And, very last issue... what, exactly, am I to do about the header? At what point would it be considered "original enough" that I am no longer being accused of just copy n' paste? Do I have to rename everything, and put it into an arbitrary order, and rewrite every sentence? Or am I going to have to modify Spring to use a different header structure, before this is a non-issue for everybody? Because whatever happens next, people, I am not going through this again.
Oh, and please, don't pretend like the only thing left to change would require modifying Spring, when you couldn't even be arsed to change Cavedog comments of your so called "STANDARD_COMMANDS_GPL.h".
Also, please drop the stance of pretending you revolutionned animation when all you have are barely edited Cavedog scripts. I can read scripts, you know, and I see what you did there. I acknowldege that you were the first to use custom SFX, that it took lots of work to create Nanoblobs, that it was the first mod made for Spring, the first mod to use Spring-only method such as UV-mapped s3o instead of 3do, custom explosion generator, 'play-sound', maybe also the new weapon tags, but on the scripting side, this is nothing but the same Cavedog soup that third party unit maker used for 10 years. For comparaison, on TAU, people like Boogie, TheRegisteredOne, or Zodius, do are making breakthrough. With stuff like units gaining a scrambler of enemy weapons with veterancy, controlled multiplayer desynching so different player see different things, or walkscript where the feet stay locked into the same position when grounded even if the unit turn.
What are you talking about? Last time I looked into Gundam, all the source bos were here, all nicely laid out and commented. As for the effects, well, what's that file if not Smoth offering his effects for everybody to use freely?Look at all the hand-wringing Smoth went through, with the FX stuff in Gundam? Like me, he wanted to share some of his amazing work. Unlike me, he was unwilling to give away the entire game design. It took him awhile to work out how to do so. But you still can't use his scripts...
Ah nevermind I see what you mean now, that smoth wanted to keep ownerships over his model and scripts, and released the effect under CC separatly. Hmm, not that different from you using different license for nanoblobs models and nanoblobs scripts. Save that scripts and models need each other, unlike effects which can be used for any weapons regardless of the unit model and script, and save that it's the effects, not the unit models, that other people want to reuse for their mod most.
I'm very shocked by how, when faced by uncontestable proof you violated the copyright you pretend to be the champion of, instead of admitting being caught red handed, you throw a tantrum about leaving forever and what a great loss you'll be.
I try to confront you with rational, technical points, and instead of facing them you appeal to the lambda forumer emotionnal support. It is not acceptable that you attempt to play with our sentiments in order to hide your shady practice.
Actually there is no exception in the Spring license for bitmaps.sdz and springcontent.sdz, so the smoke is already GPL.
But it is arguable whether depending on them in the sense of putting a "Depend0=bitmaps.sdz" line in modinfo.tdf is to be compared to linking to or making a derived work of it. Especially regarding springcontent.sdz, since you do not even have to explicitly depend on it, the engine just loads it no matter what (so the data in it could as well have been hardcoded into the engine in which case we'd all say it wouldn't infect the mod since the mod is just a datafile to Spring).
If it is, then all mods have to be GPL because bitmaps.sdz and springcontent.sdz is GPL.
If it is not, then it is trivial to make mods of which e.g. the scripts are GPL, but the models are proprietary: just make two archives that depend on each other. (Though it could be argued (as zwzsg already did) that COB and 3DO/S3O are heavily linked together and as such if either of them is GPL the other needs be GPL too.)
OTOH I can think of more arguments that would actually cause Spring's GPL license to infect mods but I think I'd better keep them for myself now
But it is arguable whether depending on them in the sense of putting a "Depend0=bitmaps.sdz" line in modinfo.tdf is to be compared to linking to or making a derived work of it. Especially regarding springcontent.sdz, since you do not even have to explicitly depend on it, the engine just loads it no matter what (so the data in it could as well have been hardcoded into the engine in which case we'd all say it wouldn't infect the mod since the mod is just a datafile to Spring).
If it is, then all mods have to be GPL because bitmaps.sdz and springcontent.sdz is GPL.
If it is not, then it is trivial to make mods of which e.g. the scripts are GPL, but the models are proprietary: just make two archives that depend on each other. (Though it could be argued (as zwzsg already did) that COB and 3DO/S3O are heavily linked together and as such if either of them is GPL the other needs be GPL too.)
OTOH I can think of more arguments that would actually cause Spring's GPL license to infect mods but I think I'd better keep them for myself now
Really? This debate is more civilized then the english royal court... huge wall of text posts with lots of intelligent arguments and almost no flaming retards...Pxtl wrote:Wow, first we chased away Fanger, next we'll chase away Argh. Lovely community we've got here.
Seriously, can't we debate in a civil manner?
Basically, zwzsg is trying to say that no matter what I do, he will always claim that I cannot do so.
Fortunately, it appears that everybody else wants to arrive at a resolution that is a little less drastic. So, I'll clean up my draft of the license, and put it on my work. Break the license, and I will call you on it, and if necessary, sue.
Because, as has been pointed out multiple times, the header's copyright would not be upheld in a court of law.
So, it's down the license that I apply, as KDR_11 is pointing out rightly, to specific scripts. I do not want to apply it to whole methods- he is right, there's no point in that anyhow, and it'd defeat the purpose anyhow. So, at best, it won't be a lot of protection, but it will at least be SOME. Which is better than how things are now, where there is NONE.
So, beside zwzsg's absolutist arguments, is everybody else satisfied?
As my License text clearly states, I do not want to deny use of my work to anybody, so long as they adhere to the license, which in turn requires that my work, and their modifications of that work can be used by others without prejudice. Unlike the GPL, this new license will not ever "infect" your mods, nor deny you ownership rights over the mod as whole. So far as I can see, it should be a reasonable solution to our problems here.
So, besides zwzsg, who is clearly never going to be satisfied until I bow down before him, say, "oh yes, I never wrote anything original in my life, and I owe everything to a defunct software house, even though my methods aren't even slightly the same" and basically just declare open season on whatever I do...
...is EVERYBODY ELSE reasonably satisfied, now that you understand clearly what my goals are, and why I have been a champion of licensing our work? Because, while I will happily sue zwzsg if he ever uses my code in a commercial project, I do not want to fight legal battles with everyone, and I want to see my work get used by everyone, including private mods, so long as they do not deny the work to others! What could be more fair than that, people? If I give it away, no strings attached, it's a WORSE DEAL for you, because nobody will ever be able to protect you from potential copyright infringement in the future!
Fortunately, it appears that everybody else wants to arrive at a resolution that is a little less drastic. So, I'll clean up my draft of the license, and put it on my work. Break the license, and I will call you on it, and if necessary, sue.
Because, as has been pointed out multiple times, the header's copyright would not be upheld in a court of law.
So, it's down the license that I apply, as KDR_11 is pointing out rightly, to specific scripts. I do not want to apply it to whole methods- he is right, there's no point in that anyhow, and it'd defeat the purpose anyhow. So, at best, it won't be a lot of protection, but it will at least be SOME. Which is better than how things are now, where there is NONE.
So, beside zwzsg's absolutist arguments, is everybody else satisfied?
As my License text clearly states, I do not want to deny use of my work to anybody, so long as they adhere to the license, which in turn requires that my work, and their modifications of that work can be used by others without prejudice. Unlike the GPL, this new license will not ever "infect" your mods, nor deny you ownership rights over the mod as whole. So far as I can see, it should be a reasonable solution to our problems here.
So, besides zwzsg, who is clearly never going to be satisfied until I bow down before him, say, "oh yes, I never wrote anything original in my life, and I owe everything to a defunct software house, even though my methods aren't even slightly the same" and basically just declare open season on whatever I do...
...is EVERYBODY ELSE reasonably satisfied, now that you understand clearly what my goals are, and why I have been a champion of licensing our work? Because, while I will happily sue zwzsg if he ever uses my code in a commercial project, I do not want to fight legal battles with everyone, and I want to see my work get used by everyone, including private mods, so long as they do not deny the work to others! What could be more fair than that, people? If I give it away, no strings attached, it's a WORSE DEAL for you, because nobody will ever be able to protect you from potential copyright infringement in the future!
the money for an international law suit could be better spent hireing a whole team of developers and making a completely new game that uses the content from his game, and paying for the marketing 
would be what i would do if i had that sort of money.
edit : and made anything open source ever.
but yes your aims are clearly layed out and seem sensible and fair.
would be what i would do if i had that sort of money.
edit : and made anything open source ever.
but yes your aims are clearly layed out and seem sensible and fair.
argh do you have any respect for zwzsg at allBoirunner wrote:Wow, congratulations on understanding what this is all about.Argh wrote:Basically, zwzsg is trying to say that no matter what I do, he will always claim that I cannot do so.
because it reads like you're just trying to be an idiot instead of actually responding to his rational arguments.
also if you released it into the public domain pretty sure we couldn't be sued about it
Personally I don't really care either way for this argument. I highly doubt Spring will get anymore popular and we're hardly facing legal threats/problems with people nicking stuff.
Last edited by tombom on 11 Jun 2007, 19:31, edited 1 time in total.
My problem isn't that much about what license to choose, but that you cannot license what isn't by you.
What's so hard about admitting you based your scripts on Cavedog's? It's not like Atari is about to sue you. One or two lines saying "based on Cavedog's, improved by Argh, feel free to use!" would be enough.Argh wrote:"oh yes, I never wrote anything original in my life, and I owe everything to a defunct software house"
Yeah, if you want people to be able to use GPL code in non-GPL mod, that'll help!Argh wrote:Unlike the GPL, this new license will not ever "infect" your mods, nor deny you ownership rights over the mod as whole. So far as I can see, it should be a reasonable solution to our problems here.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
-
TheRegisteredOne
- Posts: 398
- Joined: 10 Dec 2005, 21:39
blahblahblha1v0ry_k1ng wrote:BY DECREE OF THE KINGE
anyones withh skille at scipting, modding ore programming muste haveh ate least oneh enemy whom are also moste skilled at scipting, modding and programming and thou must faile to get own, argue muchleh upon the forumns and shunneths the PM optioarn
Not at this point, no. Nobody who causes me this much trouble gets any respect.argh do you have any respect for zwzsg at all
Nor do his arguments have serious merit, but 99% of the audience of this thread does not know BOS well enough to judge for yourselves, frankly. So I see no point in educating you about what the language does, merely to prove a point- I have work to do.
I will post the license when I have time, but I think I'll let this entire issue just rest for awhile- the only thing productive about this whole thing is that I learned some very important crap about how BOS works while trying to avoid writing yet another reply.
Lastly, I thought this was supposed to be a serious discussion of the merits of the GPL, not a "let's get Argh" thread. Every single discussion of the GPL has invariably turned into this nonsense, and I'm sick and tired of it, frankly. If people aren't happy with the license that I'm going to apply, then short of constructive critique to achieve the two goals:
1. To prevent my scripts from ever being privatized.
2. To make sure that everybody can use my work, even in an otherwise-private mod.
... I'm going to tell you to go to hell. Because I have really, really had enough of this. If you do not want to use my work because you don't like the license- don't. Or I reserve the right to sue you. I've done everything I can to make sure that everybody gets what they say that they want here, but I cannot possibly make everybody happy here, because making sure that I am happy with the solution precludes giving the work away, no strings attached. That is final, and all I have to say on this.
My arguments have serious merits, but 90% of the audience of this thread can't be arsed to open and compare two files to judge for themselves.Argh wrote:Nor do his arguments have serious merit, but 99% of the audience of this thread does not know BOS well enough to judge for yourselves, frankly. So I see no point in educating you about what the language does, merely to prove a point- I have work to do.
This thread was a spin-off to redirect the "let's get Argh" from that thread.Lastly, I thought this was supposed to be a serious discussion of the merits of the GPL, not a "let's get Argh" thread.
Well, who is to blame when you initiate a GPL discussion with such nonsensical propositions such as:Every single discussion of the GPL has invariably turned into this nonsense.
- Other people cannot make money out of your GPL code!
- You can make money out of other people GPL code!
I found these humourous.Nor do his arguments have serious merit, but 99% of the audience of this thread does not know BOS well enough to judge for yourselves, frankly. So I see no point in educating you about what the language does
There are several people who are more than competant with BOS, and infact in all honesty know the ins and outs of it better than you do*, who have issues with your attitude and actions.
* And I don't mean myself.
We've darkened pages and pages of forum threads, and I'm afraid continuing this discussion will only leads to more repeating of ourselves. What I needed to say was pretty well condensed in my two first posts of that topic, and I'm starting to think I should have stopped replying there, as adding more replies only diluted my point. We're now just running in circle, and the whole drama could be resumed by:
<zwzsg> Proof this is Cavedog copypasta.
<Argh> You are being mean to me. Stop or I'll ragequit.
<zwzsg> Reasons why you cannot license that.
<Argh> Ok guys what license should I use then?
Neither one of those statements is even true. We have discussed whether you can sell GPL'd work, and the answer is clearly, "yes". Otherwise non-free Linux distros wouldn't exist, you fool.- Other people cannot make money out of your GPL code!
- You can make money out of other people GPL code!
Like most of the rest of your posts, you are hoping that half-lies will convince everybody that I'm evil, apparently, when even a complete fool, reading the license that I am proposing to use, can see that my objective is, as I've always stated, to make sure people can use my stuff.
I hope everybody is smart enough to see through that, and make use of my licensed works in an appropriate fashion, after all of this has died down and they get to look at the work on its own merits, frankly. I also hope that everybody will notice that, unlike the bruhaha with Fanger, which he and I started in private, and only became public because it wasn't getting resolved there... I was pretty deliberately ambushed here.
Also, folks, zszwg is one of the few people who knows what I'm working on. His intentions should be doubted, on that basis alone- he knows what's really at stake here.
Think about it. He knows what I'm actually doing. Most of you don't, not really. You may think you do, but you haven't seen it yet, and won't for quite awhile yet. And you're certainly not going to see the latest builds- I'm going to put them in a private place, after this, where most people can't see what I'm doing.
I wanna give it away, and make sure you can use it, too. Even if Bad Things happen after release, which is a distinct possibility, due to what I'm working on, it would continue to be legal to use my work.
He wants to make sure that the legal status is unclear.
Which one of is suspect? These are my final thoughts on this, frankly. Judge for yourselves.
Last edited by Argh on 12 Jun 2007, 01:00, edited 1 time in total.