NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Mattcrampy wrote:
Caravel is legally obligated to release the editor as a free, open-source download.

Why?

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

Mattcrampy wrote:
Caravel is legally obligated to release the editor as a free, open-source download.

Really?
By whom?

I think I've learnt more about copyright law in this forum than any other, but surely Caravel is not obliged to anything (as they decide the licensing)? I'd love to hear otherwise and why, though that may belong in a different thread...

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Once source code is released under a license, you can't arbitrarily re-license it. Caravel is constrained by the same limitations on its own code as anyone else using it is.

In other words, once Caravel made the choice to release DROD as open source, they cannot change their mind for future versions.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

---

[Last edited by eytanz at 02-20-2007 03:25 AM]

Schik
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5419
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:
Once source code is released under a license, you can't arbitrarily re-license it. Caravel is constrained by the same limitations on its own code as anyone else using it is.

I don't believe that's actually true. I may be wrong, but I believe Caravel could re-license it however they want.

Regardless, they could always just re-code the editor as a separate closed-source library that DROD happens to use, and thus not release its source code. Like they do with the CaravelNet library.

____________________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.
--Mahatma Gandhi

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

The Caravelnet code was never open sourced, and thus is not relevant as far as re-licensing is concerned. It's all up to the license involved. I'm not sure which license Caravel uses, but the GPL (which isn't it), for instance, prohibits any code licensed under it from ever being closed.

Note, though, that where Mattcrampy is almost certainly wrong is that open source usually pertains to code, not to binaries. As long as Caravel makes the source code available, they can probably sell binaries with disabled features to people who cannot compile them themselves (aka most Windows and Mac users)

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

---

[Last edited by eytanz at 02-20-2007 03:37 AM]

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:
Once source code is released under a license, you can't arbitrarily re-license it. Caravel is constrained by the same limitations on its own code as anyone else using it is.

In other words, once Caravel made the choice to release DROD as open source, they cannot change their mind for future versions.

Schik wrote:
I don't believe that's actually true. I may be wrong, but I believe Caravel could re-license it however they want.

Regardless, they could always just re-code the editor as a separate closed-source library that DROD happens to use, and thus not release its source code. Like they do with the CaravelNet library.

That's exactly my confusion and I thank you guys to show both sides.

The way I see it is you can branch off any open source project and charge for it as long as any open source elements within it are still under the open source license it was originally under.

This means, if I'm not wrong, that I could take the DROD source code and actually charge for it as long as the original engine was was still open source. I could charge for new graphics, say, as long as the code was still open source.

Didn't Torvaldt recently switch to Bitkeeper which was open-source to what is now commercially chargeable?

I could be totally wrong. I just don't see how an original license could restrict future dev as long as the original engine remains within the licensing terms.

Erik?

schep
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 865
Registered: 03-01-2005
IP: Logged

Yeah, I was first going to post something along the lines of 'This is wrong, because DROD is MPL,' but then I realized that Caravel holds the copyright and can technically use their own IP how they want. (Hence, as Schik mentioned, non-open CaravelNet connectivity code added to the full version.) Open source licenses restrict how other people use your stuff.

Edit: reply to post collision.

I could be totally wrong. I just don't see how an original license could restrict future dev as long as the original engine remains within the licensing terms.

Have you read the GPL? Restricting the nature of future development is exactly what it tries to do. Whether it can actually legally do so is another matter, especially when you start talking about plugins and libraries and such.

---

[Last edited by schep at 02-20-2007 03:45 AM]

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:
The Caravelnet code was never open sourced

In that case, you are most probably right.
I always though it was...

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Come to think of it, I might be wrong. My main interaction in the open-source scene was back in my Angband days which was a long time ago and not exactly the same situation since the code had *many* more contributors and no-one had copyright for the whole thing.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

schep
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 865
Registered: 03-01-2005
IP: Logged

Syntax wrote:

The Caravelnet code was never open sourced

In that case, you are most probably right.
I always though it was...

Note the distinction here between 'CaravelNet code' and 'Caravel Games's DROD code'. DROD 1.6 and DROD 2.0.* are under the Mozilla Public License. That includes all the source code needed to compile the DROD 2.0.* demo. (Including the level editor.) The little bit of source code that connects to CaravelNet for demo and scores and stuff is not publicly available.

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

schep wrote:

Syntax wrote:

The Caravelnet code was never open sourced

In that case, you are most probably right.
I always though it was...

Note the distinction here between 'CaravelNet code' and 'Caravel Games's DROD code'. DROD 1.6 and DROD 2.0.* are under the Mozilla Public License. That includes all the source code needed to compile the DROD 2.0.* demo. (Including the level editor.) The little bit of source code that connects to CaravelNet for demo and scores and stuff is not publicly available.

100% Agreed!

Server side is not in CVS/SVN and is proprietary (esp Shick's excellent AJAX stuff and forum etc). I just figured that if I was to CVS/SVN the source code and change it, I would be allowed to distibute it *as long as the original license remained for the original code* and that my changes were not covered by a license which was any more restrictive than the original one, but also that I was also allowed to charge for it as long as the original contractual clauses were shipped with my extended product.

I'm thinking Red Hat distribs...

Either way, I look forward to TCB

coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1309
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged

As evidenced by this post, Erik and Mike held the contribution rights to the base of JtRH, which was further built upon to release. The GPL and the MPL do not specify that anyone does not maintain rights to the code they write, just how they may use it (for comparison, see WotC's Open Gaming License, which does specify that all content released under its license becomes their property). However, Erik and Mike have decided and committed to relea sing DROD under open-source. Dual-licensing is becoming more common practice (and sometimes even triple-licensing). So, unless I'm mistaken in the way that these legal matters work, currently, Caravel is in fact required to release it open-source, but if Erik (the original licensor of the MPL) were to relicense it to Mike, and then it were relicensed recursively under different terms, then the Caravel code could be relicensed. But I'm no expert.

Oh, I just realized an odd situation that could crop up as a result of this, but if I say more, then Caravel Thugs will come and attempt to hurt me.

---

[Last edited by coppro at 02-20-2007 04:03 AM]

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

coppro wrote:
and then it were relicensed recursively under different terms

Thanks for your response which no doubt clarifies everything, but this quote is symbolic of why I will never quite understand licensing laws hehe

KevG
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 333
Registered: 08-16-2004
IP: Logged

Don't know if this has been addressed yet, but any info on what's going to happen to JtRH the hold. Is a downloadable version going to be made available for playing in the 3.0 engine? (For registered owners, of course.)

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

I believe it's all backward compatible... could be wrong of course.

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

There hasn't been official word yet. I'm pretty certain that sooner or later this will be addressed, but probably only after TCB is released.

From a technical POV, 3.0 is fully backwards compatible.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

---

[Last edited by eytanz at 02-20-2007 04:25 PM]

starwed
Level: Delver
Rank Points: 49
Registered: 12-16-2006
IP: Logged

In other words, once Caravel made the choice to release DROD as open source, they cannot change their mind for future versions.

You mistake what exactly a license is. IANAL, but this is what I've gleaned from reading a fair amount about it.

Any line of code falls under copyright. The person (or organisation) who writes that code has the right to dictate how others copy it. Anyone wanting to use that line of code needs permission from the copyright holder to do something with it.

Open source licenses grant that permission to anyone who uses that code within certain restrictions. The GPL, for instance, allows you to use and modify the code, but under the condition that if you distribute binaries compiled from the code, you must also redistribute modifications to the source code. (Of course it's a bit more complex than that, but that's at least the basic idea). It doesn't in any way alter who owns the copyright to code licensed under it, and it's the same with the MPL.

Anyone wanting to use the code for DROD needs permission to do so. For most people, using the MPL is the only option they have. But any other type of permission is still valid. If a company acquired the permission of every person who owns the copyright to DROD's code, they can do anything they like with it. Obviously this includes caravel, and just as obviously they'd have an easier time doing this than any other company.

ErikH2000
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2794
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Starwed, I agree with your take.

There are restrictions on what Caravel can do with the code given to us by contributors. We are obliged to release it under the Mozilla Public License. We aren't obliged by the MPL (which is an agreement between Caravel and the public) to do this, but by our signed agreements with source code contributors.

I would caution people who use our source code to not just treat the code as free for any use, but actually follow the terms of the MPL. And you have to be careful about using our code with other open source code that has an incompatible license. We don't mix MPL and GPL in our project, for example, although LGPL is used for a few libraries.

None of that contradicts what you said. I'm just adding some clarification.

-Erik

____________________________
The Godkiller - Chapter 1 available now on Steam. It's a DROD-like puzzle adventure game.
dev journals | twitch stream | youtube archive (NSFW)

vittro
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 482
Registered: 04-17-2005
IP: Logged

I updated the Wikipedia page with all the features of this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_Beneath

____________________________
http://vittorioromeo.info

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5141
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

vittro wrote:
I updated the Wikipedia page with all the features of this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_Beneath

No, no, no! The City Beneath will not have multiplayer! Smite-to-the-Death would be a completely separate app.

(I'm not shouting...just stressing the fact to make it perfectly clear. Thank you for writing up this cool list!)

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 03-17-2007 02:54 AM]

silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged

Mr Rimer, it's a wiki... just edit out the incorrect information


____________________________

AlefBet
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 979
Registered: 07-16-2003
IP: Logged

silver wrote:
Mr Rimer, it's a wiki... just edit out the incorrect information

It looks to me like somebody did. But it's far better to get a post from the lead developer giving the facts to the interested community than it is to get a semi-anonymous edit on a wiki which someone could revert as vandalism/uninformed or reinsert as a continued misunderstanding, and on a wiki whose only relation to the community is that it covers essentially everything.

Just my 2%$.

____________________________
I was charged with conspiracy to commit jay-walking, and accessory to changing lanes without signaling after the fact .

++Adam H. Peterson