[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: GUI With Ruby
From:       "Bill Kelly" <billk () cts ! com>
Date:       2007-03-15 4:22:37
Message-ID: 0b4a01c766b9$8e1a7530$6442a8c0 () musicbox
[Download RAW message or body]

From: "Chad Perrin" <perrin@apotheon.com>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:45:31AM +0900, Bill Kelly wrote:
>>
>> Quake II is ten years old this year.  id Software originally
>> released the "game" under a custom open-source license, while
>> keeping the "engine" private.  (Many years later, all of the
>> source for the game+engine was released under the GPL.)
>> 
>> The original custom open source license under which the 
>> customizable 'game' portion of the code was released, was not
>> very clear on whether the source had to be kept open for
>> modified/derivative works.
> 
> One need not use the GPL to ensure that.

OK.  Indeed, I should probably be clear that I don't give
a fig about GPL qua GPL in this context. *Any* license that
could have ensured that derivative works of what was 
originally an open source work, stayed open source, would
have--in my opinion--sufficed to alleviate the current
Quake II closed-source-mod situation.

>> So we're left with either enacting hacky workarounds to
>> mitigate the security flaws, or disabling key features of
>> the mod, or not allowing the mod to be played anymore at
>> all on our servers... or maybe hacking the binary--which
>> no-one has time for.
> 
> The same line applies to that as to the GPL: you don't have to use it if
> you don't want to abide by the license terms.  Frankly, I think that's a
> sucky way to approach it, but I think it's sucky whether you're talking
> about the GPL or unreleased copyrighted works.

I'm not sure whether I understand your point here, or not.
We have binaries that are essentially bit-rotting.  The 
difference between source availability and binary availability
here is all that seems germane to the particular situation I'm
trying to describe.

I can see how "you don't have to use it" might apply (and
how GPL advocates might also use that argument in other
contexts), but my assessment of our current situation (in the
Q2 community) is that we would have been better served by a
license that ensured that derivative works of open source
works *stayed* open source.  (Whatever license offered that
particular protection/limitation.)

>> From my point of view, we have a very concrete example
>> of a case where after a decade, it's become apparent that
>> a license that would have required the source stay open
>> would have been far preferable to one that allowed what
>> was originally open source to become closed source.
> 
> Are you talking about the software being offered under an open source
> license, or are you talking about the source being forced into public
> accessibility by licensing?  You aren't exactly clear on that score.

Well; (I'm re-reading your earlier post about Linux LiveCD's)...

To approach it from the inside-out, I'm saying that something
would have to have been different to avoid the situation we now
find ourselves in, where we have bit-rotting closed-source
binaries that are derivative works of an originally open source
release from the manufacturer.

So, I guess must be talking about, in some way, the source 
being forced into public accessibility by licensing.

But: in practical terms, after a decade, source often seems to
be available (mirrored with the binary) in cases where the
authors of the mod _originally_ chose to release the source with
their binary.  The cases where we can't find source code are
typically those where source was _never_ released.

I realize things get sticky where one tries to place limits
on how long the mod author must provide a link to the source
code.  And not everybody wants to download the source with
the binary.  I think I understand your Linux LiveCD point;
(although I must admit, with terabyte hard drives these days
I'd think one could manage to keep every release around in
gzipped source form for three years...)

I dunno; I'm not suggesting a perfect solution exists; I'm
just saying we have real-life issues with closed source
binaries in the Q2 community.  And these are issues I felt
the GPL (or some other license meeting the appropriate
criteria) would have solved/prevented.


Regards,

Bill



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]