Any "Open Source" mods?

(SiliconSlick) #1

Anyone plan on making their mod “Open Source”?

Obviously, the base SD source code is protected/copyrighted.

But I don’t see any reason that a mod team couldn’t release
a set of GNU GPL’d diffs/patches against that source.

Are any of the mods in development sharing their source
code? Is there anyone interested in an Open Source mod?

I’d be willing to contribute a few lines of code here and
there. If someone were willing to coordinate and administer
the project, then whoever wanted a feature added could
develop a patch and submit it for approval into the mod.

The benefits of this are follows:

  1. allow others to see how modifications are made

  2. prevents duplication of effort between all the private mods for common features

  3. would open development to a wide range of people which would:
    a) provide OS support you might not otherwise have
    b) provide a wide range of experience
    c) allow for a lot of different variations that a small team just wouldn’t have the resourses to do
    d) allow for quicker development
    e) provide more testers

The downside would be that the source (patches) would be open
and that unscrupulous mod makers would then be able to steal
it. Using it would be fine if they publish the sources
to their mod as defined by the GNU GPL, but stealing
code so that they can call it their own would not
be acceptable (though there are obviously some
in the community who have no such scruples).

Just curious. I don’t have the time to develop or coordinate
such a project, but like I said, I’d be happy to throw a few
lines of code at the project in order to add some of the features
I’d like to see.

Any thoughts? Anyone already opened up their source
to the public?

SiliconSlick

(Spark) #2

Yeah, I actually plan to do that. No coordination, just releasing the source as open source. I’m not sure if GPL is compatible with the ET EULA though, so maybe a simpler license would have to be used (“you are allowed to use the source code of this modification for any Enemy Territory modification, as long as you make the entire source code of your modification available to everyone who you also distribute the binary release to and include this license notice” or something like that).
Personally I believe that open sourcing our mods is a no-brainer for everyone who works on this for the fun and not to find a job in the gaming industry (and even then it might be a good idea). There is no reason why we should limit ourself by forcing everyone to code the same features again and again, considering that new mods are a benefit for all of us who enjoy playing games. Also we shouldn’t forget why we are able to create mods in the first place… Because the source is available to us. I have no respect for anyone keeping the source for himself, just because he doesn’t want anyone else to benefit from it.

(nUllSkillZ) #3

It seems to me natural to post my code.
The game is free available.
The source is free available.
And so I make my source snippets (admittedly not very good code and also not very much code) public available.
I thought of some kind of SD-Forum Mod that contains all the posted ideas and changes and could have been customized by cvars (have posted this somewhere in this forum here at the beginning).
I think a mod with “only” little changes will not be played.
So we should all put together the little changes to get one major mod.
I have had also the idea of some kind of modular assembly system (not posted yet).
There are different code-snippets posted by the forum members.
And anyone can make his mod choosing some of the snippets (with respect/credits to the author).

(ildon) #4

While you can just share your code, I seriously doubt you can legally make any derivative work from the ET mod source and try to GPL that work, even if it’s 100% original code. I’m sure the Activision lawyers already thought about that and covered it in either (or both) the ET license and the mod source license. However, as I was saying, you can just share your code. There’s a huge repository for shared Q3 code at Code 3 Arena, so maybe something like this could work for ET.

(SCDS_reyalP) #5

If it is 100% original code, it is your code. Unless they start smoking SCO crack, there is no way activision would have any say on how you license it. Of course, most real world mods would included elements of the original code, which is a different story. As you say, it is probably much simpler just to post it as is. Thats what I plan to do.

(p0z3r) #6

I would be interested. However, I’ve just begun looking at the source and have never coded a mod before… GPL why but of course… and I don’t think that the EULA can claim ownership of derivative works. (although I haven’t read it through completely)
cheers,
-p0z3r

(bani) #7

it would in theory be possible to write a GPL mod, as long as you didnt copy any existing source in it. you’d have to write everything from scratch, which is a lot of work. probably not worth the bother.

you also wouldnt be able to use any existing id/activision media either.

(SiliconSlick) #8

What I had is mind is simply keeping the patches
under the GNU GPL.

After thinking about it though, most patches include
the original code they are replacing so that makes it
problematic.

I wonder if there is a way to make “diff” report something
like “delete these lines (without providing their content) and
replace with this other stuff)”… then it might be more feasible.
But I’m sure that would break some functionality with the
“patch” command.

SiliconSlick

(bani) #9

why do patches need to be under the GPL?

either publish them or don’t. license shouldnt matter in this case.

(SiliconSlick) #10

The idea was to ensure that any changes submitted
would remain in the public domain in order to
prevent mod-makers with private (closed) codes
from incorporating them into their mod.

I have no problem with mod-makers wanting
to keep their code closed, but I see no reason
for them to benefit from an Open Source project
if they aren’t going to contribute.

SiliconSlick

(Pamper) #11

EULAs have nothing to do with it. The ET game code doesn’t even have an EULA, really. They don’t make you sign anything to get the code.

Some people might think there is a license if they double-clicked on WET_Source.exe. But just drag it onto Winzip and you’ll extract all the files out without seeing any lawyer-talk on your screen.

So since there’s no EULA in effect, the national copyright laws are what apply.

(Pamper) #12

That’s a contradiction in legal terms. Anything that’s “public domain” can be used by a member of the “public” for any purpose. That includes stuffing it into a “closed” project. If you want to stop people from re-using it without sharing their own source code, then you’ll need to use some non-publicdomain release (something like GPL)

(SiliconSlick) #13

Which is where I began this thread. :slight_smile:

SiliconSlick

(RR2DO2) #14

EULAs have nothing to do with it. The ET game code doesn’t even have an EULA, really. They don’t make you sign anything to get the code.

Some people might think there is a license if they double-clicked on WET_Source.exe. But just drag it onto Winzip and you’ll extract all the files out without seeing any lawyer-talk on your screen.

So since there’s no EULA in effect, the national copyright laws are what apply.[/quote]

I sincerely doubt you’ll find any judge that will go along with that logic :slight_smile:

(RR2DO2) #15

Something that might be interesting to look into is the OSML, which Tremulous for Quake 3 is using:

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/checkout/tremulous/tremulous/COPYING?rev=1.3

tremulous: www.tremulous.net

(Pamper) #16

That’s where you’re wrong. Judges agree with me. The caselaw (dating back to the 1950s) is very clear. A contract cannot be entered without both sides being in communication and exchanging consideration. That’s law school 101. Unless the EULA somehow sends a message back to the publisher that the user has agreed, it cannot be interpreted as valid. There’s other big problems too: for example, it’s illegal to get someone to agree to a license who is less than 18, or who has been drinking alcohol. Unless you’re in a position to tell these things, you can’t use EULAs.

At this very moment, the Attorney General of Massachusetts is successfully running cases against EULAs.

EULAs are found in most commercial software, but they mean nothing. The main thing they do is tell people not to copy the software, which was illegal anyway.

The WET_source license is different from an EULA, because it lets you do something that is normally illegal: distribute “New Creations” to other people. So it’s valid in that regard. But causing it to print onscreen during installation has no effect one way or the other.

(RR2DO2) #17

That’s exactly what I meant, that the license is valid regardless if you read it or not. If you disagree, go try to tell the RIAA (or your local version of this institute) that you were allowed to copy cd’s because you didn’t read the © fineprint on the back of the package.

(RR2DO2) #18

To elaborate on that, the reason why I stated you’d be hard pressed to find a judge that would agree on that, is because the license is one that grants you additional rights, not limits you in ways that have not been put in stone by the law. Most of the license then continues describing the exact details of these granted rights, basically offering you an excemption on certain bits of the copyright law. (Then again, I am not a lawyer so I might not be 100% correct there.)

I guess since that implies that the end user will have to expect that the standard copyright law applies, unless he has read (and thus confirmed) that the excemptions as described in the license exist. Therefore, I suppose that you won’t know you have the right to make a mod unless you are aware of the rights granted in the license, basically requiring you to read it whether or not it is pushed forward during the installation. Since the source would be pretty useless without the license, it makes a lot of sense to indeed provide it for reading to the end user during the installation process. Obviously you can just click ‘yes i agree’ (though maybe ‘yes i understand’ would be more fitting) if you know what the license implies, or dont want to bother and for now just have the normal copyright laws apply until you decided to study the additional rights more closely.

(Spark) #19

We don’t need the GPL to do this, all we need is an Open Source license which is compatible to the EULA. The OSML which RR2DO2 linked to seems to be exactly what we want.
BTW, I remember that tremulous once used the GPL and back then I wondered if that would be legal… That they changed to another license probably means that it’s not. The GPL, among other things, requires the right to sell and make money of the software, this is obviously something that isn’t possible with the ET EULA. There is no need to discuss about it IMO. :slight_smile:
We also don’t need a 101% lawyer-proven license, after all we are talking about something we do for fun and entertainment. Maybe some also do it for popularity, but then again I don’t see how breaking a license to steal code from an open source mod could make you very popular. :wink:

(nUllSkillZ) #20

I think the benefit to the community by making code public available is much bigger than the disadvantage that some people might abuse this code for their mods.