[quake3] Re: ioUrT licensing controversy (was Re: Greetings)

[monk at rq3.com]

>> Haha. The sdk is a matter between ID and the UrT devs. Why would they
>> feel obligated to 'proof' to you that this correspondance happened?
>> And yes, it was an "okay, that's legally fine", not an "okay, we'll
>> make an exception for you".
>
> The point I was trying to make is that it's worthless mentioning this
> unless you actually display the correspondance. It's like me saying
> "it's OK to rob the bank, the police said I could".

Well, I asked some GPL-ish questions to Todd Hollenshead in 2006.  This
email was to ask about text-based assets like the "shiney" and
"reflection" shaders and the botfiles/library.  The section that seems
most relevent is how adamant he is about licensing terms.  I suppose the
UrT team didn't get a change in terms as much as a "we don't care enough
to sue you" statement from id.  Anyway, here's his reply to me:



Subject: Re: Quake 3 GPL - question - sorry to bother you
Date: Fri, April 14, 2006 5:11 pm

Just as a matter of practice, I can't make email or verbal modifications to
our license framework.  It would just end up being a disaster that no one
could figure out and everyone would think is unfair and certainly many
would try to take advantage of.  So I want you to understand at the outset
that even if something seems pretty much okay in the abstract or in a
particular situation, I still won't modify the language of the EULA, GPL or
other license agreements.

Having made that point, it seems that the core issue is that the GPL only
covers the engine source code and related files as we have made them
available on our FTP site.  Shaders or other text bases assets that are
included in the "engine" or the files sets released on id's FTP site in the
GPL'd code are fair game.  Other assets, regardless of file type or
structure that are related to Quake 3 are NOT under the GPL, but are under
whatever the relevant license they were released under (game EULA, mod
EULA, etc.) and those licenses still must govern the use of the content.

When you go "stand alone" for your mod, that makes it so anyone can play it
without having to purchase anything, but it also means that you have to
create or perhaps re-create what probably ends up being a fairly sizable
amount of content.  That pretty much sucks and I wish I had a "line-item"
ability to pick where I grant permission, but as I discussed above, we
can't run the business that way.

I hope this addresses your issue, even if the answer isn't what you may
have hoped.

Regards,

tsh