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

[Thilo Schulz]

On Dienstag, 22. April 2008, Erik K. wrote:
> On 22-4-2008 14:32, Thilo Schulz wrote:
> 1: What you're mentioning here is about the sdk license and therefor is
> between IDsoftware and the UrT team (FrozenSand) alone, you have NOTHING
> to do with this.

I know this and I even said that in my last post. Why repeat it?

> 2: You omitted the word "create" from the quote from the sdk. So it
> actually is: "CREATE for operation only with the full version of the
> software game QUAKE III ARENA", not just "for operation only with the
> full version of the software game QUAKE III ARENA". Very important
> difference! The mod was indeed CREATED for operation only with the full
> version of the software game QUAKE III ARENA, yet it also HAPPENS to run
> on other engines. Anyway, still a moot point, since it's between ID and
> FS only anyway.

Yes you're right, there's a difference, but it's not going to make it any 
better.

This is what is written:
"ID grants to you the non-exclusive and limited right to distribute copies of 
the Software free of charge for non-commercial purposes by electronic means 
only and the non-exclusive and limited right to use the Software to create 
your own modifications (the “New Creations”) for operation only with the full 
version of the software game QUAKE III ARENA"

They say: "We give you the right to create mods that are _only_ for operation 
with the full version of Q3A", not "we give you the right to create mods that 
are for operation only with the full version of q3a arena but if another 
engine happens to be able to run the code, so you don't need to own the full 
game, that's fine with us".
Technically speaking, any user running ioUrt and playing urt with it would 
have to own the full quake3 version or would play unlawfully, since these 
QVMs are per licence "for operation only with the full version of quake3".

Yes, I know that you claim id said it was fine. And so this really is not our 
business, but you say you know that this bundling would remove the legal 
issues around this side of the problem, which simply is not true.

> Now you're talking about GPL, something which you would have a right to
> complain about. So this is the only relevant part of the discussion. But
> in my opinion, they (ioUrbanTerror and Urban Terror) are separate
> products, based on separate code-bases, made by separate people. They
> are fulfilling the GPL by having the code for ioUrbanTerror (which is
> licensed under the GPL) available for the public. They are not making
> the Urban Terror (licensed under the sdk) code available for public,
> since the sdk does not require it. So, legally fine.

That is another legal grey area, and Timbo is right with the notion that the 
code is actually not interpreted most of the time but indeed runs natively 
within the address space of the engine, which violates the GPL. And like I 
said, he is also right with the very obvious primary intention of running 
ioUrT with Urban Terror. This bundling sounds to me like a disclaimer to an 
mp3 website: "you must buy the CD for these songs before you download these 
or you are violating the law!". That wouldn't hold up one second in front of 
a court. This is an extreme analogy, and the bundling trick may indeed work 
in front of a court, I don't know. But don't pretend to *know* this is legal, 
because before this has not been fought out in front of a court you can never 
be certain.

Don't worry, I'm not about to sue you or anyone, and this is unlikely to 
happen :)

-- 
Thilo Schulz
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/quake3/attachments/20080422/5aa770ea/attachment.pgp>