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

[Doug Winger]

>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:08:41 -0600 (MDT) monk at rq3.com wrote:
>>  Ok, now THAT I understand.  I don't believe "aggregation" is the
>>  proper term for what y'all believe to be in violation.
>
>I didn't actually bring aggregation up; I'm not sure who it was.
>Suffice to say, I think ioUrT + UrT constitutes more than aggregation,
>so from that point of view I don't think the term aggregation has much
>relevance, no.
>
>>  You are contending that the UrT mod is a (heh) module combined with
>>  ioUrT into one program.
>
>Correct.
>
>>  So even if someone gets the current version of ioq3 and their mod and
>>  puts them in one ZIP, without customizing ioq3, you're going to feel
>>  that it's in violation of the Q3 mod sdk license due to "intent".
>
>Due to the fact my reading of the license prohibits it, as previously
>discussed.
>
>>  But not necessarily in violation of the GPL.  Is that correct?
>
>The GPL would be violated also due to the combination the licenses,
>each of which are mutually exclusive.

Since I have to read this stuff and have some spare time, I think I'm
allowed a two-cents contribution. IANAL (and neither is anybody else
here, I can safely assume), but have watched a legal department do a
complicated mating dance is FOSS in my time.

I think the confusion arises because Id included the game code- the
source normally intended to wind up as qvm and which had previously
been "released" as part of the sdk for mods- along with the engine
code - which was definitely to live under gpl protection- in one
grand package. Well, that and the factor that a person designated PR
flack is doing what PR flacks have always done; making statements
formulated to make things truthier.

Going by the reasoning some have bruited about here previously, by
logical extension any php, perl or Javascript code written would be
subjected to gpl restrictions requiring availability of source as
it's modifying the gpl-ed source or can't run without it. That ain't
so, and even the gpl carefully makes the distinction.

While you can't claim authorship of the PHP, perl or Javascript
interpreter code them/itself you've  modified, you can safely do so
for any of the "...code that makes use of them in an interactive
fashion" that you're written. It's not modifying the PHP etc.
"engine" in the least, but making use of it and applying it in a way
it was designed for. Subtle difference, but it's there. It's not
derivative work on the gpl-ed code itself.

This is how consultants make money and makes web site's content
copyrightable. It's also why a portion of the
perl script stuff you see has a copyright on it and where the sdk
license trumps the gpl in this situation. The game code is not
actually being linked +into+ the engine code during compile time
(Okay, but not tightly but instead as a sort of plug-in module if you
squint a lot and don't look too carefully) and so falls under content
rather than executable. It satisfies that "... makes use of [it] in
an interactive fashion" quite nicely.

If you hold to Id's +original+ idea of "qvm/game source is sdk- even
if it's compiled natively by naughty people not using our tools and
so making things platform specific. Thou Shalt Not Mess With The
Engine," then all you can do is grumble and think bad thoughts about
closed source mod game code.

Now, if they mess with the ENGINE, you can smite them from on high
with all the power that the FSA can muster and even get Id to hold
them down while you do it.

Truthfully, if you guys are gonna keep this in play, perhaps you'd
best be served in asking someone from Id about this. They are the
authors, after all. And I'm all out of pennies, so this is all you're
hear from me..


- Doug