[quake3] Re: ioUrT licensing controversy (was Re: Greetings)
Thilo Schulz
arny at ats.s.bawue.de
Tue Apr 22 12:02:09 EDT 2008
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>
More information about the quake3
mailing list