Safe JK2 source code

[fau]

There was some mess with jk2 source code being released and then taken down imidiatelly due to legal issues. There are many mirrors/clones around the web, but I suspect most of them come from the first release (raven-README.txt, although no RAD tools are included). All sources I googled only come up with the first part of the story, what's the rest? Did they re-released it with illegal parts removed, or did ppl just remove parts that couldn't be GPLed and it's fine? What is the safe source to use?

[Kevin]

If I were you I would wait for Daggolin to finish the MVSDK, rather than the original sourcecode

[ouned]

They re-released it but I think it still contained some non GPL stuff.
One of those was the "smartheap" which they didn't have permissions to release.

The best base to mess with would be JK2MV

[fau]

They re-released it but I think it still contained some non GPL stuff.
One of those was the "smartheap" which they didn't have permissions to release.

The best base to mess with would be JK2MV

Depends what you need. I maintained my own client for a while but I was the only dev so I didn't care about potential rebases. Now I need unaltered, GPL game, cgame and ui code for a collaborative mod project.

Do you know where can I get the re-released code?

[ouned]

oh, if you exclusively want to modify modules and not the engine itself i'd still use the jk2editingtoolsv2 (1.04)

but anyway:
https://github.com/jedis/jedioutcast
this should be the closest one you can get

[fau]

Why would I use a more restrictive licence if I've got a choice?

Thanks.

[ouned]

With the SDK you can release the mod without source. With GPL version you can't.

[fau]

Why would you make a closed source mod in 2015? The only legal way to make profit on it is that Copyright holder enrolls you to work on it. Tough luck.
On a sidenote, are you 100% certain when it comes to VMs?

Many important id Tech 3 improvements remain unavailable thanks to SDK licence, eg. xerp from CPMA or DeFRaG features. On the other hand, id Software had no moral or legal issues with reimplementing 90% of CPMA in QuakeLive on their own.

[fau]

I don't want to sound 100% convinced. Maybe this is a good place to discuss pros and cons of each licence for new mods?

[Tr!Force]

i have the first 4 sources released which takes down instantly, (0.54, 1.02, 1.02a, 1.03, and 1.04... lol i downloaded instantly after the 1st news)
and i have the official one's released after (1.02, 1.03 and 1.04)

if u want some of these i can send u

[ouned]

Why would you make a closed source mod in 2015?

dunno, I just tried to answer your question
I'm actually your opinion with open source modding.
I opensourced everything I ever did for jk2.

The only legal way to make profit on it is that Copyright holder enrolls you to work on it. Tough luck.

Well you can have features others don't have and if it's closed it can't just be copy-pasted.
That's the reason why one may want to keep their mod closed. Profit was never an option.

You said the SDK license is more restrictive then the GPL license.
That's the users point of view. I thought you meant the developers point of view.

[fau]

This fear from copy-pasters did more bad than good as I laid out earlier. All mod makers basically copy-paste whole game in the first place. How would OpenJK or JK2MV look if not for ioquake3 and other open source q3 clients? Just speaking my thoughts out loud.

They aren't directly comparable in terms of restrictevness. With GPL you need to make source available (not even sure about that when it comes to distributing VMs).

On the other hand there are many things you couldn't do with Raven's licence as a developer, eg. distribute your mod by other means than internet, even charge for it, make more copies than (i) one on your computer hard drive (ii) one in your RAM (iii) one on (one) back updrive , make mods which infringe against third party rights, are libelous, defamatory, obscene, false, misleading and otherwise illegal and unlawful. Ship them to countries to which the U.S. has embargoed goods and to people who are prohibited by applicable law from receiving it. Also all your rights won't automatically terminate without notice in case you break the GPL licence.

GPL - JOIN THE DARK SIDE

[ouned]

With GPL you need to make source available (not even sure about that when it comes to distributing VMs).

I think you always have to because:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. [...]

btw. interesting:

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

didn't know that :lol:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

[fau]

There are many corner cases and controversy around them. I guess you're right about source code, but give it a try: Can you use old, raven-licenced mods with jk2mv? How about using GPL-licenced mods with original jk2mp.exe?

[fau]

Btw, apparently the repo you linked contains both "illegal" and new raven releases, while new one is only 1.03a code. Or maybe I'm wrong? Not sure.

[ouned]

Can you use old, raven-licenced mods with jk2mv?

lol nice point.
It should be "legal" though. Image a GPL licensed windows program which uses proprietary win32 API's. There should be millions of examples.
Not even sure if that's a valid comparison though. :lol:

How about using GPL-licenced mods with original jk2mp.exe?

Should be less of a problem because you can always build the exact same jk2mp.exe from source. (With old VS & fake OS time etc.)
So the "old" jk2mp.exe basically is GPLv2 now.
(That's my interpretation, we should ask Richard Stallman)

[fau]

Can you use old, raven-licenced mods with jk2mv?

lol nice point.
It should be "legal" though. Image a GPL licensed windows program which uses proprietary win32 API's. There should be millions of examples.
Not even sure if that's a valid comparison though. :lol:

It isn't. GPL has so called "system library exception".

How about using GPL-licenced mods with original jk2mp.exe?

Should be less of a problem because you can always build the exact same jk2mp.exe from source. (With old VS & fake OS time etc.)
So the "old" jk2mp.exe basically is GPLv2 now.
(That's my interpretation, we should ask Richard Stallman)

It would best if we could say that jk2mp.exe is double-licenced and call it a day. Not sure about it.

[fau]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
Basically: no, you surely can't use old SDK mods with jk2mv. Even if you call them "double licenced", their authors haven't released source code making them not compatible with GPL.

[ouned]

Basically: no, you surely can't use old SDK mods with jk2mv. Even if you call them "double licenced", their authors haven't released source code making them not compatible with GPL.

Using it is pretty much no issue because no one can even see that you are.

You can't release a closed mod directly targeting jk2mv.
But you can always state that your target is the old engine.

did we just bypass the GPL in a matter where no one can be blamed for it?
The mod developer can say "I developed for jk2mp.exe if someone uses it with jk2mvmp.exe, not my thing"
The user can say "I legally dl'ed a file that's all"
JK2MV dev can say "It's technically impossible to determine a mods license by a qvm file"

in practise no one will ever care though

[fau]

Legally surely an user holds responsibility. Software licences aren't only for developers. Have you read any EULA lately?
Yet another place where copyright law is dead and for a good reason. What Raven should have done is adding a specific permission to use non-free plugins, like FSF suggests.

[fau]

This is what I came up with: https://github.com/aufau/jk2sdk-gpl
I bundled q3asm and q3lcc from ioquake (blazing fast compared to q3asm.exe from sdk 2.0) and added Makefile for tools, vms and shared objects.
Nothing for Windows users, If you can add build scripts/project files - you're welcome.
I may add branches for 1.02 and 1.03 if there is a demand.

[ouned]

nice, but that's pretty much what Daggolin is working on lol
(except that he is using cmake)

[fau]

I did it for myself and dziablo, we're working on a mod, waited few weeks already.
Also I talked with daggolin about it and I don't see any use of "multiversion" procedures. Moreover I have strong suspicions that it's gonna heavily change fragile block balance. It's noticeably different across various mods and apparently big code changes make it more pronounced.

[Daggolin]

I made some makefiles for game, cgame and ui, but switched to CMake later. So you can easily compile native libraries on Windows and Linux. Sadly I don't have a proper solution for q3lcc and q3asm, yet. Their code is quite easy to compile on Linux, but compiling them for Windows is a bit more complicated. I don't have a user-friendly way to compile them, but I don't want to push compiled binaries into the repository either.

If someone got an easy solution to compile q3lcc and q3asm on Windows, it would be nice to integrate that into the CMake files.

[fau]

ioquake3 has, judging from their makefile. Dunno how do you even use make on Windows, probably via cygwin.