Google earth to google PS

[narita]

Can you show me where the GPL says that please?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt Last paragraph: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
Clear now?

[jorrit]

Can you show me where the GPL says that please?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt Last paragraph: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
Clear now?

And where is PlaneShift being incorporated into a proprietary program? The PlaneShift engine (which is GPL) uses non-GPL data but the PlaneShift engine is NOT incorporated into any proprietary program. The only programs which are included with PS are all GPL.

Read that license again. Also as Xordan already pointed out the PlaneShift situation HAS been checked by lawyers and it was perfectly ok BOTH for PS and for other people.

Greetings,

[jorrit]

BTW, there are several other examples of the GPL being used like PlaneShift does. For example Doom and Quake engines are GPL but the game data certainly not. Another example is Nevrax which is a commercial game that uses a GPL engine (NEL). In fact Richard Stallman even works for Nevrax (Richard Stallman made the GPL) (check www.nevrax.com).

Greetings,

[narita]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt Last paragraph: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."

And where is PlaneShift being incorporated into a proprietary program? The PlaneShift engine (which is GPL) uses non-GPL data but the PlaneShift engine is NOT incorporated into any proprietary program. The only programs which are included with PS are all GPL.

Read that license again. Also as Xordan already pointed out the PlaneShift situation HAS been checked by lawyers and it was perfectly ok BOTH for PS and for other people.

PS engine (under GPL) is incorporated in a proprietary program (PS game) you can download here and there. A plain english sentence in the licence don't permit this, whatsoever the lawyers have told.

BTW, there are several other examples of the GPL being used like PlaneShift does. For example Doom and Quake engines are GPL but the game data certainly not. Another example is Nevrax which is a commercial game that uses a GPL engine (NEL). In fact Richard Stallman even works for Nevrax (Richard Stallman made the GPL) (check www.nevrax.com).

Please, check your references. NEL offer two licences, one GPL and the released sofware must be under GPL and a closed licence for commercial usage.
RMS don't work for Nevrax, he just did a conference.

Please, stop doing double or triple post, while just edit your previous post is enough.
Also, please, stop asking precise references while giving reference to generic portails.

[hook]

*hook goes to cry in a corner*

[jorrit]

BTW, there are several other examples of the GPL being used like PlaneShift does. For example Doom and Quake engines are GPL but the game data certainly not. Another example is Nevrax which is a commercial game that uses a GPL engine (NEL). In fact Richard Stallman even works for Nevrax (Richard Stallman made the GPL) (check www.nevrax.com).

Please, check your references. NEL offer two licences, one GPL and the released sofware must be under GPL and a closed licence for commercial usage.
RMS don't work for Nevrax, he just did a conference.

RMS does work for Nevrax: check this url: http://www.nevrax.com/press/board.php
I quote:

As digital entertainment becomes increasingly interactive, massively multi-player games, in which hundreds of thousands of players can participate at any given time, have been at the forefront of enabling truly interactive entertainment experiences. Nevrax's free software approach has sparked the interest of investors including Part'Com and Viventures, the venture capital firm created by Vivendi Universal and 18 other groups. In addition, three prominent players in technology, interactive entertainment and the open source movement will join Nevrax's advisory board -- Michel Teyssedre, vice president, Worldwide Telecom Server Sales, IBM Enterprise Server Group; Jim Wilson, president, Universal Interactive Studios (UIS);
and, Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project.

And NEL is GPL only. Check out http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=116

Also what about Doom and Quake?

Greetings,

[jorrit]

PS engine (under GPL) is incorporated in a proprietary program (PS game) you can download here and there. A plain english sentence in the licence don't permit this, whatsoever the lawyers have told.

When the GPL talks about a program it means the actual binary which is generated from the GPL source. 'psclient.exe' is compiled from GPL sources and is fully GPL. The fact that it uses non GPL data doesn't change that and is perfectly ok. Thre is no proprietary program. The entire PS game is not GPL of course but the 'program' psclient.exe is GPL. And that's what matters here.

There are plenty of other examples to prove that your wrong. For example, Doom and Quake. Also firefox is GPL but still it can perfectly use non GPL data (browing a web site containing non GPL images for example). Additionally firefox is also distributed with non GPL stuff (i.e. on linux distributions for example which also contain other non GPL stuff).

Greetings,

[Myrthe]

Alright, everyone who is complaining that it will ruin the game for YOU...shuttup. Last i checked, you have control over what you do. If you dont like the program, dont use it, dont d/l it, whatever. If you dont have enough self-control to not use the program, sounds like a personal problem.

I can understand about the devs and GMs saying that it would be illegal and ruin the game for us and stuff. But why not? Considering GE doesnt show caves and stuff the hidden stuff underground wouldnt be a problem. Fog of war would stop someone from going "Hey whats this?!" and finding 100000 trias worth of stuff thats hidden.

I dont know much about law, so excuse me if im wrong. Does it matter about copywright and stuff as long as he doesnt make a profit?

JUst my two trias

[Wired_Crawler]

     The discussion tells me,  that the core of problem is not whether the licence is really violated or not, but that there are always people, which have bad intentions, people which look for small, irrelevant details and use them to destroy happiness of others (I don't mean You, narita, it is general statement). They should have as few opportunities as possible.
      So, why not split PlaneShift into 2 packages ? One with game engine and one with art ? There would be 2 installers, each would display different licence, nobody could say, that GPL software is incorporated in non-GPL package. It would be also more convenient for players and developers - there could be rare updates of art package and more often updates of game engine. Linux/Mac users which can compile binaries themselves could download new art at the same time, as Windows users, when new version is released. Does it make any sense?

[Myrthe]

No offence, but that would be a pain in the @$&, delay the devs that much more, and make an even longer period of time before the final game is out. Plus, it sounds like a lot of work for something that has many easier alternatives.

[hook]

     The discussion tells me,  that the core of problem is not whether the licence is really violated or not, but that there are always people, which have bad intentions, people which look for small, irrelevant details and use them to destroy happiness of others (I don't mean You, narita, it is general statement). They should have as few opportunities as possible.

That's true.

      So, why not split PlaneShift into 2 packages ? One with game engine and one with art ? There would be 2 installers, each would display different licence, nobody could say, that GPL software is incorporated in non-GPL package. It would be also more convenient for players and developers - there could be rare updates of art package and more often updates of game engine. Linux/Mac users which can compile binaries themselves could download new art at the same time, as Windows users, when new version is released. Does it make any sense?

You don't need that ...from what I remember when I studied the GPLv2 it's perfectly ok that a binary package includes GPL code together with non-GPL data and art - the only problem arises when the GPL code is packed together with non-GPL code. The only thing that that paragraph limits is that all code that derives or is tied together with the GPL-code has to be the same license. Therefore there's no problem if art or data aren't GPL (frankly, GPL isn't really a good license for art and data). And also it isn't a problem if a non-GPL-compatible plugin exists for that GPL code - as long as it's not packed with the GPL'd code and doesn't include the GPL'd code in itself.

As for PlaneShift's art and data - they're under the PlaneShift licence of which the basic goal is that PS art and data aren't included in other projects (especially other similar games). Atomic Blue (="the PS devs") are the holders of most of the "copyright" rights on the data/artwork made for PS (which is also fine, since the author has to sign the Atomic Blue Contract before his art gets into the game), while granting the authors to still use their work unless they want to move it to another game, and the rest of us to use the data and art together with the (official and non-hacked) client.

In any case there's always the possibility that AB gives you explicity a different license or rights - if you're really lucky, that is

...hope that's clear enough.


BTW, what's wrong with "just" having an in-game cartography skill, that's planned to be included anyway? Why not help the devs make the skill that fits into the setting and game a lot better then a Google Maps mod. ...and probably easier to code as well...

p.s. if you're still so hot on making it and AB allows you to, why not rather tweak the NASA's World Wind code - that's open source.

edit: just made some layout adjustments

[Xordan]

PS engine (under GPL) is incorporated in a proprietary program (PS game) you can download here and there. A plain english sentence in the licence don't permit this, whatsoever the lawyers have told.

"This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs." says nothing about distributing seperately licensed stuff in the same download. That's like saying that it's a breach of license to have a GPL and a non-GPL program on the same cdrom. I realise that in some cases, the overall license of the _project_ can mean this, such in the case of Ubuntu. But that is specific to that project (GNU based). Other distros have no such limitations such as Gentoo. Planeshift doesn't breach "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs." either because, using jorrits example of firefox, the art for planeshift is like the macromedia flash plugin for firefox. The art, and the plugin in these examples are _not_ part of the program. The program in both cases is _only_ GPL, and it is just able to use non-GPL content, such as the art and plugin. I have to believe qualified lawyers who are experienced in this field over you who is obviously not one.

[juggalo10101]

didnt you people hear, its not going to incorparate with it, it is just going to lay over the top of it to make an illusion!!! I would never edit game code source, maybe a little third party free game that has no publicity, all it is, is a map program now that we striped it down, maybe i could just make a map you can only view outside of PS. It would cause less confusion, and contriversy! But it will still allow sharing over a different network, i might just do a hand drawn map of cities to tell you where shops and other things are...

[hook]

As an oldbie player I still disagree with it - I think it would be too big of a spoiler and too easily help people to just power-level instead of playing their roles.

As a law student I think that even with that you'd be very much on the line of infringing the data - "copyright" or "author's rights" as we call them over here can very much be infringed even without a verbatim copy.

From the technological point of view I still don't understand how you intend to incorporate all the levels of Yliakum and layered 3d world that PlaneShift is made of.

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate your enthusiasm and readiness to make something as complex as that for the PS community. ...I just think it could (and probably would) leave too big negative consequences that maybe you didn't intend or think of at first.

Don't be discouraged to make something else though ...as already stated: the Cartography skill's been planned for a loooong time and if you think you can tackle that, try to implement maps the PlaneShift way - so people can make their own maps in-game (quality according enough skill) and even sell and buy them! If you're that good, I think the PS devs might let you join and write it.

[narita]

And NEL is GPL only. Check out http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=116

Wrong, check the owner web site: http://www.nevrax.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=NeLPackagesDescription

Two licences. Either you use the GPL licence with it, and according the GPL all part of the software MUST but under GPL compatible licence. Either you use the commercial licence and your software may have proprietary content.

(... another comment about firefox licence in yet another article...)
Irrelevant, Firefox is not released under GPL.

(...)
In any case there's always the possibility that AB gives you explicity a different license or rights - if you're really lucky, that is

That's my point. The raw GPL licence don't allow to release other games using the PS engine with proprietary content as PS does currently. This is greatly reducing the potientiality of the engine, and furthermore, it's unfair for other developpers. The licence may be amended to allow exceptions (as it's the case for GPL fonts for example) or another licence may be added (like NEL but it could be free). In the current state, the PS licence set is inconsistent and this may cause trouble.

It's pointless to blindly defend the GPL as the best licence for everything.