03-06-2005 23:53									#1
	Free Software advancing : First GPL game released , Winamp AVS and Milkdrop freed Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Two links I came across on Slashdot . In the first , we have the news that a fully GPL licensed game is being released for Linux , Windows , and soon for the Mac ( with apologies to Agathorn ) . Imagine the moddability . . . . . . .

The second is that Winamp AVS and Milkdrop are being BSD licensed by AOL .

Both , I think , will have a huge impact on their respective industries .

Is the tide of free software unstoppable ?

AOL BSDing Winamp AVS and Milkdrop

Fully GPLd game website

Download Link for GPLd game

Last edited by aneeshm on 04-06-2005 at 00:10

	03-06-2005 23:54									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

BSD license.

GPL license.

As for having a huge impact -- not a chance. Winamp is already free as in beer, and has had pretty much infinite modability without access to its source code in the form of plugins and freeform skin...

	03-06-2005 23:55									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Cool. A ye olde deathmatch game. Reminds me of Unreal Tournament

	03-06-2005 23:59									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm talking more about the game than the Winamp thing , Asher . And why do you dislike the GPL ? Just asking .

	04-06-2005 00:00									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Because it's excessively restrictive/communist.

I prefer the libertarian style of the BSD license.

	04-06-2005 00:01									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Looking at the game, it doesn't look too bad or too good. Won't change anything really.

	04-06-2005 00:02									#7
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The article says it's not Winamp itself, but Winamp AVS.

	04-06-2005 00:03									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed The article says it's not Winamp itself, but Winamp AVS.

More lies from the open source community then.

Winamp AVS is just a single plugin. VERY different from opensourcing Winamp itself...

	04-06-2005 00:09									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'll edit that . Sorry about the misinfo .

	04-06-2005 00:10									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

No lies, just examples of some people not RTFA.

	04-06-2005 00:11									#11
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed No lies, just examples of some people not RTFA.

Saying they opensourced Wimamp is very much a lie.

	04-06-2005 00:18									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Asher , the BSD license is not libertarian , because it does not protect the copyrights and patent ights of the original creator as the GPL does . Another problem is this - what stops somebody from taking the entire codebase of the game , hiring only a few artists to touch it up , and then closing it , and making a killing on the backs of the original devs , none of whom get anything for thier efforts ?

AFAIK , the GPL is a contract - the price of using/modifying GLP software for distribution is that changes are also open . I see nothing wrong with such a contract , but you may feel free to disagree . It was when Stallman saw the thing I described happening ( student/dev makes core implementation of brilliant new idea , BSD licenses it , and it is shamelessly lifted , retouched , closed , and marketed as creation of someone else ) that he decided to write the GPL .

	04-06-2005 00:19									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Asher Saying they opensourced Wimamp is very much a lie.

An unintentional one , which I later corrected . I claim plausible deniability here .

	04-06-2005 00:27									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm Asher , the BSD license is not libertarian , because it does not protect the copyrights and patent ights of the original creator as the GPL does .

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mean.

The GPL is heavy-handed. If you put GPL code into a commercial application, the entire thing must be GPLed. If you make any changes, you must make these available. It's more restrictive.

The BSD license essentially says: "Here's some code! Go nuts! Use it as you want."

quote: Another problem is this - what stops somebody from taking the entire codebase of the game , hiring only a few artists to touch it up , and then closing it , and making a killing on the backs of the original devs , none of whom get anything for thier efforts ?

I don't see that as a problem at all -- they open sourced the code.

The BSD network stack is used in Windows NT, for instance.

That's one of the great features of the BSD license...you can easily incorporate the code into commercial products if you wanted to. It's more useful.

quote: AFAIK , the GPL is a contract - the price of using/modifying GLP software for distribution is that changes are also open . I see nothing wrong with such a contract , but you may feel free to disagree . It was when Stallman saw the thing I described happening ( student/dev makes core implementation of brilliant new idea , BSD licenses it , and it is shamelessly lifted , retouched , closed , and marketed as creation of someone else ) that he decided to write the GPL .

Well, GPL is considered evil in the Software Lab where I work. It's a legal minefield.

I don't see anything wrong if somebody takes BSD licensed code and makes it better, and gets paid for that.

And I think you and/or Stallman are partaking in revisionist history here -- credit must be given when using BSD code. You cannot take credit for it, in the sense that the BSD notice is not allowed to be removed, and it contains credits...

	04-06-2005 00:35									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Up until 1999, it was even more strict:

quote: " * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the University of * California, Berkeley and its contributors."

In short, I very much doubt RMS made the GPL after someone took credit for BSD-licensed work.

	04-06-2005 00:38									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I said marketed - they could easily have included the BSD notice in some obscure little corner . Again , the GPL's heavy-handedness is the price you pay for using the code in the first place .

AFAIK , the goal of the GPL is not just to provide a free alternative , but also to make GPLd libraries in all areas so feature rich and easy to use ( for devs ) , and so much software free , that is becomes impossible to practically create something which does not contain any shrad of free software . Stallman himself says that this is his ultimate objective ( though not explicitly ) .

	04-06-2005 00:47									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm I said marketed

quote: All advertising materials

quote: AFAIK , the goal of the GPL is not just to provide a free alternative , but also to make GPLd libraries in all areas so feature rich and easy to use ( for devs ) , and so much software free , that is becomes impossible to practically create something which does not contain any shrad of free software . Stallman himself says that this is his ultimate objective ( though not explicitly ) .

Yes, and that's the failure of the GPL.

MS got a lot of flak for calling the GPL a "viral" license (or "cancerous"), but the comparison is apt. If GPL software is added to non-GPL software, it "contaminates" the software and forces it to become GPL itself.

I find that repulsive behavior, and I can't stand the license.

	04-06-2005 02:17									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Having all code free is an utopia. I wouldn't work as a software programmer if I wasn't paid. The GPL license is therefore too restrictive to be very useful. The LGPL license looks better, since you can at least link with code using that license.
I think BSD is a good license.
Plus there have been great freeware games like NetHack for years.

	04-06-2005 02:32									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Why is this news? There are plenty of commerical games that have been released as GPL (source code excluding the binaries) or even JA2.

	04-06-2005 02:35									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Asher quote: All advertising materials Yes, and that's the failure of the GPL. MS got a lot of flak for calling the GPL a "viral" license (or "cancerous"), but the comparison is apt. If GPL software is added to non-GPL software, it "contaminates" the software and forces it to become GPL itself. I find that repulsive behavior, and I can't stand the license.

Doesn´t that go for commerical copyrighted code as well?If i use commerical code in a program of my own that´s viral too.

	04-06-2005 05:25									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by CapTVK Doesn´t that go for commerical copyrighted code as well?If i use commerical code in a program of my own that´s viral too.

Um. What?

If you use commercial code, you can use it however you negotiated the terms with the copyright owner.

You can use it without providing your sourcecode to anyone or adjusting the entire project's license. This happens all the time, especially in games.

It costs $300K-$1M to license the Unreal 3 game engine, but you don't need to adjust your product's license or give Epic your source code...

	04-06-2005 05:26									#22
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Having all code free is an utopia. I wouldn't work as a software programmer if I wasn't paid. The GPL license is therefore too restrictive to be very useful. The LGPL license looks better, since you can at least link with code using that license. I think BSD is a good license. Plus there have been great freeware games like NetHack for years.

That's precisely it.

Not all code will be free code. Ever. It's more likely that the entire world will become communist first and worship their God, Asher.

	04-06-2005 07:13									#23
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher Because it's excessively restrictive/communist. I prefer the libertarian style of the BSD license.

Of course. If Berkeley released their software with a GPL license, Microsoft would be able to steal their TCP stack without even saying thank you.

	04-06-2005 07:18									#24
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Having all code free is an utopia. I wouldn't work as a software programmer if I wasn't paid.

Not necessarily, all you need is a different business model.

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare The GPL license is therefore too restrictive to be very useful. The LGPL license looks better, since you can at least link with code using that license. I think BSD is a good license.

I don't see how it is restrictive. In fact, it relaxs existing copyright laws.

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Plus there have been great freeware games like NetHack for years.

The problem with freeware (as opposed to free software) is others have no access to the code. Thus, if the original author(s) drop(s) the project, it is dead.

	04-06-2005 07:42									#25
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The GPL restricts the ability of the person making use of GPLed code. I cannot use GPLed code in a project that isn't open source. That is a restriction. Therefore, the GPL is restrictive, because when something restricts something else, it is restrictive.

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi...n2.1?s=restrict

The BSD license is also restrictive. It restricts the licencee's ability not to include some text with their software. Also, it restricts the licencee's ability to take unfair advantage of the licenser's name. Those are the good, fair kind of restrictions. Many of the GPL's restrictions are impractical and ideological.

Also, the BSD license is easier to read than the GPL. It's even easier to read than the less restrictive MIT license, because the BSD licence is partly in bullet form.

SP

	04-06-2005 08:14									#26
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

AFAIK , colloborative development works better on GPLd projects . Plus , the GPL is very very lenient if you're not distributing the program . Would GCC , GNU binary utilities , GDB , and other things be as useful if they were not open ? One of GCC's main strengths is that it can compile almost anywhere for anything . I can compile for virtually any platform that matters sitting right at home on my little x86_64 box .

I know what your reply would be , so there is another aspect to it , too . What prevents Embrace , Extend , Extinguish tactics if you're using a BSD/MIT license ?


Just tell me again - if the BSD license was domianat and adopted , what would prevent someone lifting the entire GNU toolchain , the Linux kernel , repackaging it , and claiming that it ( the repackaging in more user-friendly form ) was a great innovation , while using the BSD credits notice to entice more customers by saying that it was "built on a stable and solid UNIX system" ?

	04-06-2005 08:49									#27
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Fve Crathva The GPL restricts the ability of the person making use of GPLed code. I cannot use GPLed code in a project that isn't open source. That is a restriction. Therefore, the GPL is restrictive, because when something restricts something else, it is restrictive.

As compared to public domain yes. As compared to existing copyright laws, no.

quote: Originally posted by Fve Crathva Many of the GPL's restrictions are impractical and ideological.

The entire purpose of GPL is to enrich the free and open software base. If anybody wants to modify and/or include GPL'ed code in their programs, they need to give something back. That is the price. As I pointed out, this is less restrictive than existing copyright laws.

Of course, anybody who only wants to use GPL programs are entirely free to do so.

	04-06-2005 08:57									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm AFAIK , colloborative development works better on GPLd projects . Plus , the GPL is very very lenient if you're not distributing the program . Would GCC , GNU binary utilities , GDB , and other things be as useful if they were not open ? One of GCC's main strengths is that it can compile almost anywhere for anything . I can compile for virtually any platform that matters sitting right at home on my little x86_64 box .

Sure, but GCC is a terrible compiler. It accepts malformed code without so much as a warning (making portability a nightmare to more correct platforms), its compile time and runtime performance are also abysmal compared to other compilers (ie, IBM's compilers for Power/PowerPC, Intel's compilers for x86).

quote: I know what your reply would be , so there is another aspect to it , too . What prevents Embrace , Extend , Extinguish tactics if you're using a BSD/MIT license ?

The superior product wins. Customers buy what they want and need. If someone takes an existing technology, improves upon it, and makes it available to the public...I see no problem with that.

quote: Just tell me again - if the BSD license was domianat and adopted , what would prevent someone lifting the entire GNU toolchain , the Linux kernel , repackaging it , and claiming that it ( the repackaging in more user-friendly form ) was a great innovation , while using the BSD credits notice to entice more customers by saying that it was "built on a stable and solid UNIX system" ?

Think about it -- that source code is still there. If someone takes it on and improves upon it, good on them. Apple did as much with MacOS X, didn't it?

GNU promotes mediocrity. GCC is a versatile compiler that accepts malformed code and generates crappy code as a result. The binaries are bloaty and slow. It's the perfect example of GPL code.

GPL spends too much time forcing an ideology, rather than helping consumers actually get quality programs.

	04-06-2005 08:59									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger The entire purpose of GPL is to enrich the free and open software base.

I completely agree! And that's why it's a terrible license.

The entire purpose of the BSD license is to enrich and propagate quality code where possible, leading to superior products.

quote: Of course, anybody who only wants to use GPL programs are entirely free to do so.

I want to use the GNU front-end for my own compiler, which is a proprietary backend that my company spent $160M developing over 5 years.

Unfortunately, I can't do that without making my backend open-sourced so my competitors can use it against me.

Why would I spend $160M of my company's capital in investing in something that provides me zero benefit w.r.t. my competition?

The argument could be made that GPL stifles innovation because it removes the incentive for competition.

	04-06-2005 09:44									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Asher I completely agree! And that's why it's a terrible license. The entire purpose of the BSD license is to enrich and propagate quality code where possible, leading to superior products.

The problem with the BSD license is users do not need to add back to the existing base. Thus the GPL works much better in this regard.

quote: Originally posted by Asher I want to use the GNU front-end for my own compiler, which is a proprietary backend that my company spent $160M developing over 5 years.

If you have spent $160M for a compiler, chances are you don't need to use the GNU front-end (if there is such a thing).

quote: Originally posted by Asher Unfortunately, I can't do that without making my backend open-sourced so my competitors can use it against me.

More FUD. You may use any GPL'ed code. Have you actually read the GNU Public License?