yalt's EDGE does not adhere to the GPL

[Lava_Croft]

Hi,

It seems that Yalt, the guy running the EDGE server in GPP, has a bit of trouble with understanding and/or adhering to the GNU General Public license he agreed to when he distributed his mod.
Nalf has been friendly enough to supply yalt with the sourcecode (under the GPL obviously) and even helped him debug his code. When Nalf requested the sourcecode from yalt, he has not replied positively. In fact, any request for the source code is met with a lot of resistance, usually resulting in the person requesting the code to be banned from his server.

A last stain on this mod is the fact that it uses sounds from StarCraft, which is questionable on a whole different level.

So, let's help out Nalf and the Tremulous community by trying to make Yalt understand that he has to release his source code, no matter what he thinks, wants or whatever.

Regards,

Lava Croft

[vcxzet]

He is required to provide the portions of source code that is enough to rebuild what is inside the distributed files. Generally, these just cover cgame and ui source codes, and some header files. Even if he gives them they are useless as most of the modifications resides in game and server code.


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

[kharnov]

What's on that server anyway?

[Loki]

What's on that server anyway?

kids, kids

[Purga]

You got a permaban if you ask for the sources.

[Loki]

You got a permaban if you ask for the sources.

kids, kids

[Lava_Croft]

You got a permaban if you ask for the sources.

kids, kids

At least you are adult enough to not reply to such childish posts! \o/

[Loki]

You got a permaban if you ask for the sources.

kids, kids

At least you are adult enough to not reply to such childish posts! \o/

Guess that makes me an adult nonadult.

[ULTRA Random ViruS]

You got a permaban if you ask for the sources.

Did you ask with a pretty smile on your face, good manners and all the whatnot to appease him, or did you try to annoy it out of him? 

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

You got a permaban if you ask for the sources.

Did you ask with a pretty smile on your face, good manners and all the whatnot to appease him, or did you try to annoy it out of him? 

irrelevant: lack of compliance to the license is unacceptable no matter how the request was parsed.

also, the name yalt is quite familiar to me for some reason.  wasent he involved with volt's bullshit?

[kharnov]

No, yalt came long after volt. He made Star ATCS, which was a bit controversial for including textures from commercial sources.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

i was speaking of volt's much more recent "tremulous 2" bullshit.  i seem to remember yalt being his "lead artist"?  i should really go through my images to find that screen of volt's "staff" to make sure.

[kharnov]

Tremulous 2 was Rotacak, not volt. It recently became Murnatan. Neither of them had yalt as a developer, as he does not live in the Czech Republic. If I recall correctly, yalt was part of Rotacak's old Tremulous community and disliked him for some reason.

As for volt, nobody has seen him in nearly two years. Good riddance.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

Tremulous 2 was Rotacak, not volt. It recently became Murnatan. Neither of them had yalt as a developer, as he does not live in the Czech Republic. If I recall correctly, yalt was part of Rotacak's old Tremulous community and disliked him for some reason.

As for volt, nobody has seen him in nearly two years. Good riddance.

damn, amazing i'd let these details mix themselves up like this.

oh, and looking at my image, it was nalf who was involved in "tremulous 2" anyway.

[vcxzet]

You got a permaban if you ask for the sources.

Did you ask with a pretty smile on your face, good manners and all the whatnot to appease him, or did you try to annoy it out of him? 

irrelevant: lack of compliance to the license is unacceptable no matter how the request was parsed.

also, the name yalt is quite familiar to me for some reason.  wasent he involved with volt's bullshit?

I wont give the source code if the request is made improperly. Improper requests cover the ones made in chat room, irc channel, game chat and forums. Email is the only way to go.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

I wont give the source code if the request is made improperly. Improper requests cover the ones made in chat room, irc channel, game chat and forums. Email is the only way to go.

correct me if i am wrong, but does not the GPL state you must provide source on request?  i do not recall anything about how "proper" the request is, or where it is made. 

in short, you violate the GPL, one of the most permissive and easiest licenses to comply with.

[ULTRA Random ViruS]

True. Well a whole bunch of folks refused to provide source code to me when I requested for reference.

No, yalt came long after volt. He made Star ATCS, which was a bit controversial for including textures from commercial sources.

Oddly enough I did have a feeling that it had textures from commercial projects. It was too good to be true.
Also, have you seen yalt's edition of ATCSHD? It'll give you a surprise if you haven't seen it.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

True. Well a whole bunch of folks refused to provide source code to me when I requested for reference.

a whole bunch of folks are ungrateful dicks who cant follow simple fucking instructions.

[vcxzet]

I wont give the source code if the request is made improperly. Improper requests cover the ones made in chat room, irc channel, game chat and forums. Email is the only way to go.

correct me if i am wrong, but does not the GPL state you must provide source on request?  i do not recall anything about how "proper" the request is, or where it is made. 

in short, you violate the GPL, one of the most permissive and easiest licenses to comply with.

And guess what, They should make their request using the provided contact information. They can't file a violation report otherwise.
see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

I wont give the source code if the request is made improperly. Improper requests cover the ones made in chat room, irc channel, game chat and forums. Email is the only way to go.

correct me if i am wrong, but does not the GPL state you must provide source on request?  i do not recall anything about how "proper" the request is, or where it is made. 

in short, you violate the GPL, one of the most permissive and easiest licenses to comply with.

And guess what, They should make their request using the provided contact information. They can't file a violation report otherwise.
see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

you need to reread that....  the part i assume you are referring to is in the section of "what to do if the license is violated", nothing in this says "the only way to request the source is through the listed contact information"  see section 6 -
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

[vcxzet]

I wont give the source code if the request is made improperly. Improper requests cover the ones made in chat room, irc channel, game chat and forums. Email is the only way to go.

correct me if i am wrong, but does not the GPL state you must provide source on request?  i do not recall anything about how "proper" the request is, or where it is made. 

in short, you violate the GPL, one of the most permissive and easiest licenses to comply with.

And guess what, They should make their request using the provided contact information. They can't file a violation report otherwise.
see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

you need to reread that....  the part i assume you are referring to is in the section of "what to do if the license is violated", nothing in this says "the only way to request the source is through the listed contact information"  see section 6 -
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Obviously, it was a reply to this:

in short, you violate the GPL, one of the most permissive and easiest licenses to comply with.

It is clearly stated that before screaming copyright violation you are supposed to use the provided contact information to request the source code. I don't see why someone would use all other methods except the provided contact information and call it copyright violation.
i.e. You are free to request the source code in anyway you want. But I am not required to provide it if you use anything other than the provided methods. It is not a violation on my side.

[/dev/humancontroller]

[you must a]ccompany [the distributed binary] with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

I wont give the source code if the request is made improperly. Improper requests cover the ones made in chat room, irc channel, game chat and forums. Email is the only way to go.

correct me if i am wrong, but does not the GPL state you must provide source on request?  i do not recall anything about how "proper" the request is, or where it is made. 

in short, you violate the GPL, one of the most permissive and easiest licenses to comply with.

And guess what, They should make their request using the provided contact information. They can't file a violation report otherwise.
see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

you need to reread that....  the part i assume you are referring to is in the section of "what to do if the license is violated", nothing in this says "the only way to request the source is through the listed contact information"  see section 6 -
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Obviously, it was a reply to this:

in short, you violate the GPL, one of the most permissive and easiest licenses to comply with.

It is clearly stated that before screaming copyright violation you are supposed to use the provided contact information to request the source code. I don't see why someone would use all other methods except the provided contact information and call it copyright violation.
i.e. You are free to request the source code in anyway you want. But I am not required to provide it if you use anything other than the provided methods. It is not a violation on my side.

so, you think that because it is stated that you should copy contact information down in event of a suspected breach of copyleft, this means that said contact information is the only way in which you are required to distribute your source?  this is legal language, it is very strict and specific in what it means.  i see nothing that says you are not required to provide the source if you are contacted through means other than your "official contact information".

i DO see many mediums clearly stated as valid means of providing the source.

and if there were any further question, the section dev/hc quoted states is beautifully....  the burden of sharing is on YOU.

[vcxzet]

so, you think that because it is stated that you should copy contact information down in event of a suspected breach of copyleft, this means that said contact information is the only way in which you are required to distribute your source?  this is legal language, it is very strict and specific in what it means.  i see nothing that says you are not required to provide the source if you are contacted through means other than your "official contact information".

i DO see many mediums clearly stated as valid means of providing the source.

and if there were any further question, the section dev/hc quoted states is beautifully....  the burden of sharing is on YOU.

Dont blame me if you fail at basic logic.
My written offer(text file provided with the binary distribution) contains my email. If someone emails me a request I provide them the source code. They are free to use other channels but I may or may not give them the source code if they choose a channel other than the one provided in the written offer.
Seriously you must be really retarded to ignore the text that comes with the binary distribution offering the source code at email requests and start trying other ways then cry "copyright violation". This just wastes everyone's time. What happens if they want to file a copyright violation? They would be asked if they requested the source code as described in the written offer.
I understand the rules of the GPL and respect them. But I hate GPL zealots who have no idea how it works.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

so, you think that because it is stated that you should copy contact information down in event of a suspected breach of copyleft, this means that said contact information is the only way in which you are required to distribute your source?  this is legal language, it is very strict and specific in what it means.  i see nothing that says you are not required to provide the source if you are contacted through means other than your "official contact information".

i DO see many mediums clearly stated as valid means of providing the source.

and if there were any further question, the section dev/hc quoted states is beautifully....  the burden of sharing is on YOU.

Dont blame me if you fail at basic logic.
My written offer(text file provided with the binary distribution) contains my email. If someone emails me a request I provide them the source code. They are free to use other channels but I may or may not give them the source code if they choose a channel other than the one provided in the written offer.
Seriously you must be really retarded to ignore the text that comes with the binary distribution offering the source code at email requests and start trying other ways then cry "copyright violation". This just wastes everyone's time. What happens if they want to file a copyright violation? They would be asked if they requested the source code as described in the written offer.
I understand the rules of the GPL and respect them. But I hate GPL zealots who have no idea how it works.

and where in the section quoted just above does it state that your written offer is the only means by which the source can be requested?  do you fail to realize that the point is documenting that a request was made?  nothing in the GPL says anything about you not having to provide the source if the request comes from some avenue of communication or the other, regardless of what your written offer has in it.

the nearest thing even resembling your claim is the GPL urging people to document contact info of a suspected violator, for use in investigation of the violation claims or possible prosecution.

[vcxzet]

Sorry I underestimated your ignorance.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

Sorry I underestimated your ignorance.

likewise.  you should really familiarize yourself with the vagarities of legalese.

also, consider that the spirit of the license is "sharing".

[/dev/humancontroller]

what does the text file look like? if it contains only "e-mail address: <...>", then that is not practically a written offer, despite any possible twisted interpretations. you are retarded if you think otherwise. the text file should contain a statement that "<...> is distributed under the GPL", and should connect that statement with the contact information, by making it clear that the source code will be provided in a reply (e-mail or so). now that is a written offer.

what is the actual case? is the GPL statement given? is the e-mail address properly connected?

[vcxzet]

The offer complies with GPLv3 6.b.1. As a free alternative to a physical distribution medium, the text includes this additional line:

You may also receive a copy of the source by sending an empty email with the subject line "SOURCE" to the address "user@example.com".

According to GPLv3 6.b.1 providing the source code on a physical medium is sufficient. However, it costs money and time. I don't think I am being evil by offering a free alternative (email).

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

The offer complies with GPLv3 6.b.1. As a free alternative to a physical distribution medium, the text includes this additional line:

You may also receive a copy of the source by sending an empty email with the subject line "SOURCE" to the address "user@example.com".

According to GPLv3 6.b.1 providing the source code on a physical medium is sufficient. However, it costs money and time. I don't think I am being evil by offering a free alternative (email).

and you are quite correct in your assumption.  what makes you a dickbag is the fact you feel you only need to honor requests for the source made to your email, and not any others.

why not at least upload the source to one of the free hosting services for FOSS/GPL software, and respond with such "improper requests" with "search it on..."?

again, the spirit of the license is "sharing".  imposing prissy restrictions on how you will deign to share is strongly against said spirit.