RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Required

CyanWorlds.com Engine Project Management
User avatar
Hoikas
Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by Hoikas »

Christian Walther wrote:It looks like on the Git side, Deledrius’ version has been chosen as the canonical one (not Hoikas’)?
Correct. Deledrius and Lyrositor have obtained the correct history with filter-branch; however, I seem to be stuck with something... not quite right. I'm still trying to get my history to look right.
Image
Christian Walther
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:54 am

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by Christian Walther »

OK, I'll have a look as well.

I think what’s important right now is that nobody declares their solution correct and forges ahead with it in a way that would make it difficult to revise until everyone has had a chance to review and discuss it.
User avatar
Hoikas
Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by Hoikas »

It looks like we get two consistent results... one for windows (mysisgit) and one on linux (the real git). I'm gonna chalk it up to a bug in mysisgit--my fork is now has the same history as Deledrius and Lyrositor.
Image
User avatar
Annabelle
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:40 am

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by Annabelle »

rarified wrote:Sorry, Annabelle. I didn't mean to alarm anyone :shock:

I tend to write a very dry terse response such as these when I'm acknowledging something that needs to be done while I'm in the process of performing the task. Which doesn't provide any context for someone unfamiliar with what is being done to understand the big picture of what is going on.

So in short, no horror is required on your part, just an understanding that a lot of paperwork is being shuffled.

_R
Henry (yeah him again, that's because I like him very much...) told me that I had this propensity to fantasize a lot. Well, I have to admit he is right... just for that statement though :lol:

If I don't understand something, which is true here, I will grab a piece of info and make my own story with it.

Thanks to all the guys who sorted it out for me, I can't see the past messages from yesterday... you know who you are :)
Annabelle-Sophie KI 4247 & Annabelle KI 5152 both members of DRC (2) :) & the lovable Grr KI 106414 sole member of Grr's Hood
Christian Walther
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:54 am

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by Christian Walther »

Quick progress report from IRC discussion from my point of view before I went to sleep last night:

The Git solution that Deledrius, Lyrositor etc. have arrived at is probably good, but has some little imperfections that there may be a way to fix while we’re at it, so I’m still considering it provisional:
  • It still has the ugly two “legs” (the first few revisions are duplicated, with slight differences) that were introduced in order to get a common ancestor between the OU and H-uru forks to make porting easier. Since we’re rewriting history and invalidating all clones anyway, we could try to clean that up and get back to a single leg (shared with OU).
  • What previously was the case in one of the two legs (and we couldn’t fix because it was already widely spread) has due to the “filter-branch” operation now spread to both: committer name “a'moaca'” was mangled to “a'moaca” by an (arguable) Git bug (see the edits on this post here and a mailing list thread). Would be nice to take the opportunity to get this fixed everywhere (with the caveat that the next filter-branch run on it will break it again, unless the Git bug has been fixed by then, but hopefully we won’t have to do that again).
  • Due to that changed committer name, it no longer matches the OU fork (assuming that one keeps the original committer name), reintroducing the split that we (I?) made such a fuss about bridging back then. However, it seems that that wouldn’t be such a big deal anymore, as my current method of porting still seems to work in that situation.
I think I should be able to come up with a way of addressing all these points and arriving at a nice solution for both the OU and H-uru sides, but will probably take a few days. I’ll report back with what I find so we can discuss whether we want to do that. Of course everyone else is also welcome to keep working toward the solution they prefer – the more we have to choose from in the end, the better.
User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by JWPlatt »

JWPlatt wrote:No, it does not. Nor does it affect plBinkBitmap.cpp. Nor the content. Only plLayerBink.cpp is affected.
Folks,

Adam was right to be concerned about plBinkPlayer.cpp (and plBinkBitmap.cpp).

Word has also come down that these other two files also must go. Please also eradicate these other two files. RAD Game Tools is monitoring our progress here, so let's get it done just as quickly as plLayerBink.cpp.

Thanks.
Perfect speed is being there.
User avatar
rarified
Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:48 pm
Location: Colorado, US

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by rarified »

I've made accessible a preliminary Mercurial repository with the affected files removed at http://foundry.openuru.org/hg/CWE-ou-NOBINK.

This repository will almost certainly not be the final one to be used for forks, so please only clone it for purposes of comparing with other repositories (Git or other), or for the purpose of patching the build files to remove references to the removed files. It also is not being mirrored at BitBucket.

Normal mirroring on BitBucket will resume when the final revised repositories have replaced the CWE and CWE-ou repositories on the Foundry.

A new client build will be available at the same time those repositories go live.

Thanks
_R
One of the OpenUru toolsmiths... a bookbinder.
Trekluver
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:04 am
Contact:

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by Trekluver »

Wow! This is undoubtedly serious. I've deleted my local copy of the CWE repository until this issue is resolved (I wasn't doing much with it anyways... :) ).
Lyrositor wrote:
rarified wrote:There are a cascade of other obligations we (anyone making a program available whose source code is licensed under the GPL) are subject to, which is what Lyrositor is referring to. The salient requirement is that a program built from GPL licensed source code must be accompanied by the exact source code used to build it. Since any client built from the source base prior to today was built with the errant file, providing that client without the source files runs afoul of the GPL. So the best thing to do is stop distributing the program until it can be rebuilt without the problem material.
This means Minkata, MO:ULa, Gehn, TOC, and any other Shard out there must stop providing their client to players the moment they edit the history of their source. I have done so with my own shard, and have removed any and all download links I have of clients I built. :|
Does this mean I need to delete my clients for these shards until corrected versions are compiled and released?
Image
TOC#60089 DI#132103 MOULa is Image
User avatar
rarified
Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:48 pm
Location: Colorado, US

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by rarified »

Trekluver wrote:Does this mean I need to delete my clients for these shards until corrected versions are compiled and released?
My take on this is: no, not unless you intend to redistribute the client. The code of concern never was incorporated into the binary programs during the build process, so the binary client programs are "clean". (At least for the Minkata client. I can't make any assertions for other shard clients.)

The reason for the redistribution limitation is the same issue Lyrositor is talking about. If you distribute a GPL binary program you need to to provide the sources used to build it. And those sources include the affected files, even though the build process doesn't use the contents of those files.

_R
One of the OpenUru toolsmiths... a bookbinder.
Trekluver
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:04 am
Contact:

Re: RAD Game Tools License Concern - Immediate Action Requir

Post by Trekluver »

Gotcha. Thanks rarified. :)
Image
TOC#60089 DI#132103 MOULa is Image
Post Reply

Return to “Management”