| |
Fancy a deathmatch ? |
| |
franck (09:17 8/12/2012)
nunfetishist (10:52 8/12/2012)
franck (13:15 8/12/2012)
flibble (14:17 8/12/2012)
nunfetishist (15:26 8/12/2012)
franck (16:10 8/12/2012)
nunfetishist (16:50 8/12/2012)
franck (17:43 8/12/2012)
nunfetishist (18:03 8/12/2012)
gaula92 (21:03 8/12/2012)
franck (21:29 8/12/2012)
nunfetishist (00:24 9/12/2012)
franck (08:20 9/12/2012)
swirlythingy (10:35 9/12/2012)
bhtooefr (13:02 11/12/2012)
nunfetishist (13:17 11/12/2012)
|
| |
|
Franck Martinaux |
Message #121606, posted by franck at 09:17, 8/12/2012 |
Member
Posts: 25
|
I have just released a port of Chocolate Doom for RISC OS.
It have been tested on Raspberry Pi and Beagleboard.
Chocolate Doom is the most accurate version from the original Doom experience.
It does support multiplayer mode for deathmatch up to 4 players, it supports all the WADs commercial and shareware.
Chocolate doom can be downloaded at : http://www.norisc-nofun.co.uk/Software.html
Don't forget that Rcomp is selling a commercial version of Doom, in case you plan to play with the Doom 1 commercial WAD, please consider to support our community.
Have fun !
Franck |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #121607, posted by nunfetishist at 10:52, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121606 |
 Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
Tsk, no source obvious. Fraggle will be annoyed! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Franck Martinaux |
Message #121608, posted by franck at 13:15, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121607 |
Member
Posts: 25
|
@Rob
I think you are really taking the piss with your comments.
You should be happy with what you get and stop to worry about what you don't get.
Porting is not about source code, by the way in the case of chocolate doom the sources are 99.9% identical to the original one.
What changed is all about the way you compile it, which goes to a customized Makefile using libraries I ported and using a customized version of GCCSDK that I made.
So it is all about the method and not really the original sources.
I will be more than happy to release sources and the method to compile them if only I get TIME. I don't know about you but I can "let's say" spend 2 to 3 hours a week on RISC OS because I have a full time job on the side, you know, one to feed family and pay the bills
But if you have so much time to spend , I can open you an ssh connection and then you can prepare the source code and nicely package it.
Packaging the source code is a very long work, actually longer than doing the port itself.
So in a nutshell to port a program you need to :
- Find a program you will like to see on your favorite platform
- Understand the source
- Port it to the platform
- Test it as much as you can
- Package the binaries, document it
- Publish it
All of these working 2 hours a week on it, and you expect that I could find time prior to the "publish it" step to polish, test and package the source code also ???
So frankly, unless you are staying on a planet where the days are 72Hours each, stop to complain about the lack of source code when someone release a port to the RISCOS world, and be happy about what you get.
And how about you Rob ? What did you do this year for the RISC OS Scene ???? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #121609, posted by flibble at 14:17, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121608 |
Posts: 892
|
Franck, Chocolate Doom is under the GNU GPL2 (according to the COPYING file in the upstream package). As such when someone who has downloaded the binary, asks for the source, and you don't provide it, you Franck are in breach of the licence that you received the source under in the first place.
This has nothing to do with how hard a port is, or how little time you have to work on them. Just that you are not acting in accordance with the licenses you received the source under in the first place. Understand that the people who provide the source, id software, and then the people who modified it, chocolate doom authors, want you to distribute the source, not just Rob.
Ps. id software has more lawyers than you, me or Rob. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #121610, posted by nunfetishist at 15:26, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121609 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
As Peter says, you're essentially pirating this software. And the maintainer of Chocolate Doom is somebody I actually know. So you're ripping them off by ignoring the licence under which you received the sources in the first place.
I don't like it when people rip off friends of mine. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Franck Martinaux |
Message #121611, posted by franck at 16:10, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121610 |
Member
Posts: 25
|
Is it ? Shit. I did not see things on this angle.
So I am in deep troubles then.
Hold on ! What is it ? The Police is knocking at my door !!!!!
Inspector Jacques Clouseau : "Are you the guy who recompiled programs and publish them on the internet ?"
Franck / norisc-nofun : "Yes, how can I help you inspector ?"
Inspector Jacques Clouseau : "At least 200 people downloaded them, and ID Software is claiming a potential lose of $2000"
Franck / norisc-nofun : "No Way, that much !!!"
Inspector Jacques Clouseau : "And you did not respect the GPLv2 license, you are a naughty boy !"
Franck / norisc-nofun : "It is not true officer, here is the source :
http://www.norisc-nofun.co.uk/downloads/chocolate-doom-1.7.0.tar.gz , I did not change a single line of the code, I just spent time to port it to RISC OS by adapting the method of compilation"
Inspector Jacques Clouseau : "Ok, you are good then, you are a gentleman"
Franck / norisc-nofun : "Anytime officer, have a nice day"
See guys, the Inspector Jacques Clouseau came to my house and he confirmed that everything is all right.
By the way, you can tell to your friend that his code is absolutely portable and very very clean, I did not change a single line. It works straight if you have the RIGHT DEV ENVIRONMENT. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #121612, posted by nunfetishist at 16:50, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121611 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
Franck / norisc-nofun : "It is not true officer, here is the source :
http://www.norisc-nofun.co.uk/downloads/chocolate-doom-1.7.0.tar.gz , I did not change a single line of the code, I just spent time to port it to RISC OS by adapting the method of compilation" So you changed the build system, which is probably also licensed under the GPL. Incidentally, this is a civil mater, not a crown one, so the police wouldn't be involved. But don't let that stop you making childish jokes about your infringing of people's rights and ignoring their wishes when you take their work. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Franck Martinaux |
Message #121613, posted by franck at 17:43, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121612 |
Member
Posts: 25
|
Seriously, who do you think you are ?????
Childish jokes is my way to answer to deep stupidity.
Yes I changed my build system, then what ?
I also changed the shape of my water pipe at home, do you think I should check if there is any patents on it ?
Or maybe you know the guy who owns the patent on plumbing design ?
I actually write my own C Compiler and so on with the help of my grandma as she is retired and have plenty of time. She did a fantastic job.
Do you want to send the Free Software Foundation army to check if I don't use a line from them ???
"Exposing morons since 1981", no doubt you really expose yourself on this forum.
By the way I write to Simon, who is happy with what I did for some reason he does not give a fuck if I change my build environment, so what is your problem ???? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #121614, posted by nunfetishist at 18:03, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121613 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
Err, right. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Señor Nueces |
Message #121615, posted by gaula92 at 21:03, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121614 |
Member
Posts: 43
|
@Franck:
I think you don't get the idea about open source software and GPL: if you take Chocolate Doom (GPLv2 as you've been told),port it to Risc OS and release it to the public, even with minimal modifications, you acquire the duty of releasing the sources too.
Of course, you're free to port it to Risc OS, keep it for yourself and never release it publicly. But this is not what you did.
You've even claimed to be using an optimized Risc OS libSDL: it's more of the same. You should release the sources and building tools since you've released several binaries based on it.
Look: If you improve libSDL Risc OS backend and you release sources and building instructions, more people will be able to use it, to learn from it and improve your own work.
If you keep it for yourself... who cares? Who's going to appreciate your closed binaries? They're not for the benefit of the users who could learn from your code.
Releasing the soures can be as easy as zipping your working directory and including a simple TXT with building instructions: 3 minutes in total.
That's the difference between releasing something useful that can be improved and maintained, or releasing a closed binary most Risc OS people won't care about.
Now please don't insult me, too. It won't make any good to you or me. Things are the way they are: humans evolve with collaboration and knowledge sharing.
[Edited by gaula92 at 21:54, 8/12/2012] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Franck Martinaux |
Message #121616, posted by franck at 21:29, 8/12/2012, in reply to message #121615 |
Member
Posts: 25
|
Hi,
I don't understand the point.
Chris Gransden got in touch with me couple of weeks ago and asked me the source I am using for the LibSDL.
And I did send him the source. I let him know that the sources are modified in quick and dirty way and this is it.
I never ever refused to provide any source code to anyone that requested it. I don't know where this idea is coming from.
As I said I will appreciate any help to assist me to package properly the modified sources and then publish them.
In the meantime, anyone can request me the sources, I will be more than happy to provide them and help other active coder fellows. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #121617, posted by nunfetishist at 00:24, 9/12/2012, in reply to message #121616 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
The easy thing to do is to read and understand the licence under which you received the source code in the first place. Not just Doom, but all the libraries you used. It's not hard, and not obeying it means you're essentially pirating this software. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Franck Martinaux |
Message #121619, posted by franck at 08:20, 9/12/2012, in reply to message #121617 |
Member
Posts: 25
|
You know what, I am getting tired, and it is not really funny anymore.
Anytime someone request the source of anything I am using, I always provided the sources. Which is if I am not mistaken absolutely fine with the GPL license.
It happened only one time (Chris).
How can you dare to accuse me of pirating ?????
I have to disagree on the fact that it takes only 3 minutes to package the sources, but I won't argue anymore.
Once again, I will be more than happy to have people contacting me to contribute to the ports I am doing and help me to improve the quality of the software and the quality of the sources.
Unfortunately, so far it never happened.
Here are some stats :
Fastdosbox : downloaded 246 times, Zero feedback, zero help proposal, zero request for source
Hatari : downloaded 127 times , Zero feedback, zero help proposal, zero request for source.
ROTT : downloaded 141 times , Zero feedback, zero help proposal, zero request for source.
I am actually done with IconBar.com, that will be my last post here.
Ciao happy people.
Franck / NORISC-NOFUN |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Martin Bazley |
Message #121620, posted by swirlythingy at 10:35, 9/12/2012, in reply to message #121619 |
Posts: 460
|
Allow me to be the first person on this thread to make reference to what the GPLv2 actually says, rather than what its fanboys like to think it says.
I have to disagree on the fact that it takes only 3 minutes to package the sources, but I won't argue anymore. It doesn't have to:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
b) Accompany it 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; [...]
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. 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. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. It's debatable what it means by a 'compiler normally being distributed with an operating system', but in any case I think your modifications probably fall under the 'scripts' definition, and if you have an improved SDL then that definitely falls under 'all modules it contains'.
So all you have to do is write on your download page, "Contact me if you want the source code and development environment".
PS: Ignore Rob. He's a cunt. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Eric Rucker |
Message #121641, posted by bhtooefr at 13:02, 11/12/2012, in reply to message #121620 |
Member
Posts: 337
|
Actually, it's required to be in the package the download comes in, not on the page.
And I'm not sure if the written offer clause applies to downloads (I'm not sure of the legal definition of "written offer"). |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #121642, posted by nunfetishist at 13:17, 11/12/2012, in reply to message #121641 |
Today's phish is trout a la creme.
Posts: 525
|
And I'm not sure if the written offer clause applies to downloads (I'm not sure of the legal definition of "written offer"). Most people are quite content with either a written offer on the download page, or just a link to the sources nearby. The GPL is poorly written, leading to such vagueness. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
