Put the wish list for porting projects HERE...

[Svartalf]

Damn, we could try asking Sega, right? Since theyre such a big company, probably itd be more effective if you contacted them directly, since they probably will only listen to other companies. Althogh i can try asking anyways. Ill ask CA first for alt-platforms & online distribution thing.


Heh... Talking to SEGA is about like talking to Nintendo or EA... Even if they were amenable to it, for THAT franchise, they're gonna want a LOT of cash up-front. :D


Regarding Riddick, how would we know that? By asking Starbreeze, or Activision? This would be very good too, since the new Riddick game was supposed to come out as a VU published game, before the game selloff.

Indeed it was, but Starbreeze is shopping a new publisher for the remix version planned for PS3/X-Box 360, which means a remote possibility for it, whereas before it was a foregone conclusion of "no".

[Svartalf]

What about that mmo game Asheron's Call? I think the company that made it also made the Lord of the Rings game too.

Heh... Did you NOT see whom the publisher was on that, xav1r? ;)

[jonwil]

How independent are Bungie these days? I do know they made a big song and dance about breaking ties with Microsoft but what does that actually mean? Is it like Gas Powered who jumped ship to THQ as a publisher or is it just that they are now seperate from MS but still published by MS?

[Svartalf]

How independent are Bungie these days? I do know they made a big song and dance about breaking ties with Microsoft but what does that actually mean? Is it like Gas Powered who jumped ship to THQ as a publisher or is it just that they are now seperate from MS but still published by MS?

The studio being independent means little if the publishing deal gives the publisher control of the rights for a given title. If that's the case, Bungie's new stuff is out of the picture, though we might be able to bring Myth2 back as a going concern through them right now. If MS is the publisher, they're going to be dead subjects unless they're publishing for alternate platforms through other pubs...

Gas Powered being free from MS' influences, may place things in a better position, but since THQ, according to someone who worked there in the past, not currently interested in Linux versions or support makes that move by GP not so big a deal. :D

[me262]

How independent are Bungie these days? I do know they made a big song and dance about breaking ties with Microsoft but what does that actually mean? Is it like Gas Powered who jumped ship to THQ as a publisher or is it just that they are now seperate from MS but still published by MS?
I detect a faint hint of wanting Halo on Linux...
That's just barking up the wrong tree there.

I'd be more interested in the Marathon series, but I believe it's already been done with AlephOne. Maybe give it better graphics... or even better, convince Bungie to do a complete makeover.
Oni... *shudders*

In all honesty, I don't think anyone knows what Bungie has planned as of late. They're doing a Halo 3 spinoff according to their site, but as far as original new titles, it's an unknown.

[Svartalf]

I detect a faint hint of wanting Halo on Linux...
That's just barking up the wrong tree there.


Indeed... But a respin of Myth2 and an official version of Myth on Linux would be nice, wouldn't it? ;)


I'd be more interested in the Marathon series, but I believe it's already been done with AlephOne. Maybe give it better graphics... or even better, convince Bungie to do a complete makeover.


Heh... Marathon with a modern engine. Actually, that's not too bad of an idea, really.


Oni... *shudders*


Heh... It's not Bungie's anymore, even if you wanted to have it- it's Take2's according to all I understand about it.


In all honesty, I don't think anyone knows what Bungie has planned as of late. They're doing a Halo 3 spinoff according to their site, but as far as original new titles, it's an unknown.

I'm interested in the prospects of at least their parts of the Myth franchise that they own the rights to. Myth was a cool game to play- and the graphics weren't so bad that you'd have people interested in that style of play griping about the "lack of eye candy".

[xav1r]

Marathon sounds like a good prospect. Its still property of Bungie, right? I think it's a done deal. The entire trilogy is even available as a full legal download. :) Updated gfx and a professional looking package might make it more appealing. :)

Besides, wouldnt it be awesome to have the Marathon for Linux section of the game site saying: "From the makers of Halo." :D:D:D:D

[xav1r]

...so Svartalf, have you gotten any results of the insights into the games we suggested in the last few pages of this thread?

[niniendowarrior]

...so Svartalf, have you gotten any results of the insights into the games we suggested in the last few pages of this thread?

Oooh... Aren't you demanding? :p

[Svartalf]

Oooh... Aren't you demanding? :p

Yeah, he is.. I've been busy with other pressing matters. :D

[Svartalf]

Marathon sounds like a good prospect. Its still property of Bungie, right? I think it's a done deal. The entire trilogy is even available as a full legal download. :) Updated gfx and a professional looking package might make it more appealing. :)


Considering that Bungie is the one offering this very thing, including high-res textures, landscapes, and other effects enhancements, for download- I don't get what you're asking here.

http://source.bungie.org/

It's all been done after a fashion. Unless you're talking about a cross-platform commercial re-spin using the stuff offered there at that URL for next to nothing as a cheap meatspace pack and a "download" that's "supported" and supports the project...

Well, if that's the case, find a publisher (If we get GoG talking to us...that would be the publisher if Bungie would sign off on it...) and then we might be in a better position to talk with them about that one.


Besides, wouldnt it be awesome to have the Marathon for Linux section of the game site saying: "From the makers of Halo." :D:D:D:D

Heh... That MIGHT just have the legal vultures from Redmond descend upon you on that one. Remember, in the US, you can file damned near any crap you see fit (See SCOX vs. IBM...) even if there's no factual basis for it- you'd have to spend money defending against anything they might field, legit or otherwise so. I want to make games and stuff like it, not keep Lawyers paid up and employed... ;)

[xav1r]

Today I got a very interesting email from one of the key people behind Powerslave and the Lobotomy Saturn games engine, Erza Dreishbach, regarding the status of Powerslave as well as the engine:

The legal situation for that stuff is real complicated. I never saw Lobotomy's publishing contracts, so as far as I know Playmates might own the rights to Powerslave. Lobotomy seemed to think it was free to continue using the Saturn engine though, and Snowblind and I have recently acquired the rights to all of Lobotomy's intellectual property.

However, when Lobotomy went out of business, they licensed it all to Crave. The license was for 10 years, renewing for another 10 if not terminated by either party before hand. We terminated their license last Summer, but they don't really agree that it was all legal.

So using any other Lobotomy property will require negotiation with Crave, or accepting some risk of litigation.

Very kool info, aint it? This could lead to somewhere. :o

[Svartalf]

Very kool info, aint it? This could lead to somewhere. :o

Interesting...


I never saw Lobotomy's publishing contracts, so as far as I know Playmates might own the rights to Powerslave.


I'd ask Playmates again if they'd be so kind as to determine if they're the rights holders in standing for Powerslave, and if so, if they'd be interested in a "respin" of it for the "retro" crowd.


However, when Lobotomy went out of business, they licensed it all to Crave. The license was for 10 years, renewing for another 10 if not terminated by either party before hand. We terminated their license last Summer, but they don't really agree that it was all legal.


I would like to know the details of this was before forging forward. Crave can certainly state the whole affair was not legit, but if they're within the terms of the agreement/contract as it was actioned by Lobotomy and Crave at the time they got bought out, they'd have trouble making a case. Having said this, however, Crave can file just about any junk they like to do to muddy up the waters (SCOX showed us that this can be done for quite a while, in fact...) and I'm a little leery of undergoing talks without a bit more discussion. Moreover, one would wonder just precisely what they have in their hand that would be worth fighting over like that...

[xav1r]

Interesting...



I'd ask Playmates again if they'd be so kind as to determine if they're the rights holders in standing for Powerslave, and if so, if they'd be interested in a "respin" of it for the "retro" crowd.



I would like to know the details of this was before forging forward. Crave can certainly state the whole affair was not legit, but if they're within the terms of the agreement/contract as it was actioned by Lobotomy and Crave at the time they got bought out, they'd have trouble making a case. Having said this, however, Crave can file just about any junk they like to do to muddy up the waters (SCOX showed us that this can be done for quite a while, in fact...) and I'm a little leery of undergoing talks without a bit more discussion. Moreover, one would wonder just precisely what they have in their hand that would be worth fighting over like that...

Ragarding Playmates, I contacted them twice about it, and in both cases they didnt know there was a game called Powerslave. :P I got the same reply from the same person. About Crave / Lobotomy, they can certainly bitch a moan, but it most likely wont get them anywhere. I dont think they have some special contract in their sleeve over the IP of these games. Im still waiting for a reply from Erza regarding a opensourcing/re-releasing of the Lobotomy games.

[Svartalf]

Ragarding Playmates, I contacted them twice about it, and in both cases they didnt know there was a game called Powerslave. :P I got the same reply from the same person.

They shuttered the business unit in question and they may not realize they hold the rights to the first title- or, depending on how the deal was structured, when PIE was shuttered, the rights didn't stay with PIE's successor in interest, the parent company.


About Crave / Lobotomy, they can certainly bitch a moan, but it most likely wont get them anywhere. I dont think they have some special contract in their sleeve over the IP of these games. Im still waiting for a reply from Erza regarding a opensourcing/re-releasing of the Lobotomy games.

/me nods...

There was plans to produce (how far the dev work got remains to be seen...) for a "Powerslave 2" right after the casino game they were first tasked with was finished. I doubt that there's anything special about that though. I think there was only concept art that was ever done on it. Only Ezra's bunch and Crave knows for sure what all is there (To be sure, there's got to be "something" there, even if it's rights to the old stuff for people like GoG to publish or for Virtual Console downloads to 360/PS3/Wii like Interplay's done with Earthworm Jim on the Wii... If not, they'd not bother with this little powerplay move over it like they've done...)

[xav1r]

They shuttered the business unit in question and they may not realize they hold the rights to the first title- or, depending on how the deal was structured, when PIE was shuttered, the rights didn't stay with PIE's successor in interest, the parent company.



/me nods...

There was plans to produce (how far the dev work got remains to be seen...) for a "Powerslave 2" right after the casino game they were first tasked with was finished. I doubt that there's anything special about that though. I think there was only concept art that was ever done on it. Only Ezra's bunch and Crave knows for sure what all is there (To be sure, there's got to be "something" there, even if it's rights to the old stuff for people like GoG to publish or for Virtual Console downloads to 360/PS3/Wii like Interplay's done with Earthworm Jim on the Wii... If not, they'd not bother with this little powerplay move over it like they've done...)

So whats the course of action you would recommend taking?

[RobbieAB]

Moreover, one would wonder just precisely what they have in their hand that would be worth fighting over like that...

The devastating PR damage such a battle over a Linux port would do to Linux as a gaming platform?

[Svartalf]

The devastating PR damage such a battle over a Linux port would do to Linux as a gaming platform?

Uh... Riight. I thought you weren't the paranoid type, RobbieAB... ;)

No, what you're seeing here is a pissing match over people involved with the former company who, per contract, have the rights to pull the plug on all the licensing that was given to the buyer, per the buyout deal- and the company who thinks they "own" it in perpetuity, never mind that they did nothing with it and even if the parties didn't pull the plug, they had only another 10 on anything with it before it ceased being theirs and reverted to the original owners.

[xav1r]

So what can be done? Theres an opportunity here, its not our problem that these 2 companies are engaged in a pissing contest, their little fight shouldnt have these games and such fall into outer space as a consequence.

[RobbieAB]

I was referring to why a port could end up in a legal mess, rather than the current situation. They would sort of have a plausible sounding case, kind of, and it would certainly sound more plausible than SCOs case. Add to that, there does exist a large company who would love to see another messy legal wrangle drag out for 5 years tainting Linux by association...

Ok, I'm being paranoid, but I personally would say "Don't Touch" without the situation being settled. ;)

[Svartalf]

So what can be done? Theres an opportunity here, its not our problem that these 2 companies are engaged in a pissing contest, their little fight shouldnt have these games and such fall into outer space as a consequence.

I think that the original owners would have the rights if the parties in the contract were the ones that pulled the trigger and handed it to Snowblind (Which is the case I am actually seeing here from the second hand info we're getting...)- Crave can bitch all they want, they lost it and they weren't using it anyhow. :D

Let us know what comes of it, xav1r.

[Svartalf]

I was referring to why a port could end up in a legal mess, rather than the current situation. They would sort of have a plausible sounding case, kind of, and it would certainly sound more plausible than SCOs case. Add to that, there does exist a large company who would love to see another messy legal wrangle drag out for 5 years tainting Linux by association...


HOW? This is a game, not the kernel. And, it'd be a cross-platform project with Linux being one of the targets. :D

I'm going to say that we ought to be cautious, but my read is that if there was clauses in the licensing deal, then they probably DID it which is why you're seeing the downloadable version of Death Tanks for 360. And Crave's seeing a revenue stream slip through their fingers and throwing whatever up against the wall to see if it sticks and they can get that stream going for them instead of Snowblind. :D

[RobbieAB]

"Taint by association" type attacks have never worked before? ;)

The fact the attack is complete nonsense is pretty irrelevant to how it would be spun, look at Microsoft or Intel marketing for a demo of that... :p

[xav1r]

"Taint by association" type attacks have never worked before? ;)

The fact the attack is complete nonsense is pretty irrelevant to how it would be spun, look at Microsoft or Intel marketing for a demo of that... :p


Introducing Powerslave for linux...on the Intel Atom!!! :D

[xav1r]

Well, there goes any chance of having the Riddick games ported to linux:

http://www.testfreaks.com/forum/f13/atari-publish-chronicles-riddick-assault-dark-athena-worldwide-spring-3469/

Atari picked up the rights, so I guess now it's up to them. :D :D

[Svartalf]

Well, there goes any chance of having the Riddick games ported to linux:

http://www.testfreaks.com/forum/f13/atari-publish-chronicles-riddick-assault-dark-athena-worldwide-spring-3469/

Atari picked up the rights, so I guess now it's up to them. :D :D

Well...hell... :(

You're right...for right now, that's pretty much a dead subject.

[xav1r]

Yea, I know, it's sad actually. :( But let's keep the hopes up. Have you been able to follow-up on the other games mentioned here a few pages back?

[Thetargos]

Well, being Riddik a rather big franchise, it doesn't surprise me much that it was a rather big publisher that got the rights.

[niniendowarrior]

Why the despair over such a rubbish title? j/k

Okay, maybe I don't like the Chronicles of Riddick games... so I don't feel sad about it. lol.

[xav1r]

Wow, finally, a break. I got this email from Erza Dreishbach today regarding Powerslave:

As far as I'm concerned personally, you can do whatever you want with it free of charge. However, you've got a lot of other people to talk to. I'm pretty sure Playmates or someone has the rights to the Powerslave game. Lobotomy didn't seem to think it retained them. And Crave certainly considers themselves to own some rights to the Powerslave engine.

Also, Snowblind and I may have obtained all Lobotomy's rights, but I don't really feel like I should be the one to control Powerslave IP. I'd want to talk to the other Lobotomy members about any kind of deal.

So he's OK with that!! Now it's a matter of contacting the right people. :)

[geamandura]

Hi guys. How about Harvest - Massive Encounter? I've been playing it on Windows, and it absolutely rocks. Good graphics, big replayability, made by a seemingly very small studio from Sweden. Would be nice to have it native on Linux.

http://oxeyegames.com/harvest/

[niniendowarrior]

Wow, finally, a break. I got this email from Erza Dreishbach today regarding Powerslave:



So he's OK with that!! Now it's a matter of contacting the right people. :)

This is certainly good news, I think. If he's open with it, that's one person down and a couple of hundred to go! :D j/k

[xav1r]

This is certainly good news, I think. If he's open with it, that's one person down and a couple of hundred to go! :D j/k


Yep, well, now it's more like 100, probably somewhat less. I contacted playmates for the 3rd time now, and they have told me again that they dont know nothing about it. I dont think they own the rights anymore, or if they do, they just dont care, although that doesnt seem to be the case. Im more inclined to the first posibility.

I guess it's down to Crave and the rest of the ex lobotomy employees. Now, where to find them...:rolleyes:

[niniendowarrior]

Yep, well, now it's more like 100, probably somewhat less. I contacted playmates for the 3rd time now, and they have told me again that they dont know nothing about it. I dont think they own the rights anymore, or if they do, they just dont care, although that doesnt seem to be the case. Im more inclined to the first posibility.

I guess it's down to Crave and the rest of the ex lobotomy employees. Now, where to find them...:rolleyes:

If you hold the ending credits list of Powerslave, that's a start. :P

[xav1r]

If you hold the ending credits list of Powerslave, that's a start. :P

Thats a good starting point, thanks.

Well, so far from doing some basic searches, I found that the main lead designer for powerslave was someone named Brian McNeely. After Lobotomy shut down he went to Game Boss studios, which specialized in n64 games. Taht company shut down too. However, im seeing that apparently they were in contacts (game boss) with another company still around called SouthPeak. Maybe Svartalf knows something if they probably acquired Game Boss?

[Svartalf]

Thats a good starting point, thanks.

Well, so far from doing some basic searches, I found that the main lead designer for powerslave was someone named Brian McNeely. After Lobotomy shut down he went to Game Boss studios, which specialized in n64 games. Taht company shut down too. However, im seeing that apparently they were in contacts (game boss) with another company still around called SouthPeak. Maybe Svartalf knows something if they probably acquired Game Boss?

They might have (I don't know this for certain, but the digging I was able to do online indicates that things went down that way...), but it appears Brian landed over at Nintendo in Seattle, based on a LinkedIn check... :D

In a bent sort of way, I kind of like LinkedIn afterall... ;)

[xav1r]

They might have (I don't know this for certain, but the digging I was able to do online indicates that things went down that way...), but it appears Brian landed over at Nintendo in Seattle, based on a LinkedIn check... :D

In a bent sort of way, I kind of like LinkedIn afterall... ;)

Really? ehehehe, then he returned to Nintendo, since Lobotomy was founded by former nintendo employees that wanted to create their own studio. :P

[niniendowarrior]

Really? ehehehe, then he returned to Nintendo, since Lobotomy was founded by former nintendo employees that wanted to create their own studio. :P

That would be a very accurate description. You see, Nintendo had problems with third party support, so they had to look like they had third party companies supporting them. :D j/k

Lobotomy, I wonder why a people would want to name their own company after a type of psychosurgery. :D

[xav1r]

That would be a very accurate description. You see, Nintendo had problems with third party support, so they had to look like they had third party companies supporting them. :D j/k

Lobotomy, I wonder why a people would want to name their own company after a type of psychosurgery. :D


Cause it sounds cool? Why would someone name their companies Valve or Blizzard? :p

[Svartalf]

Lobotomy, I wonder why a people would want to name their own company after a type of psychosurgery. :D

To sound "cool". About like rock band names (Why the heck you'd want to name a band "Toad The Wet Sprocket", "Stone Temple Pilots", or "Veruca Salt" is beyond me, but we happen to have bands named that way... ;)).

In the end, it matters little if the stuff's good. :D

[Dragonlord]

Just look at Linux application projects... quite a selection of strange names there too. :D

[xav1r]

To sound "cool". About like rock band names (Why the heck you'd want to name a band "Toad The Wet Sprocket", "Stone Temple Pilots", or "Veruca Salt" is beyond me, but we happen to have bands named that way... ;)).

In the end, it matters little if the stuff's good. :D

Damn, you like those bands?? Youre so old. :D:D You like the last decade, heh? ;)

[Svartalf]

Damn, you like those bands?? Youre so old. :D:D You like the last decade, heh? ;)

Did I SAY I liked those bands?

The narfy, goofy names stuck in my head and were examples.

I listen to things like Jethro Tull, Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones, Styx, etc... While my listening tastes are eclectic, most of that 90's "music" wasn't music. :D

[Dragonlord]

Why wasn't music? I would consider techno and all that crap not music ( more raping your /dev/dsp on the way out of the door ). At last with 80s/90s you had some ear worms and melody which somehow gets a bit lost nowadays ( at least for those music genres ).

[Svartalf]

Why wasn't music? I would consider techno and all that crap not music ( more raping your /dev/dsp on the way out of the door ). At last with 80s/90s you had some ear worms and melody which somehow gets a bit lost nowadays ( at least for those music genres ).

Heh... A lot of that music from that era was that sort of thing, either directly or indirectly- at least to me... Each has their own musical tastes.

[xav1r]

I prefer the rock/metal alt,(stupid label) bands of the early last decade than the average garden variety good charlottes or taking back sundays or any of those stupid idiotic bands. And I dont think it's because im "old".

[Dragonlord]

Heh... A lot of that music from that era was that sort of thing, either directly or indirectly- at least to me... Each has their own musical tastes.
At last back then we had a variety of music styles which really had been different. Nowadays you have like tens of different "house" or "techno" or give-it-some-strange-name music genre where I start questioning where the fucking difference is in the end.

[xav1r]

At last back then we had a variety of music styles which really had been different. Nowadays you have like tens of different "house" or "techno" or give-it-some-strange-name music genre where I start questioning where the fucking difference is in the end.

That means youre getting old too. ;) Welcome!

[Dragonlord]

Well... I do feel in fact rather old ( although I'm not that old ) looking at the age of people roaming the internet nowadays. If this goes on you stumble sooner or later over babies shouting "n00b" at you in chats :P

[alihan1988]

I would ask people to keep this honest. This is not a blind wish list for everything and anything, it is a request for suggestions of things that someone, myself or others, can reasonably obtain the rights to produce a port for Linux. If you are in a production studio AAA or their publishers to make it possible, say so when you ask it otherwise put the pie in the sky aspirations elsewhere, please.

[xav1r]

I would ask people to keep this honest. This is not a blind wish list for everything and anything, it is a request for suggestions of things that someone, myself or others, can reasonably obtain the rights to produce a port for Linux. If you are in a production studio AAA or their publishers to make it possible, say so when you ask it otherwise put the pie in the sky aspirations elsewhere, please.

Hmm, if i remember correctly, the title of the thread is Put the wish list for porting projects HERE.... Besides, if you have read the thread pages, you will see that there are very realistic leads that are being looked into, and several key people have been contacted and some have given the go ahead. So were not just pulling names out of our collective rear ends.

[Svartalf]

Hmm, if i remember correctly, the title of the thread is Put the wish list for porting projects HERE....

Now, now... The poor poster there meant well.. There's been some silly requests put up- and they've been shot down hard and in spectacular flames in some cases. Their concerns, while well founded, probably would have been allayed with reading the thread from the beginning- which, I'll admit, is a bit painful considering the length and popularity of this little side project of ours.

[Dragonlord]

RTFT... Read the F(ine) Forum Topic :P

[xav1r]

Now, now... The poor poster there meant well.. There's been some silly requests put up- and they've been shot down hard and in spectacular flames in some cases. Their concerns, while well founded, probably would have been allayed with reading the thread from the beginning- which, I'll admit, is a bit painful considering the length and popularity of this little side project of ours.

Yea I know, i didnt mean to sound rude or defensive, and yes, I agree with the poster, were on the same page here. I know there will be a good outcome of this thread, be positive. :)

BTW Svartalf, were you able to follow up on any of the game leads?

[Svartalf]

BTW Svartalf, were you able to follow up on any of the game leads?

Unfortunately, no. I'm trying to put the wraps on Bandits (I've got sound partly sorted out (finally- at least the music plays and the cutscenes work like they're supposed to now...) - but the sound effects don't play within OpenAL-Soft and the sound resource queue, only as direct plays, which causes other issues...sigh...), had to deal with a death in my GF's family, and some issues with another business venture I'm working on. Been a bit swamped for the last week and a half. I'll check into here shortly. :D

[Kano]

MDK on Linux would be cool... - best with red blood ;)

[niniendowarrior]

BTW Svartalf, were you able to follow up on any of the game leads?

Come on, xav1r. Svartalf is only one person. He can't do your bidding all the time. :D lol

[xav1r]

Come on, xav1r. Svartalf is only one person. He can't do your bidding all the time. :D lol

Yea, i know. And im sorry to hear about your GF's loss, Svartalf. Im just so eager to get these leads turned into a reality. :) Maybe you can help out a little, nintendowarrior? :D:D

[niniendowarrior]

Yea, i know. And im sorry to hear about your GF's loss, Svartalf. Im just so eager to get these leads turned into a reality. :) Maybe you can help out a little, nintendowarrior? :D:D

To be serious for a moment, there was a time when I thought I could do a little bit of code work, but I've got too many things on my plate though probably not to Svartalf's level.

Now that that excuse is out of the way... I think I can help out by reminding you that Svartalf needs time and lots of hands to do your bidding. lol :D

[Nexus6]

Been seriously digging the Sacred:Gold beta test - just wish the day was 50+ hours long so I could push my Vampiress up the levels faster. Which brings me to the real point of this post - what are the chances of seeing "Sacred 2" getting added to the list of future ports? Is this a case of getting all my friends hooked on Sacred:Gold and buying lots of copies?

[niniendowarrior]

Been seriously digging the Sacred:Gold beta test - just wish the day was 50+ hours long so I could push my Vampiress up the levels faster. Which brings me to the real point of this post - what are the chances of seeing "Sacred 2" getting added to the list of future ports? Is this a case of getting all my friends hooked on Sacred:Gold and buying lots of copies?

All indicators point to that. It is in the realm of reason that if Sacred: Gold sells well for LGP, they'll be able to talk more about porting Sacred 2.

[Svartalf]

All indicators point to that. It is in the realm of reason that if Sacred: Gold sells well for LGP, they'll be able to talk more about porting Sacred 2.

/me is keeping his mouth CLAMPED SHUT... ;)

[Svartalf]

Been seriously digging the Sacred:Gold beta test - just wish the day was 50+ hours long so I could push my Vampiress up the levels faster. Which brings me to the real point of this post - what are the chances of seeing "Sacred 2" getting added to the list of future ports? Is this a case of getting all my friends hooked on Sacred:Gold and buying lots of copies?

Heh... This brings back to mind my remark about "not judging how good a game was based off of Windows sales..." ;)

[xav1r]

Heh... This brings back to mind my remark about "not judging how good a game was based off of Windows sales..." ;)

btw, when is jets n guns gonna be ready for retail??

[Aradreth]

btw, when is jets n guns gonna be ready for retail??
"Release Date expected to be 01 December 2008" from the LGP site.

[niniendowarrior]

/me is keeping his mouth CLAMPED SHUT... ;)

Thanks! You're being supportive! :D

[RobbieAB]

/me is keeping his mouth CLAMPED SHUT... ;)
/you discloses nothing and says a lot... :D

[Svartalf]

Thanks! You're being supportive! :D

Can't say much about any of it. Under NDA. Will confirm that it might be a good idea to consider things in proper perspective. Can't say more. :D

[xav1r]

Hhehehe, i got another reply from another former intracorp employee about the witchaven ip. He said that his suggestion was to ask a game attorney to find out. I think that's the most coherent reply i have had so far from my inquires. A game attorney would have a definite answer. Problem is, these guys usually charge per minute of their time, right? Anyone here know or have a friend attorney they can spare? :):)

[xav1r]

Another tidbit of info. Intracorp's last known address was 501 Brickel Key Drive, Miami. If someone lives around that area, could they drive around that address, and check? Probably the current offices have somewhere a cabinet with a bunch of papers labeled "Intracorp chapter 7 IP: Deed of ownership". :D

[Svartalf]

btw, when is jets n guns gonna be ready for retail??

If i wanted DRM and binary blobs, i'd use windows. It's a no-go for me.

Why bother asking for anything of the sort, or for the bulk of the things you've been asking for in this thread, xav1r? Most of them, even if they don't have DRM, will be binary only blobs- something that I, RobbieAB, and a few others will ever get a chance to look at the source with.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to get you to shift from the DRM stance...just getting you to realize that your position isn't in line with the other remarks and thinking you claim to have espoused, and that it's not so humble as you think it is. ;)

[xav1r]

Why bother asking for anything of the sort, or for the bulk of the things you've been asking for in this thread, xav1r? Most of them, even if they don't have DRM, will be binary only blobs- something that I, RobbieAB, and a few others will ever get a chance to look at the source with.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to get you to shift from the DRM stance...just getting you to realize that your position isn't in line with the other remarks and thinking you claim to have espoused, and that it's not so humble as you think it is. ;)

Well the games ive been investigating on for the most part do have their source code available, or are within grasp, it's only legal matters that usually get in the way. I didnt phrase it correctly, i meant to say DRM binary blobs. Im ok with DRM-less binary blobs, like in the case of native linux clients of commercial games, like ETQW, or UT3. :p:p:p I actually find a hassle having to compile each time i want to use something. I just dont like the idea of DRM migrating into every aspect of people's entertaintment.

[Svartalf]

Well the games ive been investigating on for the most part do have their source code available, or are within grasp, it's only legal matters that usually get in the way. I didnt phrase it correctly, i meant to say DRM binary blobs. Im ok with DRM-less binary blobs, like in the case of native linux clients of commercial games, like ETQW, or UT3. :p:p:p I actually find a hassle having to compile each time i want to use something. I just dont like the idea of DRM migrating into every aspect of people's entertaintment.

I figured that was the case...I had to point out that you contradicted yourself badly there. ;)

Oh, as a side note for all, Bandits (Bandits...Bandits...NOT Ballistics... (I had just shown someone why I was getting access to a dev unit Pandora here at my Day Job which is why I put "Ballistics" there...sigh...)) is now officially about to be back on track and only 1-2 betas away from an RC (depends on how things pan out here in the next couple of days...) and we should see a bit more time on my hands as everything starts snapping together.

[xav1r]

I figured that was the case...I had to point out that you contradicted yourself badly there. ;)

Oh, as a side note for all, Ballistics is now officially about to be back on track and only 1-2 betas away from an RC (depends on how things pan out here in the next couple of days...) and we should see a bit more time on my hands as everything starts snapping together.

Thats good news, Svartalf! :) BTW, i got this email from Paul Lange, another former employee of Lobotomy software.

The game was published by several different publishers on different platforms and in different territories, so it's kind of complicated reagrding rights for Powerslave 1. Playmates had the US territories and BMG had the rest of the world.

Lobotomy went through bankruptcy, and if I remember correctly, the rights to a sequel for Powerslave ended up with the courts after Crave Entertainment didn't use it. As far as I know it wasn't sold to anyone by the courts. Considering the case has now been closed, there really isn't anyone to buy it from anymore. One or two of the developers may have copies of the source code, but I doubt they would sell it or share it out of concern that they could be doing something they shouldn't do as it's not very clear what the actual limitations are.

I'm afraid I don't have any better information for you beyond that...

Dammit, so when the courts own the rights, then are those rights effectively obliterated from earth? There should be a way of buying them from them, shouldnt it?

[SlackerTD]

Oh, as a side note for all, Ballistics is now officially about to be back on track and only 1-2 betas away from an RC (depends on how things pan out here in the next couple of days...) and we should see a bit more time on my hands as everything starts snapping together.You mean Bandits... I have Ballistics, & am patiently waiting for the next beta of Bandits. :p

[Svartalf]

Dammit, so when the courts own the rights, then are those rights effectively obliterated from earth? There should be a way of buying them from them, shouldnt it?

We need to dig a bit on it. I'm not a lawyer, but I've got an understanding of how I think it works right at the moment, based on the stuff I've done throughout my career and the Patent and Copyright type work (where I've had to do assignments...) I've done in the past.

My understanding is that the rights revert to the people who did the work in question, even if it was a work-for-hire, if there are no rights holders in standing with a company. In the case of no rights holders, the estate of the person who did the work owns the rights for 75 years after they pass from this good Earth.

PIE would be the US rights holder. BMG is the remainder rights holder. Playmates probably lost everything regarding the rights on their end. BMG would be the next party I'd try to find out more on for the original. I'm sure BMG remembers SOMETHING, not that you'd want to deal with a slimy RIAA member company... ;)

As for the sequel, etc... Rights typically fall to the developers of the work, even if it's a work-for-hire (You have copyright when you make the work, even as a work-for-hire, you just immedately assign rights to the employer...) when there's no buyers in a bankruptcy. The assignment (which is how the company holds the rights in question...) is not retained by the Trustee and the Court (They can't hold those rights by law...only sell them or not sell them...) and it goes poof when the company does at the end of a Chapter 7 proceeding, which then causes the rights to fall to the people that MADE the work.

That's why I think it's probably okay for Les Bird to release the stuff he has and in the case of everything other than TekWar (which would require more signoffs than the devs...) if you got a signoff from the people responsible for making the code, assets, etc. you could re-release those titles as "liberated" ones.

Now, I'm most definitely NOT an attorney, don't pretend to be one, nor am I pretending to give legal advice here. We need to see what the precedent is for this thing (which is leaning towards my understanding of things- hence my understanding...) and to see what BMG has to say on their part of the rights assignment Lobotomy gave 'em.

[Svartalf]

You mean Bandits... I have Ballistics, & am patiently waiting for the next beta of Bandits. :p

Ouch... Need to post when I'm not trying to do SEVERAL things at once... ;)

And you should be seeing it shortly. I'm about to do a moderately large check-in here shortly and should be back grinding again on it. Should only need a few things sorted out after this, if I've caught all of it like I thought I have. Many of the bugs were actually related to not gracefully handling assets being "missing" (Hence the need for at least one more Beta pass... ;)) and not handling part of the dynamic geometry code in the right way because of how OpenGL buffers mapping requests.

[marakaid]

I bought "Sacred 2" a week ago and each day I play I'm more satisfied by it. Very large map, lots of side quests and items, complex skill system, characters very customizable due to many things like rings, amulets, stones, runes, etc...

[xav1r]

We need to dig a bit on it. I'm not a lawyer, but I've got an understanding of how I think it works right at the moment, based on the stuff I've done throughout my career and the Patent and Copyright type work (where I've had to do assignments...) I've done in the past.

My understanding is that the rights revert to the people who did the work in question, even if it was a work-for-hire, if there are no rights holders in standing with a company. In the case of no rights holders, the estate of the person who did the work owns the rights for 75 years after they pass from this good Earth.

PIE would be the US rights holder. BMG is the remainder rights holder. Playmates probably lost everything regarding the rights on their end. BMG would be the next party I'd try to find out more on for the original. I'm sure BMG remembers SOMETHING, not that you'd want to deal with a slimy RIAA member company... ;)

As for the sequel, etc... Rights typically fall to the developers of the work, even if it's a work-for-hire (You have copyright when you make the work, even as a work-for-hire, you just immedately assign rights to the employer...) when there's no buyers in a bankruptcy. The assignment (which is how the company holds the rights in question...) is not retained by the Trustee and the Court (They can't hold those rights by law...only sell them or not sell them...) and it goes poof when the company does at the end of a Chapter 7 proceeding, which then causes the rights to fall to the people that MADE the work.

That's why I think it's probably okay for Les Bird to release the stuff he has and in the case of everything other than TekWar (which would require more signoffs than the devs...) if you got a signoff from the people responsible for making the code, assets, etc. you could re-release those titles as "liberated" ones.

Now, I'm most definitely NOT an attorney, don't pretend to be one, nor am I pretending to give legal advice here. We need to see what the precedent is for this thing (which is leaning towards my understanding of things- hence my understanding...) and to see what BMG has to say on their part of the rights assignment Lobotomy gave 'em.

Ah, i think Erza Dreisbach mentioned something like that regarding powerslave, meaning that he and snowblind acquired the rights to the lobotomy games. Maybe he meant just what you explained about the rights reverting the original developers. And Erza also told me that he was ok with the game being used for any purpose free of charge, so i believe the search for this one is over. Well, aside from asking the slimeballs at BMG. I bet they dont know anything either, like playmates, and i doubt theres even a way to reach them directly, theyre too big. Its like trying to speak with the president of nvidia or ati directly. :D So maybe then Les Bird is in the position of re-releasing the capstone games' code as GPL or whatever he wants. I contacted a game lawyer regarding them, and i sorta stopped researching into the capstone games, because i ran into this guy's name that owned intracorp, some guy named Leigh Rothschild. Apparently he's very involved in politics, was(is?) an advisor to gov. little bush, and belongs of course, to the mighty famous banker Rothschild family. Theyre not to be trusted, IMHO.

[xav1r]

BTW, intestesting thing you mention about Tekwar, probably it's ok too, since i dont think that shatner guy owns any rights to that game. And BTW, Tekwar seems to be a pretty good game, probably better than witchaven. It had NPCs you could talk to, that wandered around. If you pointed your weapon at them they would go, dont shoot me, and if there were any cop NPCs around they'd draw their weapons and tell you to drop yours, GTA-style. :D

[Svartalf]

BTW, intestesting thing you mention about Tekwar, probably it's ok too, since i dont think that shatner guy owns any rights to that game.

Heh... Wrong answer- from several different angles all at once.

William Shatner owns the rights to the storyline of TekWar and any trade dress associated with the novels he wrote.

Even if you presume that the game was a differing deal from the Novel series, the rights if the publisher of the TV series was defunct, would devolve to the producers...Ron Goulart and...

Wait for it...

William Shatner.

Even if you presume that the producers were defunct and Shatner wasn't one of them, since he's doing a goodly portion of the cutscene acting, since he's the one doing the acting, it'd devolve to him, yet again.

You've got to be CAREFUL about your presumptions of who has rights involvement in these things. You can't make assumptions like what you just did- ever... If you do, you could be on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

Having said this, if we can revive the game with some improved stuff, he MIGHT be convinced to allow it to go- or maybe with a deal on proceeds of a commercially sold remix of the game. That, however, would be a bit of a stretch because while it was a better game than many Capstone came up with, it's still not a "great" game a' la GoG's stuff.



And BTW, Tekwar seems to be a pretty good game, probably better than witchaven. It had NPCs you could talk to, that wandered around. If you pointed your weapon at them they would go, dont shoot me, and if there were any cop NPCs around they'd draw their weapons and tell you to drop yours, GTA-style. :D


It was a little weaker than it ought to have been and got mixed reviews- that doesn't mean we ought to not look into this one further. I just recently got an assets disk from Half-Price Books for $2 that should allow it to live again one way or another. We probably ought to find the precedent, etc. we think covers this and get Les to at least officially "start" the projects. By the by, he can't GPL the stuff because it's a derivative of the BUILD engine- but he can make "official" versions of the source available for the games.

[Dragonlord]

Wait a moment... If the Build engine is involved isn't this endeavor already jeopardized? As far as I remember from an older post the owner of Build is not that GPL happy after all... more interested in royalties according to my impression.

[xav1r]

Heh... Wrong answer- from several different angles all at once.

William Shatner owns the rights to the storyline of TekWar and any trade dress associated with the novels he wrote.

Even if you presume that the game was a differing deal from the Novel series, the rights if the publisher of the TV series was defunct, would devolve to the producers...Ron Goulart and...

Wait for it...

William Shatner.

Even if you presume that the producers were defunct and Shatner wasn't one of them, since he's doing a goodly portion of the cutscene acting, since he's the one doing the acting, it'd devolve to him, yet again.

You've got to be CAREFUL about your presumptions of who has rights involvement in these things. You can't make assumptions like what you just did- ever... If you do, you could be on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

Do you think it would be possible to contact Mr. Shatner? I dont know if his publicist if he has one, like usually celebs do, would forward an email of mine to him.

By the by, he can't GPL the stuff because it's a derivative of the BUILD engine- but he can make "official" versions of the source available for the games.

Well, wouldnt it be similar to when 3D Realms released the source code of duke3d and Shadow Warrior under the GPL? To my understanding what they released under GPL was the game-specific code, that depends on the .OBJ files generated from compiling the BUILD engine, which itself is not GPL, but is under a weird license by Ken Silverman. 3D Realms didnt and doesnt own the rights to BUILD and therefore they couldnt GPL it, but they did own the rights to those games, and so they could GPL the game-specific code to them. Wouldnt Les Bird, if he owns the code specific to the capstone games that use BUILD, be able to release only that code that needs BUILD (as of now) as GPL?

BTW, im all for a makeover to those games. It'd be great to write an improved, much better engine for them to run on, than the old build engine. :)

[Svartalf]

Do you think it would be possible to contact Mr. Shatner? I dont know if his publicist if he has one, like usually celebs do, would forward an email of mine to him.


Dunno... Need to get a bit further in this before pulling that trigger. I'll check into it. I suggest you do too just in case I run out of personal bandwidth for a stretch.


Well, wouldnt it be similar to when 3D Realms released the source code of duke3d and Shadow Warrior under the GPL? To my understanding what they released under GPL was the game-specific code, that depends on the .OBJ files generated from compiling the BUILD engine, which itself is not GPL, but is under a weird license by Ken Silverman. 3D Realms didnt and doesnt own the rights to BUILD and therefore they couldnt GPL it, but they did own the rights to those games, and so they could GPL the game-specific code to them. Wouldnt Les Bird, if he owns the code specific to the capstone games that use BUILD, be able to release only that code that needs BUILD (as of now) as GPL?


Perhaps. Technically, they couldn't have released it under the GPL proper without some provisos as BUILD is a requirement and you can't give away all the source needed to MAKE a binary with what was given away. It's, in theory, possible for Les to do something like that, but even with the provisos, it's going to have "issues". We'll need to do more checking on what 3DR actually DID there.


BTW, im all for a makeover to those games. It'd be great to write an improved, much better engine for them to run on, than the old build engine. :)

Heh... That's a bit more work than one would find useful in most cases. BUILD with Polymost and improved textures would accomplish most of what you're reaching for. If you don't leave it at just that, you're implementing a game over again from scratch for all intents and purposes.

[Svartalf]

Wait a moment... If the Build engine is involved isn't this endeavor already jeopardized? As far as I remember from an older post the owner of Build is not that GPL happy after all... more interested in royalties according to my impression.

Well, in the case of some of these titles, heh, you're probably right. In the case of some of this stuff, a "remix" of things like Redneck Rampage (Interplay's STILL alive and licensing out electronic publishing of that and their other back catalog to subsidize their new endeavors, so....) and a few other titles (like perhaps TekWar and Powerslave...) would actually make sense and handing Ken some coin in exchange for the trouble might not be a bad thing, really... :D Even if it doesn't work out that way, the freebie re-works would still be "okay" because his license only really is restrictive in that you can't make money off of it and have to distribute via the Internet. I'm sure we can talk w/him on that one and see what he has to say- once we've verified the tortured path we've walked on these to this point. ;)

[xav1r]

Dunno... Need to get a bit further in this before pulling that trigger. I'll check into it. I suggest you do too just in case I run out of personal bandwidth for a stretch.


Will do, i have plenty of bandwidth to waste. :D :D

Perhaps. Technically, they couldn't have released it under the GPL proper without some provisos as BUILD is a requirement and you can't give away all the source needed to MAKE a binary with what was given away. It's, in theory, possible for Les to do something like that, but even with the provisos, it's going to have "issues". We'll need to do more checking on what 3DR actually DID there.

Yea, a similar opinion was reached on another board regarding this. Apparently the GPL requires that all derivative work made with GPL licensed code be also GPL. So maybe 3DR is breaking the GPL. What they "did" was just slap the GPL tag on the source code they released, i dont think they made any special provisions.


Heh... That's a bit more work than one would find useful in most cases. BUILD with Polymost and improved textures would accomplish most of what you're reaching for. If you don't leave it at just that, you're implementing a game over again from scratch for all intents and purposes.

Yes, but then Ken Silverman would have to be brought into the equation, since he has a free-for-non-commercial use for his build engine, and for Polymost. Here it is (http://icculus.org/BUILD/downloads/LICENSE.txt)

He'd definitely ask for some monetary compensation.

[Dragonlord]

The GPL is tricky. Noticed this myself since I'm in a similar situation but other way 'round. I have a GPL engine but want to allow people to use it with more restrictive licenses since many platforms are not GPL happy.

Now what goes for this case we have a closed source engine which is used to make GPL game content. As far as my research into the GPL went it says that when your game is GPL but the engine closed it is not allowed because the game "can not work" without the engine and is there an important part of it. Therefore if there is no alternative to using the Build so that the game still works it is not valid to make a GPL game with the close engine.

As mentioned, it's tricky and if they put a disclaimer in it they can modify the GPL ( where it is then though no more a pure GPL but a lesser GPL ). But asking the FSF itself about that would be better since they know their license way better than I can do.

[xav1r]

The GPL is tricky. Noticed this myself since I'm in a similar situation but other way 'round. I have a GPL engine but want to allow people to use it with more restrictive licenses since many platforms are not GPL happy.

Now what goes for this case we have a closed source engine which is used to make GPL game content. As far as my research into the GPL went it says that when your game is GPL but the engine closed it is not allowed because the game "can not work" without the engine and is there an important part of it. Therefore if there is no alternative to using the Build so that the game still works it is not valid to make a GPL game with the close engine.

As mentioned, it's tricky and if they put a disclaimer in it they can modify the GPL ( where it is then though no more a pure GPL but a lesser GPL ). But asking the FSF itself about that would be better since they know their license way better than I can do.

Yep, your explanation pretty much sums it up. 3DR didnt release it as LGPL, but complete GPL, so apparently theres a problem there. I tried contacting the software freedom law center, which works for the FSF, but got no reply. Maybe you'd have better luck contacting someone else, Dragonlord? BTW, have you considered using a less strict free software license like the BSD? Unlike the GPL, it does allow closing of some or all the forked code for commercial or non-commercial uses.

[Dragonlord]

As the original author I'm allowed to put my work under as many licenses as I see fit. So the idea is to place it under GPL. Then for required applications where this does not work additional, more restrictive licenses can be done. The customer can then pick the license he wants to use. This way all people have access to the engine in GPL no matter if it is used in a closed form. After all the basic design is that nobody else than the engine development team has to touch the engine code. All the magic happens inside the modules which the player chooses not the game designer. Hence you can use the engine as GPL while still doing a closed license game with it. Reason is that you do not link against the engine library itself ( which would require you to GPL yourself ) but you are run by a launcher. The launcher is GPL but the game content he runs can be closed. I made this extra layer in between to avoid these problems. Another topic though are closed source modules with the GPL engine. I want to allow this too since this way hardware manufactures could also participate in the game market in that they can sell own engine modules. Players are free to choose free modules or closed modules ( as is with nVidia/ATI drivers for example ). Here though the problem is that module do have to link against the engine as else they can not resolve the symbols they need. I don't know how exactly this situation ( GPL => dlopens module(closed => links to engine(GPL)) ) is handled by the GPL license. To my understanding a safe bet would be to provide an additional LGPL license since this one should allow this situation for sure. That said I never contacted anybody at the FSF yet. I have also no idea if I would have better luck getting an answer out of them. This might sound now a bit harsh but while I'm for the FSF as a guardian over the GPL they can be rather... particular ( see some of their page contents about what should happen in informatics regarding openedess/closedness ). But I guess the GPL is more violated nowadays than one might think. After all it's a rather large license if you want to live up to it in it's entirety.

[Svartalf]

Yes, but then Ken Silverman would have to be brought into the equation, since he has a free-for-non-commercial use for his build engine, and for Polymost. Here it is (http://icculus.org/BUILD/downloads/LICENSE.txt)

He'd definitely ask for some monetary compensation.

Unfortunately, Ken's going to be involved in this little project at some level because I don't think 3DR has a license from him to utilize Polymost for Duke and Shadow Warrior- if we do ANYTHING with Polymost (and we're going to want to, honestly... It'd make Duke and Lo Wang POP on a Pandora...), we're going to have to work with Ken on that score.

I'm under the understanding that he's not TOO unreasonable on this little aspect of BUILD/Polymost, but I could be mistaken there.

[Svartalf]

As the original author I'm allowed to put my work under as many licenses as I see fit. So the idea is to place it under GPL. Then for required applications where this does not work additional, more restrictive licenses can be done. The customer can then pick the license he wants to use. This way all people have access to the engine in GPL no matter if it is used in a closed form. After all the basic design is that nobody else than the engine development team has to touch the engine code. All the magic happens inside the modules which the player chooses not the game designer. Hence you can use the engine as GPL while still doing a closed license game with it. Reason is that you do not link against the engine library itself ( which would require you to GPL yourself ) but you are run by a launcher. The launcher is GPL but the game content he runs can be closed. I made this extra layer in between to avoid these problems. Another topic though are closed source modules with the GPL engine. I want to allow this too since this way hardware manufactures could also participate in the game market in that they can sell own engine modules. Players are free to choose free modules or closed modules ( as is with nVidia/ATI drivers for example ). Here though the problem is that module do have to link against the engine as else they can not resolve the symbols they need. I don't know how exactly this situation ( GPL => dlopens module(closed => links to engine(GPL)) ) is handled by the GPL license. To my understanding a safe bet would be to provide an additional LGPL license since this one should allow this situation for sure. That said I never contacted anybody at the FSF yet. I have also no idea if I would have better luck getting an answer out of them. This might sound now a bit harsh but while I'm for the FSF as a guardian over the GPL they can be rather... particular ( see some of their page contents about what should happen in informatics regarding openedess/closedness ). But I guess the GPL is more violated nowadays than one might think. After all it's a rather large license if you want to live up to it in it's entirety.

Based on my understanding of things, you've already got an issue that would be better served by LGPLing the lot. The modules would HAVE to be GPLed with your engine, period. LGPL allows linkage to closed stuff so long as YOU and the suppliers of the closed stuff don't prohibit RE work against the closed parts and honor the terms of the LGPL, which would be anything in the LGPLed innards getting changed would require source code and means to produce.

[Dragonlord]

There's a problem with LGPL as a single license only and this is that the user can be locked out of having the choice of modules. The idea is to allow the users to choose if they want a pure GPL experience ( like having no tainted kernel ) or allowing some tainted modules into the system. With LGPL as the base license this would be a problem since theoretically somebody could get the idea to "hard lock" a module in his game and that's exactly not the idea. I especially want to decouple games from the engine to avoid the mess we have today with endless patching, incompatibility, non-portability and other nasty problems. So I opted so far for a dual license like GPL and something like LGPL ( maybe there is a better one ) for covering those cases where the GPL would have troubles with. So far all modules included are based on GPL code. A particular case is Coumans BulletPhysics which is zLib by default but he once said it's okay to use it in GPL projects. Not sure though if zLib by itself can be changed into GPL. But to my understanding zLib is a kind of "do what you want with it" license which should not impose any problems.

That said I'm aware of the fact that this entire license story can become tricky for the cases of modules which are not GPL. I had though various people ask for how this would work out. The other question is if it would work to with an annotation like explicitly allowing tainted modules. I'm not sure if this really works as I only read it somewhere.

But somehow this has to work out since the Linux Kernel is GPL but yet you have nVidia and ATI producing closed source driver blobs which are dlopen into the running kernel. I don't know if they link back somewhere into the kernel but at least some header files are required. They have though a GPL wrapper in front of their closed binary code. Maybe this prevents breaking the GPL? Somehow they managed to get it working since I can't remember anybody filing a complaint against them for breaking the GPL in any way.

[Svartalf]

But somehow this has to work out since the Linux Kernel is GPL but yet you have nVidia and ATI producing closed source driver blobs which are dlopen into the running kernel. I don't know if they link back somewhere into the kernel but at least some header files are required. They have though a GPL wrapper in front of their closed binary code. Maybe this prevents breaking the GPL? Somehow they managed to get it working since I can't remember anybody filing a complaint against them for breaking the GPL in any way.

They have a GPL wrapper that handles everything needed to talk to the chip directly. Most of the needed talking to the chip is handled by closed driver pieces up in userland via known exported edges. If you have ANY edges that're Linux specific in your blob, you don't get the exemption and you lose and have to ship GPL or not at all. In your case, I strongly suspect you don't have that luxury. The kernel's a special case and there's a tapdance around the problem you won't have available to you.

[Dragonlord]

Which should still leave a double licensing as an option I think. After all nobody can deny me doing this. That said this trick with the closed modules is not the most important thing. If it works somehow it's a nice addition but the engine with the default cast of module is designed to be fully under the GPL to make it available to everybody who wishes to work with it. And that's what's most important for me right now.

[Svartalf]

Which should still leave a double licensing as an option I think. After all nobody can deny me doing this. That said this trick with the closed modules is not the most important thing. If it works somehow it's a nice addition but the engine with the default cast of module is designed to be fully under the GPL to make it available to everybody who wishes to work with it. And that's what's most important for me right now.

Unfortunately for the engine and the community that you hope to have revolving around it, only YOU could distribute it. Anyone else would be very guilty of infringement because they'd be unlicensed the moment the closed modules got into the mix.

You may have to resolve yourself to something like the LGPL or commit the sin of making yet another license to fit what you intend on- otherwise you're just going to make a minefield for the people wanting to use it other than your team.

[xav1r]

Or consider using a license like the BSD with no advertising clause. :D

[Dragonlord]

The main idea is that everyone has access to the game engine for (1) playing games and (2) creating games. This is the most important goal in this project. For this I chose initially the GPL to protect people against various attempts to undermine the basic principle. Let's say the engine is available under GPL and let's say BSD as mentioned above. The majority of people choose the GPL version to run since it integrates nicely into a Linux system without any blockages or troubles ( since all parts of it are GPL ). Now if somebody needs to make a fork ( for example for a restricted platform ) then he can use the BSD licence to do the fork. Where exactly is here the minefield?

[xav1r]

The main idea is that everyone has access to the game engine for (1) playing games and (2) creating games. This is the most important goal in this project. For this I chose initially the GPL to protect people against various attempts to undermine the basic principle. Let's say the engine is available under GPL and let's say BSD as mentioned above. The majority of people choose the GPL version to run since it integrates nicely into a Linux system without any blockages or troubles ( since all parts of it are GPL ). Now if somebody needs to make a fork ( for example for a restricted platform ) then he can use the BSD licence to do the fork. Where exactly is here the minefield?

I dont see a minefield anywhere. Someone does?

[jonwil]

Heh... I've considered it- deal with it all the time. It's a consideration that I've not mentioned much of because there's often ways around the issue in question. You've got to know how to approach it.

One of them is to have them come up with an NDA with appropriate provisions to be on the hook for not disclosing the 3rd party code. If they're serious otherwise about giving access to the source for the title, this would do the trick. From there it's only a matter of haggling over line-items that might be problematic for you on the NDA. If the code's compilable or can be made so and you're not FOSS-ing the title, this should be enough to gain access in most cases. If you're liberating the title (whatever form that might take...) you might have a tougher road to hoe and depending on the 3rd party code, you may have your work cut out for you as you'd have to be able to replace, or nearly so, the offending code. If it's the physics models, you might have issues... ;)
The problem in this case is that the dev has no clue what 3rd party code was in the title or which files did or didnt contain 3rd party code. And, if they give the 3rd party code to ANYONE, they may be liable (for example, if it's something like Miles or Bink, both of which this game uese)

[Svartalf]

The problem in this case is that the dev has no clue what 3rd party code was in the title or which files did or didnt contain 3rd party code. And, if they give the 3rd party code to ANYONE, they may be liable (for example, if it's something like Miles or Bink, both of which this game uese)

There's the minefield if you use GPL licensing for the engine...

It's not in your code or in being able to dual license. It's in the downstream people that it becomes a problem. If you don't integrate any proprietary closed modules, GPL is perfectly fine because it doesn't change assets rights- you can have a GPLed game engine and a closed game. It's when you or another rights holder in standing release something that's GPLed and mix it with proprietary modules that it becomes a problem. Because you're the rights holder, you can release it under any license you see fit- but the license may not provide to the downstream recipients what you intended. If you provide a Bink module under your distribution license (Lord, would that be evil expensive to provide...but let's use something familiar for this example.) you as the sole rights holder to the GPLed codebase may do so. Unfortunately, it doesn't accomplish what you sought to do because now NOBODY can legally distribute the engine or make derivative works off of it unless they rip the Bink framework out and make a fork- because they can't honor the GPL license grant without doing so.

The same couldn't be said for LGPL, which allows for this sort of thing and is only viral if you touch/modify/derive from the code that was licensed under the LGPL to you. However, if you're okay with things the way they are and can avoid doing nasty things to yourself (like I just mentioned previously...) and insist upon anything under the name Drag[en]gine has to be assigned rights-wise back to you, then there's no reason whatsoever to hold the position you are currently- it's just that you need to understand precisely what you're doing, something that's kind of clear to me that you didn't before this aside from the main thread topic. ;)