How open means open? Problems I see ...

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 07 Mar 2004 11:42

Hi

after visiting the forums, great I think a new toy to play with.

Some Questions arised:
How open means open, I don't see any copyright, notices and other stuff on the site.

How is this piece created? After scrolling some of ai.c I deleted the full source code. It looked like a convert of Chris Sawyers code which is pretty illegal. TTDPatch uses self created code and interfaces to TTD don't try to argue it's the same...

Some other Projects in the past already get problems, and too fast dev mostly shows that source code is copied 1 to 1.

I want clearly know how/what this project is.

Until some stuff isn't more clear and I will allow it:
I forbid people to copy TTDPatch code that I introduced to TTDPatch into this Project. A first overview is the changelog, If you are unsure please consult me via email patchnow yahoo.de

Best Regards

PS: This isn't a flame, I want a statement of the file creator until then don't take wild guesses, junk other topics.

Your opinion on the copyright subject is welcome, but I don't tolerate statements like because Chris doesn't want to make a new game we can do what we want

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 07 Mar 2004 13:19

I wouldn't think that directly copying the Patch code would do much good with OpenTTD anyway, it would be easier to change the C code in OpenTTD directly.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 07 Mar 2004 13:21

Ok, I make it clearer a bit clearer:
You shouldn't convert my asm source 1 to 1 to c and use it!

But this isn't the main reason for this topic...

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 07 Mar 2004 13:26

Well, the last thing we need is another silly copyright argument. If you want to be technical about it, anything using GRF files is a copyright violation because AFAIK GRF is not an open standard, it's something special Chris Sawyer wrote for the game. But who cares? Nobody with any money to waste on lawyers, apparently.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 07 Mar 2004 13:35

Back on topic:

I want a clear statement of the code author what he did.

Bart · Post by **Bart** » 07 Mar 2004 13:41

Your point is clear, this might be a copyright violation. But, I cannot see why this will be a problem at this point. Also, I would like to see a statement from the author himself; how he feels about this.

You're absolutely right about your code or the code from the TTDPatch. But, that does not say anything about the features from TTDPatch. These are good ideas, and they should be used in OpenTTD...

My view on this is simple. I like this new project. I'd love to do some work for it. I would play it as well. I find TTD abandoneware, and I find Mr. Saywer a bit ignorant. I suggest that people who find this a direct violation of copyrights, to simply stay away from this one.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 07 Mar 2004 13:54

Bart wrote:Your point is clear, this might be a copyright violation. But, I cannot see why this will be a problem at this point. Also, I would like to see a statement from the author himself; how he feels about this.

As far as I get to know his statement is "who cares". I don't think it's a good standpoint to start such a project. What the problems come at 99% done? All stuff for nothing?

The exact point Is I would contribute code aswell, but I can't to such a project.

You're absolutely right about your code or the code from the TTDPatch. But, that does not say anything about the features from TTDPatch. These are good ideas, and they should be used in OpenTTD...

I don't think I have any EU Software Patent? Do I?

But don't copy simple code if you can...

My view on this is simple. I like this new project. I'd love to do some work for it. I would play it as well. I find TTD abandoneware, and I find Mr. Saywer a bit ignorant. I suggest that people who find this a direct violation of copyrights, to simply stay away from this one.

I have to say I would like to see Chris Sawyer would TTD make open source but until this happen I will try to contribute as much the legal way.

Thank you for your contribute

nilsi · Post by **nilsi** » 07 Mar 2004 15:05

I have the same opinion like oskar. The patchteam does the best it can to prevent the patch from getting into trouble.
This one2one translation creates some sickness on my side.
Analysing a file format is completely different. It is allowed for
interoperability reasons.

CobraA1 · Post by **CobraA1** » 07 Mar 2004 15:31

I forbid people to copy TTDPatch code that I introduced to TTDPatch into this Project.

I have agreed completely with the terms and conditions of the licence. I do not withdraw my agreement.

In any case, wasn't disassembly used to help create TTDPatch? If Chris Sawyer cared, I'm sure he could've taken action against the TTDPatch long ago.

I don't think copying the patch is a good idea anyway. I'd rather rewrite the code.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 07 Mar 2004 15:38

We use mostly a debuger and created interfaces to TTDPatch from TTD and vice versa, that is true, but TTDPatch find the right binary code and jump to it if needed. We don't copy code from TTD.
You can't extract TTD from TTDPatch. We try our best to use as less as code required because of code size.
Anyway it would be complete useless to copy a function to TTDPatch from TTD, we can call it so why we should copy it?

Marcel · Post by **Marcel** » 07 Mar 2004 16:10

I don´t think that is does matter if the source is a one to one copy or not, the result looks definatly the same than the original, so it is a copyright violation. Otherwise the author could use Oskars ideas, but use his own created code. Oskars ideas would not be save, he has not to asked before.

It is not the code that is protected alone, it is also the unique idea behind it. Of course not all transport games are illegal, but one that behaves nearly exact like another one.

Andrex · Post by **Andrex** » 07 Mar 2004 16:51

I want to host it at my website anyway!! My server is in Slovakia and won't be reached by copyright issues.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 07 Mar 2004 19:42

Marcel wrote:I don´t think that is does matter if the source is a one to one copy or not, the result looks definatly the same than the original, so it is a copyright violation. Otherwise the author could use Oskars ideas, but use his own created code. Oskars ideas would not be save, he has not to asked before.

It is not the code that is protected alone, it is also the unique idea behind it. Of course not all transport games are illegal, but one that behaves nearly exact like another one.

This is not actually true, necessarily. You can replicate function if you don't copy the code. Don't you remember DR-DOS and PC-DOS, and I think there were some other DOS clones? They worked exactly the same way, but carefully used their own code, and thus weren't copyright violations. I think you are thinking of a patent.

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 07 Mar 2004 19:49

eis_os wrote:I forbid people to copy TTDPatch code that I introduced to TTDPatch into this Project.

TTDPatch is licensed under the GPL. OpenTTD is licensed under the GPL. You have no right to make such assertions since:
1. The licence allows such action to take place.
2. The licence forbids anyone from making a statement such as that which you just made.

Having looked at this, my understanding is that to copy from a work which doesn't allow it is illegal, but to port the code to something different is not necessarily illegal.

Andrex: I would avoid that where possible for two reasons:
1. Your own products are not open, and as a result some misrepresentation may occur
2. Consistency. Mirroring one file is useless - you would be looking at a full-site mirror, and keeping it up-to-date to at least within an hour (if thechanges last night are anything to go by).
Also, if it ends up in SourceForge (as Owen, SROTU(TM), threatened

) they do their own mirroring, so it would be necesary only to put in a link.

Arathorn · Post by **Arathorn** » 07 Mar 2004 20:07

I think that, because you need files from TTD Windows, legality isn't a problem. You can point out that people need the original TTD to be able to play this.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 07 Mar 2004 20:17

Well, yes. If you simply point that out in your readme, you are legally off scot-free. It's not your business where they got their copy of TTD. It's like people who sell plugins to Microsoft Train Simulator - they clearly state that you need to buy MSTS in order to use their software. If you copy MSTS from somewhere it's not their fault or concern.

Saskia · Post by **Saskia** » 07 Mar 2004 20:57

Sure, there are already many "open" games that require datafiles from the original game, so that they look like orignal. CnC++ (a Command and Conquer clone written in C++), for which all original datafiles are needed, is a really good example. It's all fully legal.

CobraA1 · Post by **CobraA1** » 07 Mar 2004 22:35

Anybody know where the licence for TTDX is located? Or did Chris Sawyer not license it?

In any case, I hate to say this, but if we want to continue this project, we'll probably have to rewrite the whole thing, or ask Chris Sawyer for permission. U.S. Copyright protects derivative works:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci
"To prepare derivative works based upon the work;"

This probably includes translations (ASM to C).

So, here are our choices, as I see them:

Rewrite the whole thing.
Ask Chris Sawyer for permission.
Keep going with our fingers crossed, hoping Chris Sawyer won't mind.

Saskia · Post by **Saskia** » 07 Mar 2004 22:45

Hm, but this isn't a derivate, or is it? It's rewritten and uses parts of the original, and that's not forbidden, as we see from many other software products. If not: I vote for "ask Chris" and hope that Chris is a nice guy who understands our situation

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 07 Mar 2004 22:48

CobraA1 wrote:U.S. Copyright protects derivative works:

Not on works issued under UK copyright law.

Transport Tycoon Forums

How open means open? Problems I see ...

How open means open? Problems I see ...

Re: How open means open? Problems I see ...

Who is online