Subject: [Nel] Gamer question

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:33:36 +0100

Hello,

The 3D engine seems to be cool but when could we try the 
game ? (Stupid question by a stupid gamer :) )

+

PS : Little hello to the demoscene people who work in 
nevrax ;) (Ace, Hulud, and all i forgot)

---

From: Tony Hoyt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:44:01 -0500

> game ? (Stupid question by a stupid gamer :) )

  I assume your talking about the official game other then the Snowballs
Demo?  I would be curious to know just how much more there is in the
Official game client compared to the Snowballs client.  Now, here's a
question.  If the Nevrax makes a game with NEL, do they have to release
the source or not?  Does anyone who uses NEL actually have to release
there code as long as they don't alter the NEL code itself.

  Tony

---

From: "Valerio Santinelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:08:09 +0100

> there code as long as they don't alter the NEL code itself.

You have not got to release the source code of your game since it uses NEL.
But if you make any changes to NEL itself, then you're required to make them
public.

--
Valerio Santinelli
HateSeed.com Founder (http://www.hateseed.com)
In Flames Italia Webmaster (http://www.inflames.it)
My Lab (http://tanis.hateseed.com)

---

From: "Cyril 'Hulud' Corvazier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:23:47 +0100

Hi Valerio,

> But if you make any changes to NEL itself, then you're required to make
them

No Valerio, you are wrong. :-)

NeL is released under GPL license, not under the LGPL.

In very quick words, it means that you have to release all the source code
of your program under
the GPL licence before it can be distributed.

Cyril Corvazier

---

From: "Cyril 'Hulud' Corvazier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:30:22 +0100

> I would be curious to know just how much more there is in the
> Official game client compared to the Snowballs client.  

Don't forget the snwoball client have been written in 2 weeks. :-)

Imagine the work done on the Ryzom client by our game developpers 
team working on it for a lot of monthes..

> Does anyone who uses NEL actually have to release

At this question i can answer yes, by distributing a program using
NeL, you have to release your source code.

Cyril Corvazier.

---

From: "Valerio Santinelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:42:53 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cyril 'Hulud' Corvazier" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Nel] Gamer question

> NeL, you have to release your source code.

Does this mean that you should also release the source code of Ryzom
client??

---

From: "Valerio Santinelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:44:08 +0100

----- Original Message -----
> the GPL licence before it can be distributed.

I was discussing this with Ace a few moments ago. Yes, you're right, I was
confusing between GPL and LGPL. :)

---

From: Vincent Archer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:49:06 +0100

> Does this mean that you should also release the source code of Ryzom

By implication, yes.

The GPL is relatively strict in its implications.

Whenever you get a GPLed program (and the license on the NeL library
is such that a program linked to it must be GPL too), under any form,
you must also be able to access/request/get a copy of the source.

So anybody who has a Ryzom client has the right to access the source.

Of course, until there IS an official client, almost no one outside
Nevrax has that right :)

-- 
	Vincent Archer			Email:	[email-masked]

All men are mortal.  Socrates was mortal.  Therefore, all men are Socrates.
							(Woody Allen)

---

From: "Cyril 'Hulud' Corvazier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:54:09 +0100

> Does this mean that you should also release the source code of Ryzom

Yes, as Ryzom client uses GPL source code, we will release its source 
code too.

Cyril.

---

From: Kai Schutte <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:07:24 -0500

> Of course, until there IS an official client, almost no one outside

I don't want to drag this out eternally, but I see a little lapse of 
reasoning. Technically speaking, the development version of Ryzom is probably 
currently being linked and tested with NeL, therefore, Ryzom must inherit the 
GPL. 
Therefore, the current development code is in the public domain, therefore 
should be published. Of course, I understand your need to keep Ryzom "secret" 
until it is done, releasable and sellable, so that you can put food on your 
plates (and buy big cars for your Venture Capital people), yet, isn't this 
secrecy a violation of the GPL, since Ryzom is GPL'd?

Wouldn't it be better then, for Nevrax, if NeL was LGPL, and thereby making 
it legal (or rather, in accordance to the GPL) for you to keep Ryzom from 
public eyes? 

Just thinking out loud... 

-Kai

---

From: "zen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:31:20 +0800

Hi Kai,

To my understanding, you don't have to release the source code if you don't
sell it, according to GPL. Surely you may release the code in development,
but it's not obligatory.

Keep up the good work, guys.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Schutte" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 8:07 AM
Subject: GPL specifics -- was: [Nel] Gamer question

> _______________________________________________
> Nel mailing list
> [email-masked]
> /mailman/listinfo.cgi/nel
>

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:54:03 -0800

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:31:20 +0800 
zen  <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Kai, To my understanding, you don't have to release the source
> code if you don't sell it, according to GPL. Surely you may
> release the code in development, but it's not obligatory.

As soon as you distribute the product, which essentially means that
you give, transfer, or otherwise provide it to someone else than
yourself or your development team, you must grant that person full
access to all the relevant sources.  No more, no less.  The GPL
infects on distribution and only on distribution.

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

---

From: "Cyril 'Hulud' Corvazier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:48:11 +0100

> secrecy a violation of the GPL, since Ryzom is GPL'd?

No, as our client game is not yet distributed, we have not to release the
source
code. The GPL is clear on this point. As V. Archer has said, you can ask
for the client source code when you have the program under any form.

> it legal (or rather, in accordance to the GPL) for you to keep Ryzom from

Releasing NeL under GPL means Nevrax can take a technical benefit
if others companies make a game with NeL because they have to release
there source code and the NeL modifications. This is one reason why
NeL is GPL.

Cyril Corvazier.

---

From: "Cyril 'Hulud' Corvazier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:50:47 +0100

Hi,

> sell it, according to GPL. Surely you may release the code in development,

Selling is not obligatory. Even if you distribute freely your 'based on GPL'
program, you have to release the source code.

> Keep up the good work, guys.

Thanks Zen :-)

Cyril Corvazier.

---

From: Vincent Archer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:19:52 +0100

> secrecy a violation of the GPL, since Ryzom is GPL'd?

It is not. A violation that is.

I know the GPL is an awful amount of legalese, and, like any legal-jargon
document, people chiefly know its intent, and not its phrasing.

But the GPL does not force you to release anything.

What the GPL forces you is that, *if* you release any GPL program/library,
its sources MUST be available (and describes the minimum requirement for
this availability, i.e. you can't claim the sources are available but you
need to come to the Tuvalu Islands, wait 3 months of quarantine, and read
them on a dot-matrix printer listing with surgical gloves on).

Note the "if".

As long as *you* don't have a Ryzom client, *you* are not entitled to ask
for the sources. A company may very well decide to take a GPL piece of
software, and use it to write a program it uses internally, and no one
can come up front and ask for that program's sources. If the company
uses it internally only, the only legal obligation of source disclosure
is to the people who have the program, i.e. its own employees.

Of course, the example shown above works as long as the program remains
inside. Other parts of the GPL allow any employee to pick the internal
programs, use it to write its own GPL variation, and distribute said
variation outside of the company, distributing the base source in the
same way, and there's nothing the company could do to prevent exposure.

But, in Nevrax's case, it's not important, since the program will end
up available to the public, and when it does, the sources will be.

> it legal (or rather, in accordance to the GPL) for you to keep Ryzom from 

As long as no one outside of Nevrax has Ryzom, the strictures of the GPL
are respected.

Yeah, I know, we're impatient :)
-- 
	Vincent Archer			Email:	[email-masked]

---

From: Vincent Archer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:23:21 +0100

> sell it, according to GPL. Surely you may release the code in development,

It's not "sell", it's "distribute". Even if you distribute it for free
on some web site with anonymous public access, it's distribution, and the
source must be available.

A lot of projects release their source during development, but that's
because they're highly distributed in nature, and it works better. The
Ryzom team is working out of the same offices, and probably doesn't
have the time to look at most would-be contributions at this stage.

Once the initial release is done, they'll have time to further cooperate
with the rest of the people out there.

---

From: "Vianney Lecroart" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:30:36 +0100

Hi,

> Of course, I understand your need to keep Ryzom "secret"

No it isn't. If oneday, we *distribute* Ryzom program and if Ryzom uses a
GPL library, in this case, we have to give the source of Ryzom. But today,
we don't distribute Ryzom, so we don't have to give the source. Look the GPL
licence, it's based on distribution.

Vianney Lecroart
---
lead network programmer / nevrax.com
icq#: 6870415
homepage: http://ace.planet-d.net
www.geekcode.com: GCS/E d- s+++: a-- C+++$ UL++ P- L+++>+$ E+>- W++ N+ o? K-
w++$ O- M- V- PS- PE? Y PGP t 5? X+ R- tv++ b- DI D+ G e++ h+ r-- y?

---

From: Tony Hoyt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:15:59 -0500

Okay well I hate to go slightly off topic here but this is a question
that I need to ask since we're talking about all GPL, LGPL, etc.  Where
does building an application with gcc fall into all of this?  I write a
program, build it with gcc or g++ and plan to sell it to other users. 
But, I don't want to distribute the source of the application.  Can I
still use gcc/g++?  or am I forced to find an alternative compiler such
as VisualC for windows or a unix specific compiler for unix variants?

  Tony

---

From: "zen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:28:50 +0800

Thank you guys, for enlightening me 8-).  I neglected the keyword
'distrubte'.

Zen Jean

---

From: "Cyril 'Hulud' Corvazier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:34:52 +0100

> as VisualC for windows or a unix specific compiler for unix variants?

Yes you can use GCC to compile proprietary softwares (else most of
the playstation, GBA etc..  games are GPL :-) ), only software including 
GPL code become GPL itself, not the product of GPLed software.

Cyril Corvazier.

---

From: Vincent Archer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:41:33 +0100

> as VisualC for windows or a unix specific compiler for unix variants?

Even though you *used* GCC to build the program, gcc *itself* is in no
way present in the program you distribute. There's no portion of gcc
source code or binary in your application. Thus, your program does not
inherit the licensing from the gcc GPL license.

The only think that gets bundled is the C library. And the C library
(glibc) is covered by the LGPL, which specifically allows for that case
(i.e. distributing a program that is linked with a GPL software, without
 placing the GPL strictures on the program itself).

The same thing would apply to a C grammar parser that was generated
by bison (the GPL parser generation tool). Using bison to generate your
C source does not require you to put said source under the GPL: bison
is not included in your program, only its output (hmmm, is the library
required for bison LGPL? I think so, but can't remember)