Want more features and no adverts?
Subscribe to GOL Premium
Defender Of The GNU/LGPL Threatens Project Zomboid
Posted , 18 May 2014 at 3:19 pm UTC / 9197 views
Complete Article UPDATE
It turns out this was not anyone trying to defend a license, but a malicious person trying to get source code from Project Zomboid for their own use. This person has attacked the developers multiple times using licensing as a sword and laughed in their face about being in Russia so their lawyers apparently can't touch them.

The developers complied with all licensing the day it was reported and all offending code was removed, you cannot ask for more. A license is NOT a contract to force people to open up their own code. I say it again, there is no issues now other than the developers getting abuse.

This has caused the developers to get multiple emails a day about the same thing. From supposedly Linux users threatening the developers giving us all a bad name.

Things like this are unacceptable.

Original Article:
QuoteSomething I would like to highlight to you all today is the annoyance of licensing zealots that causes unneeded grief for people.

Project Zomboid is the game in question today and for a really stupid reason. The developers left something laying around unused from when they first started with Java. This was a single file that wasn't actually used.

This person decompiled their code to find this out. The developers actually said this person could continue to look for today only, but after that they would be breaking their license to which the accuser suddenly started saying they didn't decompile the code.
The person also threatened to put their code up on the internet and threatened to contact Steam and the FSF about it and saying they can "be quiet" about it for now while they make their demands.
This is before the developers even had a chance to reply.

Demanding things like seeing the rest of their code, then arguing that they should still be open-sourcing their code and generally annoying the developers.

The developers quickly removed the "offending" code to prove their point when this all came up.

People like this are not good for the community, they are a nuisance and this kind of behaviour has to stop. It makes people steer clear of the LGPL and not think highly of it.

Yes sticking to licenses is very important, but attacking a developer and threatening them before they get a chance to explain is downright horrible.

All of this on a Sunday when most developers will be having at least one day off, come on "Defender Of The GNU" take a break once in a while. The LGPL isn't a bad license, but zealots like this ruin it for me.

Personally I much prefer the more open MIT license which stops issues like this.

Edit: As it turns out the guy wasn't trying to defend anyone, he had his own agenda and was trying to force the developers to give him their code. Not cool.

I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. A fan of anything techy, and not just Linux stuff.

You can follow my personal blog here.

Comments on this article are now closed.
GoCorinthians commented on 18 May 2014 at 3:31 pm UTC

Java
uhhh

Java uhhh:sick:
0 Likes
sgtGarcia commented on 18 May 2014 at 3:56 pm UTC

Good that he pointed possible GPL license violation, so the guys could remove that code, but threatening devs & breaking their license is just plain stupid.

He's ret arded to the point, he don't see his own hypocrisy :/

And yeah

GoCorinthiansJava
uhhh

Yuck...

Good that he pointed possible GPL license violation, so the guys could remove that code, but threatening devs & breaking their license is just plain stupid. He's ret arded to the point, he don't see his own hypocrisy :/ And yeah [quote=GoCorinthians]Java uhhh:sick:[/quote] Yuck... ;)
1 Likes
Guest commented on 18 May 2014 at 4:12 pm UTC

License holy war in 3...2...1 *grabs beer*

License holy war in 3...2...1 *grabs beer*
0 Likes
anonymous commented on 18 May 2014 at 4:15 pm UTC

Yikes. What an asshat!

Yikes. What an asshat!
0 Likes
lane_support commented on 18 May 2014 at 4:34 pm UTC

The Engine helped the devs to develop the game in first place and all what was asked back was to reference it's use and give access to possible modifications to the engines source code (not the game build with it!).

That's essentially what the LGPL (we're not speaking of the GPL here!) is asking for and is pretty much the same for the MIT license, as far as i recall it.

The devs of ZS seem to have violated it and got the chance to reply to this issue on the linked forums.

Imo it really not right to blame the messenger.

The Engine helped the devs to develop the game in first place and all what was asked back was to reference it's use and give access to possible modifications to the engines source code (not the game build with it!). That's essentially what the LGPL (we're not speaking of the GPL here!) is asking for and is pretty much the same for the MIT license, as far as i recall it. The devs of ZS seem to have violated it and got the chance to reply to this issue on the linked forums. Imo it really not right to blame the messenger.
2 Likes
lemmy101 commented on 18 May 2014 at 4:39 pm UTC

Hello lane, obviously we were eager to comply with 'the messenger's requests. Again however the whole point is this was one unused file that didn't help us build anything. So how is it fair that we'd need to distribute the source code to the entire of our game engine on account of one file of which the only function was to set some basic GL11 blend states and was not called once at any point from the day we started development to the present day, under the threat of having our livelihood destroyed by the game being removed from Steam as well as the decompiled code to our ENTIRE game (not just the affected file) being distributed as an open source project? And that removing the offending file was not deemed to be a satisfactory outcome, like the rest of our engine was fair game just because of the presence of this one file?

I remind you, this is AFTER we agree to remove the offending file ASAP.

Would love to hear how you feel we shouldn't 'blame the messenger' for what is essentially tantamount to thinly veiled blackmail.

Hello lane, obviously we were eager to comply with 'the messenger's requests. Again however the whole point is this was one unused file that didn't help us build anything. So how is it fair that we'd need to distribute the source code to the entire of our game engine on account of one file of which the only function was to set some basic GL11 blend states and was not called once at any point from the day we started development to the present day, under the threat of having our livelihood destroyed by the game being removed from Steam as well as the decompiled code to our ENTIRE game (not just the affected file) being distributed as an open source project? And that removing the offending file was not deemed to be a satisfactory outcome, like the rest of our engine was fair game just because of the presence of this one file? I remind you, this is AFTER we agree to remove the offending file ASAP. Would love to hear how you feel we shouldn't 'blame the messenger' for what is essentially tantamount to thinly veiled blackmail.
4 Likes
liamdawe commented on 18 May 2014 at 4:45 pm UTC

lanesupportThe Engine helped the devs to develop the game in first place and all what was asked back was to reference it's use and give access to possible modifications to the engines source code (not the game build with it!).

That's essentially what the LGPL (we're not speaking of the GPL here!) is asking for and is pretty much the same for the MIT license, as far as i recall it.

The devs of ZS seem to have violated it and got the chance to reply to this issue on the linked forums.

Imo it really not right to blame the messenger.

As stated it wasn't used, they used a completely different library after a brief test with the "offending" code. Since when did testing with a library equal having to mention it everywhere and open up your code if you didn't use it in the end?

[quote=lanesupport]The Engine helped the devs to develop the game in first place and all what was asked back was to reference it's use and give access to possible modifications to the engines source code (not the game build with it!). That's essentially what the LGPL (we're not speaking of the GPL here!) is asking for and is pretty much the same for the MIT license, as far as i recall it. The devs of ZS seem to have violated it and got the chance to reply to this issue on the linked forums. Imo it really not right to blame the messenger.[/quote] As stated it wasn't used, they used a completely different library after a brief test with the "offending" code. Since when did testing with a library equal having to mention it everywhere and open up your code if you didn't use it in the end?
1 Likes
lemmy101 commented on 18 May 2014 at 4:45 pm UTC

To clarify: This supposed engine that we used, Easy Way, was added to the project and removed within a day or two. It was of no use to us. Somehow OpenGLStates.java was left and was not used whatsoever. In what way did this engine 'help the devs to develop the game in the first place'?

To clarify: This supposed engine that we used, Easy Way, was added to the project and removed within a day or two. It was of no use to us. Somehow OpenGLStates.java was left and was not used whatsoever. In what way did this engine 'help the devs to develop the game in the first place'?
0 Likes
Metallinatus commented on 18 May 2014 at 4:46 pm UTC
  • GOL Supporter

I saw the first page of the linked thread and I saw nothing wrong actually.
The guy just demanded the source codes he have the rights to see, he was polite and all, did nothing wrong at all....
Then I saw the other pages and DAMN!... Hell did brake loose in there....
So, the guy is right to ask for the licenses to be respected and all and the devs were "wrong" by not be respecting it.... but this guy sureeeeeeeeeely went over the limit....
None of them was right after all, but everything could just have gone much more pacific than it was.

I saw the first page of the linked thread and I saw nothing wrong actually. The guy just demanded the source codes he have the rights to see, he was polite and all, did nothing wrong at all.... Then I saw the other pages and [b]DAMN[/b]!... Hell did brake loose in there.... So, the guy is right to ask for the licenses to be respected and all and the devs were "[i]wrong[/i]" by not be respecting it.... but this guy sureeeeeeeeeely went over the limit.... None of them was right after all, but everything could just have gone much more pacific than it was.
4 Likes
  Go to:
Popular this week
View by Category
Contact
Twitter
Latest Forum Posts
Facebook
Who's Online
There are 230 in total online.
Users online: FinCoder, fscherrer, FutureSuture, jamesc359, lave,
Misc