dan writes "Multi Theft Auto is a third-party modification for Rockstar's hit title Grand Theft Auto San Andreas — and it has become open-source after over four years of closed source development. As a (somewhat) regular player of MTA since the early days of GTAIII, this hit me by surprise, somewhat." (The news is on the project's front page, from which dan extracts more details, below.)
dan continues: "Some of the interesting parts of the post: 'Today we are marking a new milestone in the history of Multi Theft Auto. After over 11000 revisions since 2004, contributions by over 16 world-wide developers, 1554 files and well over 550.000 lines of mostly C/C++ code, we have made the decision to re-launch Multi Theft Auto as an open-source project.
By open sourcing our project, we are encouraging anyone who is willing to participate in this project, to participate. For that reason, we are not 'just' offering our source code: we have also opened our bug tracker and will be offering public access to our nightly build system that will be compiling a build every day (and has been long used for testing purposes). This way, any developer will be able to run the latest revisions, file bugs or submit patches.
This is particularly exciting given that the released source is based upon the MTA Blue core, which in theory can be applied to any single player game. The source will no doubt be useful and provide foundations for future projects and the progression of the mod itself.'"
I've heard fantastic, mind-bending things about Multi Theft Auto.
Apparently, enthusiast game devs grafting on a real-time multiplayer component to a single-player game to which they don't have the source results in some, shall we say, interesting sync issues. My favorite story is where one guy suddenly gets replaced with a taxi on another guy's client. He still sees himself as a character, but the other guy sees him as a taxi just "walking" around.
"Get in me!" is of course the appropriate response, and upon their union the two have a strange and jittery ride down the street, until they get to the train station. They get on the train, which the taxi guy sees as a bouncy and jittery train ride, but the other guy sees as a taxi intersecting the train, grinding endlessly against the tunnel.
Finally, something breaks, and they're no longer constrained to the map's clipping, rocketing around the city, perhaps bi- or quad-locating, and it's time to reset the server.
Only a client running a Multi Theft Auto version that is released through this website or through our nightly build service generates a serial number. In other words, developer builds that are built manually by anyone will not be able to join servers that have serial verification turned on. For obvious reasons of course, as we would like to minimize the problem of people cheating through source code modifications.
MTA was an amazing thing back in the days of GTA III and Vice, and even SA, particularly because of how it was programmed. But now GTA IV has eclipsed all the previous games just on its merits as a single-player game, and Rockstar has implemented a better version of MTA officially into IV.. kind of sad that the MTA devs won't have anything to do on this one.
I've seen a bunch of "open source" game projects where the developers use pseudonyms to contribute. A few of these projects don't even have any contact information to get in touch with the developers. This basically makes their licensing pointless. Anyone can slap the GPL or a BSD-alike license on a bit of code, but it doesn't mean anything unless someone is willing to stand up and claim copyright on the code.. and that means a real human with a legal name. Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity. If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it. They then can write up a DCMA takedown notice and the actual authors have no way to prove that they are the legitimate copyright owners.
If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.
And pray that you don't get a serious legal smackdown laid on you if it ever did happen to go to court. There are ways to demonstrate authorship and link pseudonyms to real people when you get down to it; they're not perfect, but are you willing to risk the chance they work?
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday November 24 2008, @03:12AM (#25870787)
They opensourced code that is not even theirs, I have my sources, trust me there is actually code in there that they got from rockstar before the hot cofee fiasco when they even supported them, i doubt they ever did permission to release that.
And they also refuse to credit some of ex-developers.
Basically they could get easily sued into oblivion.
I am sure that after 550.000 lines of code, they have some way of proving that they own the code they were developing for all these years even if that is a log file
It's not even all their code, there is actually code in there that belongs to rockstar which they gave to them before hot cofee thing, i doubt they got permission to opensource that, it looks like a legal suicide for them
That is a point certainly, but the question would be was the project they contributed to GPL at the time they contributed, and if not, did they retain the rights to their code, and if so, did they consent to their contributions being licensed in this manner. Muddy, curly and all manner of other words that describe a messy situation, but I'd bet a few lawyers out there wouldn't mind spending a few years arguing over it.
what's to stop someone from downloading all of the files and revisions, removing the author's names and replacing their own, and putting up their own MTA site claiming that they were the original authors?
i don't see how typing your name in a text file is going to provide any kind of added protection against someone trying to take credit for your work.
whether they use a pseudonym or not, the original MTA authors still have several important things on their side:
a public history of publishing the code on the web (i.e. they have users, fans, and site visitors as their witness)
they probably have unpublished files like raw artwork, PSD files, e-mails, and other local records of their development
they own the domain name, web hosting account, Google Code account, e-mail address, and other accounts used in the project's development.
they have the truth on their side.
book authors publish under pseudonyms, or noms de plume, so why can't programmers?
See, these guys don't want to be identified. That's why they don't have their names on the stuff. So basically the only way they can stop someone from fucking them over is by identifying themselves..
i don't think you understand what a catch-22 [wikipedia.org] is.
it'd only be a catch-22 if, regardless of whether the author uses a pseudonym or not, he gets fucked over.
but as the myriad of authors who publish books under pen names illustrates, regardless of whether you use a pseudonym or not, you won't get fucked over. that would be the opposite of a catch-22.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday November 24 2008, @01:05AM (#25870359)
If you look at the Google Code site for the project [googlecode.com] and see some of the committed files in the repo, you'll notice REAL names with REAL email addresses, and thus your point is moot... and I shall forever be a coward.
If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.
Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.
If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:
* Claim it was theirs * Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed * Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring * Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place
There's enough laugh-test issues in there to make any such attempt essentially impossible.
Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?
Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.
If a license wasn't applied by the copyright holder then the license and any sublicenses are null and void. Stolen goods don't become legitimate if you sell them on eBay, nor can you "launder" code using a license.
If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:
* Claim it was theirs
TRUE.
* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed
FALSE
* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring
FALSE
* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place
FALSE
To take your most obvious error first, copyrights do not have to be defended. I could sue ten or fifty years from now without any need to explain myself. The other two might be arguments in a court of law, but here's the basic sequence of events.
1. Your ISP recieves a DMCA takedown, all it requires is a claim to ownership not any proof or reasonable case. They will take it off the site. 2. You must file a DMCA counter notification for their return. 3. The DMCA troll must file a lawsuit to continue (or not, since it's takedown abuse). 4. During the discovery/trial there's no evidence and you win (hopefully).
But wait, what happens here at step 2? It means you must claim:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law." plus give your full contact details for a potential lawsuit.
Would you sign that on behalf of some pseudonymous code that some d00d contributed to your project? Do you know who he is, what code access he's had and whether these allegations are true or not? I sure as hell wouldn't do that, it'd be dangerous as hell because I don't know the facts here. You can try getting the pseudonym to file the counter-notice but he might not be reachable or doesn't want to step forward. Then it's game over, your code is down and it's not coming back up.
Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?
You alledge the cat was never legally let out of the bag, and that everyone's handling it or its kittens are dealing in stolen property.
The DMCA is kind of a red herring. Presumably, that group themselves is hosting it. If they get hit by a DMCA for their own project, they're probably not going to roll over and play dead - they're probably going to say "uh, this is ours, go away".
Things might be a little more dubious if their site vanished off the face of the planet and it was down to fans to host it. But as long as the creators of the code actually want it kept up, they're quite, quite able to do so, bogus DMCA claims or not.
GPL is a valid license. If the originator of the source already obtain a GPL license, then automatically all subsidiary works is GPL too. You cannot claim any of the code is yours. To apply for GPL license, the originator usually applied for a copyright using real name of course. After that, all subsidiary works become GPL automatically. The holders of GPL works are not all anonymous. FYI some of them have real copyright for that work.
Do you work for SCO or the Microsoft FUD department by any chance? GPL code can only be legally combined with other GPL(-compatible) code. If I have the copyright on code A (other, non-GPL license), and you have the copyright on code B (GPL) and some third party combines and creates A+B, then that work isn't GPL. You can't steal my copyright by extending your license to my code. Whoever combined those works broke copyright law and the work A+B has no legal license at all. I can issue a takedown because it v
I would have thought that the developers and coders names are in the credits therefore you could say this game is copyright with particular peoples names being cited. It will be interesting to see what type of license they use and if certain people or companies try to plagiarise it.
Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity.
I could not agree more, it is IMHO stupid releasing software that anyone can take and make their own although I am quite sure that many would disagree with you and me. Oh well that is their prerogative.
Why the hell would who care? If your question is, why would people who worked for years and years on a project be a little sad if they had their project taken down and the only way they could put it back up was to put a legal fight.. I think maybe you're capable of figuring that out for yourself. If you mean, why would a court care that they were using pseudonyms and not their real names? Because that's the thing about pseudonyms, anyone can claim to be the owner of them and the court can't tell who is lying.
Let me clarify, he means that someone could use a pseudonym to poison the project with copyrighted source. Obviously, as you say, the person doing this isn't concerned about the project. You're forgetting that it's the others using their real names on something they care about who will suffer because of it. OK, so you could identify who submitted the dodgy code and remove all of their contributions but it might not be sufficient by that point.
Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.
Must be willing to work for free.
Looking for motivated philanthropists to work on an exciting underprivileged human life improvement project.
Must be willing to work for free.
Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.
Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.
Killing as many people as you can in GTA is quite acceptable however we cannot pick up a Hooker and bang her in a car, killing is ok but not the other thing, Think of the children!:-)
"Multi Theft Auto (MTA) is an open-source software project that adds a full multi-player network play functionality to several of Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto game titles, in which this network play element is not originally found."
When I first saw the headline on my iGoogle page I read it that San Andreas itself went OSS. I was very disappointed when I reread the headline and summary.
Only a client running a Multi Theft Auto version that is released through this website or through our nightly build service generates a serial number. In other words, developer builds that are built manually by anyone will not be able to join servers that have serial verification turned on. For obvious reasons of course, as we would like to minimize the problem of people cheating through source code modifications.
...Let the serial-less servers and serial verification bypasses go forth and multiply in number.
All our source code available through this project page is licensed under the GPLv3 license. This excludes any dependencies and our net modules for both the client and server: these are still covered under our proprietary license. These modules have been excluded because of reasons involving security and cheating, but contain only a minimal amount of code.
So I assume you also avoid any open source software that runs on Windows or OS X?
'Requires' is not the same as 'runs on'. GIMP, Pidgin, Blender and many other excellent programs run on Windows, but don't require it.
I would certainly think twice about any open source project that requires Windows or OS X, at least if a linux based or cross platform alternative were around.
No, the GP is a troll who hates the idea of closed source software. In order to make use of this project, the GP would have to defile himself by coming into contact with such software. According to the Church of Stallman, that is a sin.
Can you go head to head? Can you use cheats? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to call up a harrier and go head to head with another harrier. Rocket packs would be good too.
Oh, you don't need cheats. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard fantastic, mind-bending things about Multi Theft Auto.
Apparently, enthusiast game devs grafting on a real-time multiplayer component to a single-player game to which they don't have the source results in some, shall we say, interesting sync issues. My favorite story is where one guy suddenly gets replaced with a taxi on another guy's client. He still sees himself as a character, but the other guy sees him as a taxi just "walking" around.
"Get in me!" is of course the appropriate response, and upon their union the two have a strange and jittery ride down the street, until they get to the train station. They get on the train, which the taxi guy sees as a bouncy and jittery train ride, but the other guy sees as a taxi intersecting the train, grinding endlessly against the tunnel.
Finally, something breaks, and they're no longer constrained to the map's clipping, rocketing around the city, perhaps bi- or quad-locating, and it's time to reset the server.
Parent
...but they do help. (Score:2)
Only a client running a Multi Theft Auto version that is released through this website or through our nightly build service generates a serial number. In other words, developer builds that are built manually by anyone will not be able to join servers that have serial verification turned on. For obvious reasons of course, as we would like to minimize the problem of people cheating through source code modifications.
It will only be a matter of time before they do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (Score:4, Funny)
What he doesn't tell you is that the taxi-seeing player had picked up an LSD powerup...
Parent
It's missing the serial number generator (Score:2)
The problem is that they don't include the serial number generator.
It's not as if the resulting package that was built could be compared to the official build to find it, and its source code.
Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen a bunch of "open source" game projects where the developers use pseudonyms to contribute. A few of these projects don't even have any contact information to get in touch with the developers. This basically makes their licensing pointless. Anyone can slap the GPL or a BSD-alike license on a bit of code, but it doesn't mean anything unless someone is willing to stand up and claim copyright on the code.. and that means a real human with a legal name. Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity. If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it. They then can write up a DCMA takedown notice and the actual authors have no way to prove that they are the legitimate copyright owners.
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
And pray that you don't get a serious legal smackdown laid on you if it ever did happen to go to court. There are ways to demonstrate authorship and link pseudonyms to real people when you get down to it; they're not perfect, but are you willing to risk the chance they work?
Parent
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
They opensourced code that is not even theirs, I have my sources, trust me there is actually code in there that they got from rockstar before the hot cofee fiasco when they even supported them, i doubt they ever did permission to release that.
And they also refuse to credit some of ex-developers.
Basically they could get easily sued into oblivion.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because they'll probably be sued in the US federal court system for an amount over $20. Read the 7th amendment. IANAL, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
which they gave to them
They knew what the project was, they freely gave to them, I don't see the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
what's to stop someone from downloading all of the files and revisions, removing the author's names and replacing their own, and putting up their own MTA site claiming that they were the original authors?
i don't see how typing your name in a text file is going to provide any kind of added protection against someone trying to take credit for your work.
whether they use a pseudonym or not, the original MTA authors still have several important things on their side:
book authors publish under pseudonyms, or noms de plume, so why can't programmers?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that's not how it works.
See, these guys don't want to be identified. That's why they don't have their names on the stuff. So basically the only way they can stop someone from fucking them over is by identifying themselves..
It's a pretty obvious catch-22.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't think you understand what a catch-22 [wikipedia.org] is.
it'd only be a catch-22 if, regardless of whether the author uses a pseudonym or not, he gets fucked over.
but as the myriad of authors who publish books under pen names illustrates, regardless of whether you use a pseudonym or not, you won't get fucked over. that would be the opposite of a catch-22.
Re: (Score:2)
Publishers own the copyright on books written by authors under pseudonyms.
If someone violates the copyright, the publisher sues them.
An anonymous copyright holder is ineffective.
Only Cowards are Anonymous (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the Google Code site for the project [googlecode.com] and see some of the committed files in the repo, you'll notice REAL names with REAL email addresses, and thus your point is moot... and I shall forever be a coward.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
How do you know they're real names?
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Funny)
Well, maybe it's time I was more open about this then. I wrote the code.
Parent
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Informative)
If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.
Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.
If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:
* Claim it was theirs
* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed
* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring
* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place
There's enough laugh-test issues in there to make any such attempt essentially impossible.
Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?
Parent
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)
Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.
If a license wasn't applied by the copyright holder then the license and any sublicenses are null and void. Stolen goods don't become legitimate if you sell them on eBay, nor can you "launder" code using a license.
If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:
* Claim it was theirs
TRUE.
* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed
FALSE
* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring
FALSE
* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place
FALSE
To take your most obvious error first, copyrights do not have to be defended. I could sue ten or fifty years from now without any need to explain myself. The other two might be arguments in a court of law, but here's the basic sequence of events.
1. Your ISP recieves a DMCA takedown, all it requires is a claim to ownership not any proof or reasonable case. They will take it off the site.
2. You must file a DMCA counter notification for their return.
3. The DMCA troll must file a lawsuit to continue (or not, since it's takedown abuse).
4. During the discovery/trial there's no evidence and you win (hopefully).
But wait, what happens here at step 2? It means you must claim:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law." plus give your full contact details for a potential lawsuit.
Would you sign that on behalf of some pseudonymous code that some d00d contributed to your project? Do you know who he is, what code access he's had and whether these allegations are true or not? I sure as hell wouldn't do that, it'd be dangerous as hell because I don't know the facts here. You can try getting the pseudonym to file the counter-notice but he might not be reachable or doesn't want to step forward. Then it's game over, your code is down and it's not coming back up.
Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?
You alledge the cat was never legally let out of the bag, and that everyone's handling it or its kittens are dealing in stolen property.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA is kind of a red herring. Presumably, that group themselves is hosting it. If they get hit by a DMCA for their own project, they're probably not going to roll over and play dead - they're probably going to say "uh, this is ours, go away".
Things might be a little more dubious if their site vanished off the face of the planet and it was down to fans to host it. But as long as the creators of the code actually want it kept up, they're quite, quite able to do so, bogus DMCA claims or not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GPL is a valid license. If the originator of the source already obtain a GPL license, then automatically all subsidiary works is GPL too. You cannot claim any of the code is yours. To apply for GPL license, the originator usually applied for a copyright using real name of course. After that, all subsidiary works become GPL automatically. The holders of GPL works are not all anonymous. FYI some of them have real copyright for that work.
Do you work for SCO or the Microsoft FUD department by any chance? GPL code can only be legally combined with other GPL(-compatible) code. If I have the copyright on code A (other, non-GPL license), and you have the copyright on code B (GPL) and some third party combines and creates A+B, then that work isn't GPL. You can't steal my copyright by extending your license to my code. Whoever combined those works broke copyright law and the work A+B has no legal license at all. I can issue a takedown because it v
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity.
I could not agree more, it is IMHO stupid releasing software that anyone can take and make their own although I am quite sure that many would disagree with you and me. Oh well that is their prerogative.
On a slightly different n
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)
Why the hell would who care? If your question is, why would people who worked for years and years on a project be a little sad if they had their project taken down and the only way they could put it back up was to put a legal fight.. I think maybe you're capable of figuring that out for yourself. If you mean, why would a court care that they were using pseudonyms and not their real names? Because that's the thing about pseudonyms, anyone can claim to be the owner of them and the court can't tell who is lying.
Parent
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Now hiring! (Score:5, Funny)
Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.
Must be willing to work for free.
Re:Now hiring! (Score:5, Funny)
Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.
Must be willing to work for free.
Looking for motivated philanthropists to work on an exciting underprivileged human life improvement project.
Must be willing to work for free.
Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.
Parent
Re:Now hiring! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.
Killing as many people as you can in GTA is quite acceptable however we cannot pick up a Hooker and bang her in a car, killing is ok but not the other thing, Think of the children! :-)
Parent
Tell me more, more, more (Score:4, Funny)
you can pick up hookers in San Andreas and engage in something that makes the car bounce.
I can't wait to hear. The suspension's killing me.
Parent
Summary Lacking (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, now I get it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I first saw the headline on my iGoogle page I read it that San Andreas itself went OSS. I was very disappointed when I reread the headline and summary.
svn (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the command to check out the source:
svn checkout http://multitheftauto.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ multitheftauto-read-only
Missing the serial number generation, incomplete (Score:2, Insightful)
It's missing the serial number generator, and is thus incomplete.
Time for some open source (Score:5, Funny)
Good. (Score:2)
Now how far will the code history go, with respect to the closed source editions?
Now it's open source... (Score:2)
Only a client running a Multi Theft Auto version that is released through this website or through our nightly build service generates a serial number. In other words, developer builds that are built manually by anyone will not be able to join servers that have serial verification turned on. For obvious reasons of course, as we would like to minimize the problem of people cheating through source code modifications.
...Let the serial-less servers and serial verification bypasses go forth and multiply in number.
It's still missing some code- net/security modules (Score:2, Insightful)
All our source code available through this project page is licensed under the GPLv3 license. This excludes any dependencies and our net modules for both the client and server: these are still covered under our proprietary license. These modules have been excluded because of reasons involving security and cheating, but contain only a minimal amount of code.
No reason not to include them in source form.
Will it run on Linux? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if i can get it working on linux. BB later =)
More than 16 worldwode developers... (Score:5, Insightful)
"More than 16 worldwide developers"
That'd be 17 worldwide developers then?
net: network handling (NOT OPEN) (Score:2, Interesting)
> net: network handling (this module is covered by a different license and is only available as a binary release)
First rule of business, fork, and add a new network layer, then use google's bug database.
Re:too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, but you're wrong.
See how I've provided evidence for all my points?
Parent
Re:This is news??? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I assume you also avoid any open source software that runs on Windows or OS X?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So I assume you also avoid any open source software that runs on Windows or OS X?
'Requires' is not the same as 'runs on'. GIMP, Pidgin, Blender and many other excellent programs run on Windows, but don't require it.
I would certainly think twice about any open source project that requires Windows or OS X, at least if a linux based or cross platform alternative were around.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Reverse engineering. I did it with "Frontier: Elite II".