[Zaxx]

I know that this must have been discussed back in the day but I don't get something: shouldn't the source code to Duke World Tour be available? As far as I know World Tour was made from the original Duke 3D source code, the one that was released by 3D Realms and Wieder under the GPL v2 license back in the day. Now GPL v2 of course has the copyleft stuff in it meaning that any modified software based on the source would also fall under GPL v2 = it should be open source.

So why didn't Gearbox abide by the GPL? I know that the GPL's enforceability is shaky at best so I won't throw around "it's illegal" and stuff like that but it certainly is a breach of copyright, no (on top of being a "fuck you" to the community)?

[Hendricks266]

Hendricks266, on 11 May 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

When you create something, you own the copyright and no one else has any right to do anything with it (barring fair use exceptions like parody, etc). You can choose to license your work under a scheme like the GPL, which upgrades the public from having no right to having some rights, if they follow some terms and conditions. This does not affect you, because you still own the copyright.

As a result of the lawsuit, Gearbox now owns everything Duke Nukem that 3D Realms owned. Therefore, they own the Duke 3D source, and are not bound by the license that the general public is.

If they had based their work on JFDuke3D or EDuke32, they would absolutely be bound by the GPL because we retain ownership of our contributions, which would have been automatically licensed back to Gearbox under the GPL, unless they would have bought a licensing exception from us. If 3D Realms 100% owned the Duke 3D source, Gearbox is in the clear as far as source code obligations.

[Zaxx]

That was my initial thought too: GBX owns the IP so they do whatever they want with it so in the context of the GPL they are the copyright holder rather than the user of the software, end of story. However the rights that are granted to the user cannot be withdrawn so depending on what WT is it could be theorized that by not releasing its source code GBX is withdrawing the user's right to study and modify the program. Is WT a derivative work of the original? I dunno enough about software in general to decide that so I'm not sure if it is but if it's not I think that GBX is still bound by the GPL to release the source code.

[Phredreeke]

The user still has the same rights, those rights just don't apply to Gearbox's code.

[Radar]

Zaxx, on 27 August 2019 - 09:01 PM, said:

That was my initial thought too: GBX owns the IP so they do whatever they want with it so in the context of the GPL they are the copyright holder rather than the user of the software, end of story. However the rights that are granted to the user cannot be withdrawn so depending on what WT is it could be theorized that by not releasing its source code GBX is withdrawing the user's right to study and modify the program. Is WT a derivative work of the original? I dunno enough about software in general to decide that so I'm not sure if it is but if it's not I think that GBX is still bound by the GPL to release the source code.

WT is presumably based 100% on the original Duke 3D source code.

[Zaxx]

Radar, on 28 August 2019 - 08:49 AM, said:

WT is presumably based 100% on the original Duke 3D source code.

Yeah, I know that, what I said was that I can't decide if WT is derivative work or not. If WT is derivative work than it is protected by copyright as a new software so GPL doesn't apply to it (and I think this is the most likely situation here). If it isn't though... then my knowledge on the subject kinda stops and I don't know what's up but chances are that doesn't give much room in enforcing GBX to release the source either since the stuff that's next to the GPL terms clearly state that you get the Duke 3D 1.5 source and that's it. So guess you can't say that WT is "Duke 3D 2.0" for example so you have the right to look at its source code.

Man, it's just sad that GBX never released the WT source because I guess their DX11 renderer could be a great replacement for Polymer on top of course better compatibility with Episode 5.

[Lunick]

Zaxx, on 28 August 2019 - 08:07 PM, said:

Man, it's just sad that GBX never released the WT source because I guess their DX11 renderer could be a great replacement for Polymer on top of course better compatibility with Episode 5.

I'm sure someone somewhere is working on that

[Micky C]

Their 3D renderer isn’t that great. The WT maps are relatively simple compared to a lot of user maps, and in sure it would struggle to draw them at an acceptable frame rate.

Hell, there were some terrible slowdowns in Golden Carnage on my computer, and that was with the relatively short draw distance in place.

It also wouldn’t support TROR which breaks compatibility with a lot of recent content.

[Zaxx]

Lunick, on 28 August 2019 - 08:39 PM, said:

I'm sure someone somewhere is working on that

Oh boy, Nukey to the rescue.

[Zaxx]

Micky C, on 28 August 2019 - 08:52 PM, said:

Their 3D renderer isn’t that great. The WT maps are relatively simple compared to a lot of user maps, and in sure it would struggle to draw them at an acceptable frame rate.

Yeah, it's certainly not a game changer honestly because the same bottlenecks are still there, it's just that it was cool to see those lightning effects, the normal mapping and the like running smoothly = basically it's like a finished polymer renderer and nothing else.

Overall I do prefer the approach of the current polymost renderer where the aim seems to be being accurate to the original with enhancing some aspects.

[Radar]

Zaxx, on 28 August 2019 - 08:07 PM, said:

Yeah, I know that, what I said was that I can't decide if WT is derivative work or not. If WT is derivative work than it is protected by copyright as a new software so GPL doesn't apply to it (and I think this is the most likely situation here). If it isn't though... then my knowledge on the subject kinda stops and I don't know what's up but chances are that doesn't give much room in enforcing GBX to release the source either since the stuff that's next to the GPL terms clearly state that you get the Duke 3D 1.5 source and that's it. So guess you can't say that WT is "Duke 3D 2.0" for example so you have the right to look at its source code.

Man, it's just sad that GBX never released the WT source because I guess their DX11 renderer could be a great replacement for Polymer on top of course better compatibility with Episode 5.

You should really just reread the very first post in this thread. Read it slowly. It answers every question you have.

[Zaxx]

Radar, on 29 August 2019 - 05:51 AM, said:

You should really just reread the very first post in this thread. Read it slowly. It answers every question you have.

If you do think that then... well, you're wrong.

[Phredreeke]

The Duke3D source code was released under GPL in 2003, the GPL would apply to any code derived from that source release. The GPL does not apply retroactively, Gearbox can use any version up to and including the one released under GPL. But if they were to use any of the ports based on that release then they would be bound by the GPL and forced to release the source code.

[Zaxx]

Phredreeke, on 29 August 2019 - 07:59 AM, said:

The Duke3D source code was released under GPL in 2003, the GPL would apply to any code derived from that source release.

If that process was done through the terms granted by the GPL I guess.

Quote

But if they were to use any of the ports based on that release then they would be bound by the GPL and forced to release the source code.

Yeah, that's clear.