Duke Nukem 3D new version for 68060

[Linde]

Just a few quick notes here since I see a lot of misconceptions about the GPL license.

[ul]
[li]You don't honor the license simply by distributing the source. Binary distributions as well as the source distributions have to include the original license, unchanged, and be released under the terms of that license.[/li]
[li]If you distribute binaries on a network server, you have to distribute the source on a network server as well. That is, if you are offering binaries for download, you have to offer the source for download as well, not simply offer to send the source to someone requesting it.[/li]
[li]Source patches or binary patches are not permissible ways to distribute the source. You honor the license by distributing the full source or simple means to retrieve it(e.g. via a version control system)[/li]
[/ul]

[Linde]

Just a few quick notes here since I see a lot of misconceptions about the GPL license.

* You don't honor the license simply by distributing the source. Binary distributions as well as the source distributions have to include the original license, unchanged, and be released under the terms of that license.

* If you distribute binaries on a network server, you have to distribute the source on a network server as well. That is, if you are offering binaries for download, you have to offer the source for download as well, not simply offer to send the source to someone requesting it.

* Source patches or binary patches are not permissible ways to distribute the source. You honor the license by distributing the complete source or simple means to retrieve it (e.g. via a version control system)

[Linde]

So, since you are sharing the binaries, will you share the source and the license terms as well? Otherwise I think that this thread should be deleted on the grounds that it is a blatant copyright infringement.

[Linde]

And we wonder why we have so few developers left!  :lol:

Yes, it's no wonder given how readily people will break licensing agreements and infringe on their intellectual property. But don't you dare linking to an ADF of some cracked 25 year old software!

[Linde]

I'm actually testing this new 0.5 version

I see that there is still no source available, and no GPL license information included. It's simple. Include the original GNU.TXT distributed with the official Duke Nukem 3D source code release in the binary package, and make the source code that you are building from available. It could be on the same download page.

You have included a different license, which I guess is applicable to the original distribution of Duke Nukem 3D, but that license doesn't govern the source code or software based on it. If it was applicable to any of your work, your work would have breached the license since it maintains exclusive rights over the program.

I would love to try this if I had a faster Amiga btw. I don't say any of this to detract from the amazing work you are doing.

[Linde]

Because you are breaking the law by disrespecting the license terms of the software yours is built on. If NovaCoder did the same, shame on him too, but I was not aware of that. It's not a very hard thing to comply with.

[Linde]

No fight between us : that's our ennemis want...

Your enemies? There's no need to try to make me look like an antagonist for pointing out these issues.

To be clear : I have only added some asm 060 Mul64 parts into the source, nothing more since I'm a super beginner in C, I cannot do more, sorry...

You were able to simply add those to the source because the source code of the port was made available to you by Dante. Dante was able to port it to the Amiga because the original source was made available to him by 3D Realms & Ken Silverman. The point of GPL is that if you'd actually comply with it, someone else could just as easily improve on your efforts.

If anyone else in this chain had the same attitude to the license as you do, you wouldn't have been able to modify and improve on the source code.

Who gives a f**k if someone releases a FREE patch to a very old PC game without providing the patch source code, who is actually getting hurt by this action?

If I walk into your house and just stand there without doing anything, who is actually getting hurt by it? Probably no one (maybe me, if you found out), but since I respect your property and I respect the law (besides having no personal interest in doing so) I won't do that anyway.

You can also look at it like this: Who would have been "hurt" if Dante hadn't released his source? Certainly, changing a few lines of code in his source to produce a faster Amiga port wouldn't have been possible. Who would have been hurt if 3D Realms didn't release the source in 2003? An Amiga port would have been a massive undertaking.

What GPL does is set up a definition of "FREE" that is more permissive than exclusive copyright but with the caveat that derivative works also need to be "free" under the same conditions. Apart from that it permits you to do basically anything. If you don't agree with that definition of "free", you don't have to use or derive your software from GPL software. It's simple to opt out, but it's also very simple to comply by including the license information and dumping the source you built your binaries from somewhere that people can reach it. I equally don't understand what the fuss is about.

Some people obviously prefer to complain than to step up and do something productive themselves.

Say whatever makes you feel better.