Duke Nukem 3D new version for 68060

[cgutjahr]

The Nova version is only AGA, that's why I updated the RTG Dante's version

I don't understand - aren't we talking C code here, or did Dante optimize the whole thing by porting parts of it to ASM? Libnix certainly is C.

Ok, I'll put it on Aminet !

That requires honoring Duke Nukem's license (GPL). I'm not sure how to do that, if you just patch other people's binaries. But at the very least, the license needs to be mentioned and you need to include an offer to provide interested parties with a way to easily duplicate what you did. I doubt that "I replaced all mul64/div64 instances with 68060 friendly opcodes" will suffice...

Edit: Your forum seems to have a minor SPAM problem: three postings from you, followed by eleven pages of spam postings...

[cgutjahr]

You can easily "honore duke nuken 3d GPL lisence" like Dante did.

Dante uploaded the sources along with his binary, which is how you properly honor the license.

I'm just not sure how one would do that if you don't modify the sources but simply patch the binary (assuming that's what Cosmos did). If anybody's got an idea, I'm all ears. Like I said, uploading the file with hint that he replaced this and that wouldn't cut it, IMNSHO.

[cgutjahr]

The Dante's source were compiled again with gcc 2.95.3-4 and with updated asm parts...

Oh? Then I simply misunderstood what you did. In that case, there's no problem of course. Just upload the modified souces along with your binary (in a separate archive, preferably) and make sure you mention the license.

[cgutjahr]

@Cosmos:

The archive you uploaded to Aminet does not give any indication that Dante is not the guy releasing it. He's listed as author and uploader, his mail address is given as a target for bug reports... Actually, you're not mentioned anywhere in the archive.

Plus there is no source release, no offer to hand over sources, the GPL's not even mentioned (let alone quoted)...

Please upload a version of the release fixing these problems.

[cgutjahr]

I'm actually with Cosmos on this.   Who gives a f**k if someone releases a FREE patch to a very old PC game without providing the patch source code

The Aminet administration "gives a f**k". There are people out there who care about that sort of thing and don't hesitate to complain about it. The least Aminet can do to protect the individuals providing the mirrors from being harrased by copyright owners is to make sure uploaders respect other people's licenses.

I really don't get what all the fuss is about?

Cosmos is known for pissing on other people's licenses and for totally ignoring Aminet's upload rules - there's a history there, you know... What do you expect me to do?

who is actually getting hurt by this action?

Someone gave away the source code to his legendary game and lets you do whatever you want with it. That's kind of nice, isn't it? And all he asks in return is that you make your sources available along with it. I don't think that's asking too much.

[cgutjahr]

That said, screw those GPL software Nazis.

How mature of you.

Think about it like that: Having more software released under the GPL (or any other free license) benefits users of niche computer systems - in other words: it's a good thing, especially for us. If we want more people to release their intellectual property under a free license, we need to make sure they feel like they can trust said license.

If more people behave like Cosmos, less people will release stuff under a free license.

[cgutjahr]

so with my disassembling, I mock them...

I don't care what you do in private. if you upload to Aminet, you respect Aminet's upload rules - period.

You've been told that twice in the past - the second time in no uncertain terms. I asked politely a third time in this thread - and your entire upload is basically another big "f**k you". And as if that wasn't enough fun already, I now face people yelling "GPL nazi" and I'm getting recommendations to do something productive instead.

Do not bother uploading to Aminet again.