GtkRadiant is GPL'ed... safe to use it now?
by Sim9 · in Torque Game Engine · 02/23/2006 (11:16 am) · 35 replies
Apparently GtkRadiant has been open-sourced according to this announcement:
However, on the legal page this is listed:
I'm not sure if this is a case of an out-dated page, or whether commercial use is still prohibited. Certainly the commercial/non-commercial distinction does not really fit in with the GPL methodology.
As you may recall, there have been several previous discussions about this before the code was GPL'ed. Any thoughts on this new development?
Quote:Following last summer's release of Quake III Arena source code and tools under the GPL license, id is now placing GtkRadiant and q3map2 under GPL license. We are also providing in this release a number of Quake II tools that never made it under GPL when we packaged Quake II source code.
However, on the legal page this is listed:
Quote:The editors are free for non commercial use
GtkRadiant is open sourced under a proprietary License from Id software.
Commercial use requires a License from Id Software, which can be obtained independently from any engine License. See Id Software Technology Licensing page for more information.
I'm not sure if this is a case of an out-dated page, or whether commercial use is still prohibited. Certainly the commercial/non-commercial distinction does not really fit in with the GPL methodology.
As you may recall, there have been several previous discussions about this before the code was GPL'ed. Any thoughts on this new development?
#22
02/24/2006 (8:36 am)
I'll let the maintainer know they overlooked the license.rtf 
#23
The only way I could see ID been able to do what you suggest is to not release under the GPL. They would need to release the source under a variation (which wouldn't be compatible with the GPL). Which is what their first license was, it was an open source license but custom with a restriction on output usage.
If for some strange reason the GPL didn't actually allow you to run the program and use it, then yes you'd be right, since to use it you'd need to agree to the "Other" license which would indeed restrict your use of the output to none-commercial usage. But the GPL explicitly allows you to run the program and distribute it.
02/24/2006 (8:39 am)
The GPL license grants you the right to run that application and use it under the terms of the GPL. You do not have to agree to the "Other" license which restricts the output use because the GPL grants you the right to use the program. As you have not agreed to the "Other" license, its terms do not apply. As the GPL does not restrict the ways in which you can use the output (unless the program is included as a part of the output) then there is no restriction, no license that applies to the output. The only way I could see ID been able to do what you suggest is to not release under the GPL. They would need to release the source under a variation (which wouldn't be compatible with the GPL). Which is what their first license was, it was an open source license but custom with a restriction on output usage.
If for some strange reason the GPL didn't actually allow you to run the program and use it, then yes you'd be right, since to use it you'd need to agree to the "Other" license which would indeed restrict your use of the output to none-commercial usage. But the GPL explicitly allows you to run the program and distribute it.
#24
Very mature response - I wouldn't expect anything less. I'm rather interested in this topic and would like to hear more opinions, there's no need to start injecting the static.
Stephen: You hit the nail on the head, indie development companies have far too much riding on the software they use. If there's any question about licensing it puts the software into an uncomfortable gray area.
02/24/2006 (8:39 am)
Quote:
Josh Ritter:
Actually, wait, I think I figured it out. This is all in id Software's master plan.
1. They applied the GPL to all the code and told the world: "It's now GPL!". They cleverly don't mention that they intend to somehow GPL it and keep the old proprietary license in effect. Sneaky!
2. They s3kr3tly left the old license.rtf in the setup folder which was solely used by the installer. They don't directly apply this license to anything in the release. They just slip it in there, a ticking time bomb!
3. They plan to sue and sue hard and soon!
Very mature response - I wouldn't expect anything less. I'm rather interested in this topic and would like to hear more opinions, there's no need to start injecting the static.
Stephen: You hit the nail on the head, indie development companies have far too much riding on the software they use. If there's any question about licensing it puts the software into an uncomfortable gray area.
#25
If you are interested in a discusion and opinions, have a look at Mr Preston's posts. Instead of just shouting a "heck yeah! with a post that supports your opinion.
02/24/2006 (8:44 am)
@John: "Very mature response - I wouldn't expect anything less." <--- right back at ya, I appreciate the personal attack... If you are interested in a discusion and opinions, have a look at Mr Preston's posts. Instead of just shouting a "heck yeah! with a post that supports your opinion.
#26
I have - and if you look at the time stamps on both of our posts you'll see that they were posted at almost the same time.
02/24/2006 (8:51 am)
Quote:If you are interested in a discusion and opinions, have a look at Mr Preston's posts.
I have - and if you look at the time stamps on both of our posts you'll see that they were posted at almost the same time.
#27
The errant license.rtf and license.txt is being removed...
02/24/2006 (8:53 am)
Quote:Hey, there is a license.txt and license.rtf with the old id license in the setup folder
thks. I guess we missed it
Great
The errant license.rtf and license.txt is being removed...
#28
There is absolutely no reason any of us should be getting steamed over this.
It is a really simple matter of getting the facts straight officially which is all I have been suggesting all along.
I contacted id and the radiant guys as well. I am sure in another few hours we will all be cranking away in radiant and we can forget this whole thing.
Until then I really suggest we drop the topic. I was suprised to wake up and see this thread is still going. We have games to make!
-Unk
02/24/2006 (8:55 am)
Hey guys, look...There is absolutely no reason any of us should be getting steamed over this.
It is a really simple matter of getting the facts straight officially which is all I have been suggesting all along.
I contacted id and the radiant guys as well. I am sure in another few hours we will all be cranking away in radiant and we can forget this whole thing.
Until then I really suggest we drop the topic. I was suprised to wake up and see this thread is still going. We have games to make!
-Unk
#29
02/24/2006 (9:04 am)
Please, let's not let this drop down into argument. It's a good (and very important) discussion, but we'll delete it in a heartbeat if it continues to drop down to personal discussions.
#30
"Very mature response - I wouldn't expect anything less." <--- right back at ya, I appreciate the personal attack...
I think some people see GTKRadiant as some kind of threat or competition to Constructor. It's not.
Threat to delete thread noted.
02/24/2006 (9:10 am)
Where is the personal discussion? The only thing I see is:"Very mature response - I wouldn't expect anything less." <--- right back at ya, I appreciate the personal attack...
I think some people see GTKRadiant as some kind of threat or competition to Constructor. It's not.
Threat to delete thread noted.
#31
The "personal discussion" is comments between two people completely unrelated to the topic itself, but simply a "discussion" regarding individual posts directed at specific individuals. It's a trend for threads like this from time to time, and we don't want it to be a trend.
02/24/2006 (9:13 am)
Josh: just let it go dude. I can't be any clearer than that. Not pointing fingers, not blaming anyone, just don't let it happen please in an otherwise good thread!The "personal discussion" is comments between two people completely unrelated to the topic itself, but simply a "discussion" regarding individual posts directed at specific individuals. It's a trend for threads like this from time to time, and we don't want it to be a trend.
#32
At any rate, they are removing the errant license files. If people still have a problem with using GTKRadiant commercially, it's their problem. I would also make sure to use all Microsoft products and replace all your Linux servers with Windows boxes. Just to be "safe".
02/24/2006 (9:18 am)
There won't be many threads left on GG if that is your policy. Locking threads is certainly preferable to deleting them.At any rate, they are removing the errant license files. If people still have a problem with using GTKRadiant commercially, it's their problem. I would also make sure to use all Microsoft products and replace all your Linux servers with Windows boxes. Just to be "safe".
#33
02/24/2006 (9:43 am)
Josh: Hardly, every good developer uses all of the tools at his disposal, this is no different.
#34
I am not so sure we'll use GTKRadiant. The more interesting part of the GPL GTKRadiant release, to me, is q3map2. This is a very nice CSG based preprocessor with lighting, normal map generation, etc.
02/24/2006 (10:05 am)
There are people with bias regarding GPL source code and applications. There are people who think GTKRadiant is competition or a threat to Constructor. There are even people with personal bias and dislike of individuals... These statements are all true...I am not so sure we'll use GTKRadiant. The more interesting part of the GPL GTKRadiant release, to me, is q3map2. This is a very nice CSG based preprocessor with lighting, normal map generation, etc.
#35
I'm not 100% sure on this but I think that this is fair game under GPL.
03/05/2006 (2:32 pm)
Even if the GPL does not directly say you can now use GTK radiant for whatever purpose you want, what you can do now is make some do-nothing changes to the code and publish it as a new program under the GPL. This new program could then have whatever GPL-inclusive licensing terms you wanted it to. And if you chose to release it, source code would have to be available but that shouldn't be a problem if all you are looking for is a free level editor. I'm not 100% sure on this but I think that this is fair game under GPL.
Torque 3D Owner Stephen Zepp
Josh, I certainly believe their intent is exactly what you are describing, but their EULA execution is still very poor. While it's a "way down the line" issue for most indies, we also have commercial developers and studios committing millions of dollars to using Torque, and they simply can't take the risk of assuming what Id -really- intends, and the combination of licenses is not legally determinstic unfortunately.