noamineo wrote on Dec 21
st, 2016 at 12:04pm:
Meursault wrote on Dec 21
st, 2016 at 8:41am:
I disagree. You don't have to release *running* source code, leave the calls to the proprietary libraries but don't include them. People who want to run it at home have the option of buying a license for the proprietary library or rewriting the source to use something else. In that respect it's much easier to release source, and it's more useful in the long run.
This would, at the absolute minimum, require going through the source code and determining what is and isn't proprietary, what can and can't be released. That's 18+ years of updates and changes to review, millions(billions?) of lines of code.
No, it doesn't. You are allowed to show your calls to the library, you just can't include the library itself. If you figure out a way to make the case that showing the calls or declarations is infringing, Oracle would like a word with you
noamineo wrote on Dec 21
st, 2016 at 12:04pm:
Like I pointed out, Turbine may well have sold parts of it's code-base to other games, and if that's the case, they wouldn't be able to give away the source. They may also have bought parts from other games that are now in a wierd right limbo.
LOL, somebody would buy
Turdbin's code?! Selling code requires documentation, and a basic understanding of what you've got. Turdbin clearly has had neither for a very long time.
noamineo wrote on Dec 21
st, 2016 at 12:04pm:
So, in your scenario, someone has to go through a massive source library and decide which parts they can and can't legally give away, and risk getting sued if they make the wrong choice. Its hundreds of hours of work. Turbine doesn't pay their people well, but that's still a huge resource investment for the 5 people who'd actually want to modify AC's source code.
Making a closed-source private server is easy, comparatively. Giving out source code is not a simple decision.
When you release a closed source product you have to worry about re-distributable licences, installers, platform requirements, etc. When you release source code, you have to go through the list of files and make sure you have no executables or linked libraries that came from somewhere else.
Unless you've gone through the utterly useless and extremely difficult task of taking purchased code out of the files the vendor gave you, which gains you absolutely
nothing, there is no purchased code in your
source. Only in your
compiled code. Unless their server software is written in HTML and ASP.NET, running as an IIS web service (which would explain a lot of their performance issues, but would be incredibly stupid even by Turdbin standards) the purchased stuff is pre-compiled and you only link to it.
So in general it's far safer and easier to release source than compiled code.
If you know of a specific package for game servers that comes as source that you build your source into, I guess that could lead to what you're talking about, but that seems like quite a stretch. I've written software for distribution for 30 years now, purchasing countless libraries and tools along the way, and not one has been like that.
Do you know of one in the gaming industry? I'd certainly stop disagreeing with you on the point if you could show me a concrete example they might have used. And I'm talking about their server code, not the game engine, or their web site. I could see a web site they bought as a template and filled in, but that's not the server code. I don't want to call B.S., but I'm having an awfully hard time seeing how it could be so.