Decompiling a progs.dat

[Sajt]

In my opinion, as soon a Quake modder goes AWOL (as they all invariably will) you are entitled to rip all their stuff to pieces and take what you want.

[r00k]

A good use for a decompiler is when you've lost your source and need to make an update. Though, a decompiled source, even from stock 1.06 shareware itself can produce errors. Bottom line, if you do rip out some code you should provide credit to the author.

[mh]

If the author doesn't want it decompiled, it shouldn't be decompiled.

The author has no choice in the matter. If they don't want it decompiled they should abide by the terms of the QC license and release the source.

Our previous code releases have been under licenses that preclude commercial exploitation, but have no clause forcing sharing of source code. There have been some unfortunate losses to the community as a result of mod teams keeping their sources closed (and sometimes losing them).

[Biodude]

well, the author doesnt say anything about I cannot decompile

where did you find the Starship Troopers Tactical Defense mod?!

link?

So bottom line, can I decompile a mod that frik cant?

[Chip]

So bottom line, can I decompile a mod that frik cant?

Yeah, can he?

[frag.machine]

Quake-C isn't GPL licensed, though.

"The .qc files for quake1/quakeworld are now available under the GPL in source/qw-qc.tar.gx on out ftp site." -- John Carmack

http://www.team5150.com/~andrew/carmack ... #d20000508

If a mod does not require registered Quake, the only licensing available for a mod utilizing any part of the progs 1.06 .qc source code is the GPL.

Putting aside your philosophical statement for the moment:

If the author doesn't want it decompiled, it shouldn't be decompiled.

Unless the referred mod does not use a single line of original id's QuakeC code, the author is enforced to release all his source under request.

[Spirit]

Unless they used the earlier source release, you mean.

[Baker]

Unless they used the earlier source release, you mean.

For a Quake mod, sure because the registered Quake license agreement can be used. For a mod that doesn't require registered Quake, you are breaking the "all mods must require registered Quake" rule.

Hence, John Carmack GPL'd the progs 1.06 QC source, otherwise any total conversion would be using the source without registered Quake, and hence technically illegal. A mod requiring registered Quake can be closed source; a QuakeC mod not requiring registered Quake must be GPL if it uses any progs 1.06 QuakeC source code.

progs 1.06 isn't public domain. It was released in 1996 for modding with registered Quake to be used with the "utilities" (as the license agreement calls them) for constructing Quake mods.

/Sleepy yet? This is boring stuff and I'm not very interested in license agreements. All the good QuakeC is already open source and available in many mods, so ...

[ceriux]

so if we used the scratch .qc tutorials we would be fine though right?

[Baker]

If a mod does not require registered Quake to be played, the QuakeC source has to be GPL unless you rewrote all the QuakeC from scratch from top to bottom.

[Downsider]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The development communities I come from go by morals instead of textbooks.

[mh]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That seems an extremely strange thing to say, and it might be based on the assumption that the only reason to decompile a progs.dat is for something nefarious or underhand. Cheating, ripping off someone's code, so on. There are many other reasons why someone might want to do it, some of them honest. Someone might even want to do it for purely private educational purposes.

Can you explain the reason why you think it's wrong? Because you seem a nice guy elsewhere, but without seeing you outline any reasoning, just saying "no no no it shouldn't be done", you come across as trolling. I don't think that's what you're doing, but I do think you need to say more here.

The development communities I come from go by morals instead of textbooks.

That's odd because I recall the glory days of the old QuakeSrc.org community which was very open with sharing ideas and code. Every time someone did something cool their immediate gut reaction was to tell the world what it was and how they did it. This was a genuine strength and all in the spirit of everyone helping everyone else. The fact that sharing the code was required by the license was irrelevant here, people actually wanted to do it.

OK, legalities aside. How is this not going by morals? To my mind keeping some code you wrote private is to the detriment of the community. Share it and everybody wins, and our little part of the world becomes a better place. People will respect you more for it too ("hey, this guy not only did something cool, but he also enabled me to do the same cool thing myself!")

Again, I'm coming back to asking you if you can explain things better. Because right now I'm getting the idea that you think all those things I've just mentioned are somehow bad.

Why would an author not want their progs.dat decompiled?

Do tell.

[ceriux]

in the defense of Downsider ... if they did want to share their code. wouldnt they have released the source?

[Downsider]

Sloppy code, embarrasment, phobic of people ripping off your work, discouraging cheating (I can find a glitch to fly or some shit a lot easier by checking out the source), discourage hundreds of bad re-releases that literally break the balance of the game being the first thing prospective players see, wanting to keep the features of your mod unique, and being proud of what you've done, not wanting others to reproduce your work in the blink of an eye.

If the developer doesn't release his QC, you're a dick if you take it, because there's a reason behind it and you've invaded his security.

[Wazat]

Sloppy code, embarrasment, phobic of people ripping off your work, discouraging cheating (I can find a glitch to fly or some shit a lot easier by checking out the source), discourage hundreds of bad re-releases that literally break the balance of the game being the first thing prospective players see, wanting to keep the features of your mod unique, and being proud of what you've done, not wanting others to reproduce your work in the blink of an eye.

If the developer doesn't release his QC, you're a dick if you take it, because there's a reason behind it and you've invaded his security.

While I can understand that point of view, the mod author needs to base his mod on closed source, or making it closed (not releasing his source) is a violation of the license. Then the mod author disappears. If someone decompiles that, then that's like your neighbor borrowing a video game from you then disappearing and leaving the game somewhere in the abandoned, condemned home he left behind. And you have the choice of going in to find it. Decompilers are messy like that.

Honestly, I'm all in favor of people choosing to make their work closed source. For many video games and other applications this is absolutely appropriate, even mandatory given the nature of the software. However, they absolutely need to base their work on closed source that doesn't legally bind them to making it open source. If they violate the license, then what moral high ground or legal protection do they have against having their work decompiled and examined like a public frog dissection?

Starcraft is (so far as I know) not GPL, and people cannot legally decompile its source or hack it to make mods (and cheats) beyond the tools provided (map maker). Modders who use the hack tool to get past that are doing some interesting things (I once tried a couple of the mods), but technically none of it's legal and Blizzard probably isn't super comfortable with it. I once made a mod where hydralisks could shoot from nearly across the map, but had no vision of their own so they needed spotters. That's about all I did with the hack pack, back when I tried it out. Was it cool? Sure. Was it legal? Nope. I didn't understand it at the time, but I do now and I couldn't have released my mod and remained in good standing with old Blizzard.

Quake, on the other hand, is GPL or various other similar open source licenses. (I think models and other things under the "art" category are different. I'm specifically discussing code here). If you mod for Quake, chances are you're either releasing your source or paying a fee to ID Software. If you do neither of these, you're violating the license and thus the law.

Outside the casual modding environment, taking an open source project and making something closed source (without permission etc) can get you shut down/sued. Inside the casual modding community, we tend to shrug our shoulders and either ignore it or, on rare occasions, decompile the source to take a gander.

If you don't like that, then don't violate the license. The open source point of view is basically responsible for everything you see here, the wide knowledge base that's made all this possible. If someone doesn't honor the license and release their work, few of us will shed a tear if their work is subsequently decompiled and raped by our prying eyes.