It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionPlease document the protocol and API of the Galaxy updater client to enable community alternatives(166 posts)(166 posts)
(166 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 18, 2014
avatar
Kristian: True but they don't do that with that game(I forgot the name).
avatar
Fenixp: Warsow I think? You also don't have to provide source with the download. Not to mention how pointless it is, really, if somebody wants to see source code to a software, chances are he knows how to use google.
Yes! Warsow. They either have to provide the "corresponding source" with the game or they can provide a written offer to provide it. They don't do either.
Posted July 18, 2014
avatar
shmerl: While it can be pointless, formally the license requires them to provide access to source if anyone requests it. So shipping it together covers their legal ground for sure, but there should be simpler ways.
avatar
Kristian: Yes! Warsow. They either have to provide the "corresponding source" with the game or they can provide a written offer to provide it. They don't do either.
In the end, licenses exist to protect the content owners - and as it stands, Warsow benefits from being on GOG much more than GOG benefits from having Warsow. I think this omission doesn't really hurt anyone ;-)
Post edited July 18, 2014 by Fenixp
Posted July 18, 2014
avatar
Kristian: Yes! Warsow. They either have to provide the "corresponding source" with the game or they can provide a written offer to provide it. They don't do either.
avatar
Fenixp: In the end, licenses exist to protect the content owners - and as it stands, Warsow benefits from being on GOG much more than GOG benefits from having Warsow. I think this omission doesn't really hurt anyone ;-)
You are forgetting how extremely easy it for GOG to comply and you are forgetting that Warsow is based on id Software code. So technically GOG are violating id's copyrights. A company they would want as a partner. Not a good idea. They should just upload the source code(or atleast the required written offer).
Posted July 18, 2014
avatar
Kristian: You are forgetting how extremely easy it for GOG to comply and you are forgetting that Warsow is based on id Software code. So technically GOG are violating id's copyrights. A company they would want as a partner. Not a good idea. They should just upload the source code(or atleast the required written offer).
Well... Bethesda's copyright you mean. That's besides the point tho - the source code of Warsow is easily accessible for anyone who wants it. If GOG doesn't want to provide it for whatever reason, that's their own predicament - they probably just don't want to commit more resources towards a free game than absolutely necessary. At this point, getting stuck at technicalities serves no real purpose - Warsow benefits from being here. GOG could just as well remove it altogether and everything would be fine technically - albeit Warsow would suffer from not being on one of the most popular digital distribution service. And if you really think that Bethesda will give a crap about GOG spreading source code to a free game based on quake engine, I must say you're quite naive.
Posted July 18, 2014
avatar
Fenixp: And if you really think that Bethesda will give a crap about GOG spreading source code to a free game based on quake engine, I must say you're quite naive.
Still, complying with the FOSS license is the proper thing to do. There are too many GPL violations around already. There is no need to be lax about it. Just make a the source available on demand or put a README with the link for example (I think that's enough, but I'm not sure).
Post edited July 18, 2014 by shmerl
Posted July 18, 2014
avatar
Kristian: You are forgetting how extremely easy it for GOG to comply and you are forgetting that Warsow is based on id Software code. So technically GOG are violating id's copyrights. A company they would want as a partner. Not a good idea. They should just upload the source code(or atleast the required written offer).
avatar
Fenixp: Well... Bethesda's copyright you mean. That's besides the point tho - the source code of Warsow is easily accessible for anyone who wants it. If GOG doesn't want to provide it for whatever reason, that's their own predicament - they probably just don't want to commit more resources towards a free game than absolutely necessary. At this point, getting stuck at technicalities serves no real purpose - Warsow benefits from being here. GOG could just as well remove it altogether and everything would be fine technically - albeit Warsow would suffer from not being on one of the most popular digital distribution service. And if you really think that Bethesda will give a crap about GOG spreading source code to a free game based on quake engine, I must say you're quite naive.
GPL-family licenses specifically require that users be provided with the exact same source used to build that specific binary. "There's the repo. You'll have to figure out which revision we used." isn't good enough. (That's what makes bundling the source so much simpler.)
Posted July 19, 2014
avatar
ssokolow: GPL-family licenses specifically require that users be provided with the exact same source used to build that specific binary. "There's the repo. You'll have to figure out which revision we used." isn't good enough.
Most repos easily allow linking to a specific revision / branch, so that shouldn't be a big issue.
Post edited July 19, 2014 by shmerl
Posted July 20, 2014
avatar
ssokolow: GPL-family licenses specifically require that users be provided with the exact same source used to build that specific binary. "There's the repo. You'll have to figure out which revision we used." isn't good enough.
avatar
shmerl: Most repos easily allow linking to a specific revision / branch, so that shouldn't be a big issue.
You still have to guarantee the availability for a certain number of years after distribution. If the repo you linked to starts 404ing, it's your ass on the line.
Posted July 20, 2014
avatar
shmerl: Most repos easily allow linking to a specific revision / branch, so that shouldn't be a big issue.
avatar
ssokolow: You still have to guarantee the availability for a certain number of years after distribution. If the repo you linked to starts 404ing, it's your ass on the line.
Yeah, so making a backup of the used source wouldn't hurt, but there is no need to always ship it.
Posted July 20, 2014
avatar
ssokolow: You still have to guarantee the availability for a certain number of years after distribution. If the repo you linked to starts 404ing, it's your ass on the line.
avatar
shmerl: Yeah, so making a backup of the used source wouldn't hurt, but there is no need to always ship it.
I never said it was necessary... just that it was popular because it allows an "out of sight, out of mind" simplicity unmatched by any other approach.
Posted July 20, 2014
seeing how gog has not responded to any such requires or the other open source request , we can safely assume they have no interest in this.

i think they are more interested getting a beta of galaxy out and testing its features with a closed set of selected beta testers
Posted July 20, 2014
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: i think they are more interested getting a beta of galaxy out and testing its features with a closed set of selected beta testers
The closed beta is already out; registration is still being accepted at the GOG Galaxy page.

I think it's a bit too early to know what their intentions are regarding features and openness until it reaches at least an open beta.
Posted July 24, 2014
It would be interesting to have a single client that was open source and allowed to be included with all distros that combined the GOG.com, Desura/Desurium stores and the DJL OSS/Freeware/Sareware game loader service into a single client.
Posted October 14, 2014
Added the question about keeping the current API and the future of Galaxy to the GOG Q&A:
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/questions/are_you_going_to_keep_the_current_downloader_api_after_the_galaxy_comes_out
Post edited October 14, 2014 by shmerl
Posted October 15, 2014
@Destro from GOG said that they are going to document the protocol of the Galaxy client!

See the Q&A video at 49:40

http://www.gog.com/news/ask_us_anything_on_twitch
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionPlease document the protocol and API of the Galaxy updater client to enable community alternatives(166 posts)(166 posts)
(166 posts)