So,... what's the situation on the Dark engine source code? - by Cliftor
Myagi on 19/4/2009 at 17:02
Quote Posted by jtr7
It doesn't work that way. "Forgotten" NEVER means it's okay, or legal, or that the copyright (which is binding for several DECADES) is somehow nullified. If we know about it then they could easily find out. It would have to be discussed entirely through private channels for Eidos to never know. Since Eidos employees lurk the forums, and because we keep reminding them we are here and interested, they would know before too long.
The 10 years from now thing just a side note anyway that meant at some point when no one was around anymore that had any legal claim nothing would happen. My main point was that if the source was out it could do good things behind closed doors or not. Other anonymous sources could make updated exe files that run better on current systems. Whoever would have a moral issues running those exe's, can choose not to. There wouldn't even need to be any explaination how those exe's came about. Allthough I don't see any issue there as no-cd exe's and other patched exe's like widescreen are commonly accepted.
And if OPDE devs silently took a peek at the source to quicker figure out some data structures and whatnot, no one would ever have to know that either.
I'm not trying to say it's generally ok, but Thief isn't something general and it didn't use an engine like unreal which is still alive, it's something extraordinary that's shouldn't be denied life preserving measures because of some bureaucratic details ;)
Volca on 20/4/2009 at 06:00
Quote Posted by MaxDZ8
The original DE source in the meanwhile just fossilized.
I think ODE team is doing the right thing in restarting from scratch. After all, everything that matters is to load the assets correctly and manage them sort of coherently. I have alot of hope in their efforts.
Rewriting is something, but considering that was essentially the middle ages of 3D graphics I think at least refactoring, and possibly redesigning to be more probable situations. If the original design still makes sense, rewriting will be easy and give advantages. If not, it's going to bite where it hurts.
It is always possible to workaround the design with more efforts but starting from suboptimal state isn't something getting me excited.
What you say is exactly that: yes, we could reprocess everything. Then we don't have a modern rewrite. We have a significant content pipeline workflow modernly redesigned (which is surely a good thing but a different beast).
Do you think it would be really useful to have the original? I assumed ODE had completely reverse-engineered everything, but I may be wrong. Surely there would be an improvement when it comes to file layouts and entity behaviours... If you put this in those terms then I agree 100%.
You're right that the maintenance done over the years on the quake engine would take some serious work from the table. What I meant is that data-wise the present structures are not too much different, meaning it would be possible to improve the situation.
The data structures were revealed by many people over the years - for example Tels, Telliamed, Shadowspawn (and probably others). I can't take credit for that :) (I only did work on WR/WRRGB and PHYS_SYSTEM so far, along with others from the project). The original code, be it complete or only partial, would help with the interpretation. Some properties are not entirely orthogonal for example, their connection has to be discovered, etc.
Quote Posted by Myagi
The 10 years from now thing just a side note anyway that meant at some point when no one was around anymore that had any legal claim nothing would happen. My main point was that if the source was out it could do good things behind closed doors or not. Other anonymous sources could make updated exe files that run better on current systems. Whoever would have a moral issues running those exe's, can choose not to. There wouldn't even need to be any explaination how those exe's came about. Allthough I don't see any issue there as no-cd exe's and other patched exe's like widescreen are commonly accepted.
And if OPDE devs silently took a peek at the source to quicker figure out some data structures and whatnot, no one would ever have to know that either.
I'm not trying to say it's generally ok, but Thief isn't something general and it didn't use an engine like unreal which is still alive, it's something extraordinary that's shouldn't be denied life preserving measures because of some bureaucratic details ;)
I tend towards this attitude: Either the original source code is released under some free license, or I rather don't want to see it at all. There already are many man-hours invested in the OPDE project (although it does next to nothing so far :) ) and doing something semi-legal could mean the project would be at risk.
Myagi on 20/4/2009 at 14:30
Quote Posted by Volca
I tend towards this attitude: Either the original source code is released under some free license, or I rather don't want to see it at all. There already are many man-hours invested in the OPDE project (although it does next to nothing so far :) ) and doing something semi-legal could mean the project would be at risk.
I'm not talking about copy-pasting code or anything like that, just knowing how some data structure looks or something works can speed things up. As I said the key was not letting anyone know about it, then there would be no semi-legalness* about it as from the outside it would be impossible to determine, and in that spirit you have the correct attitude, to categorically deny any possibility of it. Nothing more needs to be said ;)
* not any worse than modifying exe's and no-cd cracks, which I'm sure break the EULA and no one has any problems with that because it's done for the greater good. Even though reverse engineering is legal (in some places) you're probably breaking the EULA there too.
Macha on 20/4/2009 at 16:59
You guys actually take legal threat seriously?
Gambit on 20/4/2009 at 17:41
Well, the guys that own Dune IP recently took away a Second Life map of a desert with some Dune names on it.
But it seems that the action backfired anyway because it was a map where few people where actually advertising their IP that isn't extremely popular nowadays.
eddy on 20/4/2009 at 17:46
It's just stupid to use leaked code in an open source project (even if it's only for reverse engineering). It could taint the whole project.
Does nobody remember all the hassle with the ReactOS and Wine projects when some part of the Windows source was leaked?
jtr7 on 20/4/2009 at 22:02
Quote Posted by Macha
You guys actually take legal threat seriously?
You do NOT have permission. Get yer hands outta my cookie jar! Apparently you subscribe to the notion, "Everything's legal as long as you don't get caught." And you must think that we fear retribution greater than a letter of warning with a promise of legal action should we not comply with their wishes. You must also have zero respect for the devs, TTLG, and us to sneer at our (creepy-yet-adoring fan-) respect for the devs. We have no right. We may believe we have entitlement, but that is at Eidos' whim.
sNeaksieGarrett on 20/4/2009 at 22:32
I have to agree with jtr7 and Volca
Quote Posted by Volca
I tend towards this attitude: Either the original source code is released under some free license, or I rather don't want to see it at all. There already are many man-hours invested in the OPDE project (although it does next to nothing so far ) and doing something semi-legal could mean the project would be at risk.
Yeah. I mean, personally I just find it wrong to "leak" the source code without going through the proper channels to make sure it becomes entirely legal. And yes, people do fear legal action. Though,
in my opinion, it's not just fear of getting caught, it's an ethical issue as well.:)
MaxDZ8 on 27/4/2009 at 10:38
It is very unfortunate to know some tidbits are yet obscure. In that case I have to agree 100% on the cause.
But... a question which comes to mind is (after reading about the ethical problem):
Do you think the original authors actually want to have this back from the dead?
After all, their involvement has been quite limited for now. Although it is just unlikely they can do something right now, it is possible they could had in the past. I fear that maybe we're hoping to get something which really shouldn't be there from their perspective.
After all, when LGS went dead, it didn't happen in a day. If they wanted to share something, maybe they would have found a way to do so without impacting assets' value.
If ethical questions are to be taken in account, then I cannot really avoid thinking that maybe they want Thief to rest in the past, to remain a Relic, a Legend which only a few lucky users actually happened to enjoy.
jtr7 on 27/4/2009 at 10:52
Well, we know Sean had moved on to other things way back then, but it's not for him to say, it's Eidos/Square-Enix that has the say. I think the devs, on the other hand, understand, and we've shown them we are interested in the newer stuff, just hoping to get it right. They helped get us the editors, writing up tutorials and packaging them up, and they play[ed] FMs. They are fans of Thief, even if they never had the thrill of playing it without any knowledge of everything first. I think they understand nostalgia, and preservation, and how hard that is with computer media. Most of us have shown them we will play other games, too (most of us), so we help them pay the bills. But I don't think they can help us, unless one of them has a copy, finds it, and sends it through.
