Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

This forum is for the posting of new newsposts, and it stores the site's news and comments archives. Only newsposters have access to post new news in here; if you wish to submit news, please post it in the discussion section for your particular topic. We may choose to move it here as a newspost if we find that it's worthy for the front page.
User avatar
Neoblast
DC Developer
DC Developer
Posts: 314
https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:51 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Neoblast »

This port is based on open sonic, a open source sonic game that has been( and still is ) under developmente for one year, now it looks and plays good.

It runs at 60 fps and quite well. It may have bugs since its the first beta for the dreamcast but I think I sorted the most, so it's playable.

Controls

+ Move
ABXY Jump,Change Character/Fly/Glide

Image

You can get it a http://www.dreamcast.es

As the original game improves I will the port the new versions....

Usethe translation panel in th right side of the website if needed...
User avatar
Quzar
Dream Coder
Dream Coder
Posts: 7497
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 12:14 am
Location: Miami, FL
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 9 times
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Quzar »

The readme says 'or compile your own with the sourcecode', how might anyone outside of dciberia do so without allergro libs?
"When you post fewer lines of text than your signature, consider not posting at all." - A Wise Man
User avatar
Maturion
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Maturion »

Very nice port, I really appreciate it! Good work!
Guaripolo
DCEmu Freak
DCEmu Freak
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:04 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Guaripolo »

Quzar wrote:The readme says 'or compile your own with the sourcecode', how might anyone outside of dciberia do so without allergro libs?
1) Time travel (to the future).
2) Port yourself Allegro.
3) Ask them. They're not so evil.
4) Roll on the floor. Sometimes it works (specially when you're in flames).
User avatar
Neoblast
DC Developer
DC Developer
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:51 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Neoblast »

I agree guaripolo, if you want them ask for them or just port allegro yourself. besides the author of those allegro libs for dreamcast havent publicly released them, because they are in beta stage and so we are beta testing them.

But thanks for posting quzar, as helpful as always :wink:
Any productive feedback from anyone that actually tried the game?

BTW, dciberia died years ago. You would need a time-travel machine for that.
JayDeeDee
DCEmu Cool Newbie
DCEmu Cool Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:09 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by JayDeeDee »

This is great stuff!!!! Thank you a lot!!! THE GAME IS GREAT!
User avatar
Christuserloeser
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5948
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:16 am
Location: DCEvolution.net
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Christuserloeser »

Can't wait to give it a try.
Insane homebrew collector.
User avatar
dream devil
DCEmu Freak
DCEmu Freak
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Brazil
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by dream devil »

It's always good to see games being ported for dc :)
User avatar
BlueCrab
The Crabby Overlord
The Crabby Overlord
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 11:31 am
Location: Sailing the Skies of Arcadia
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 69 times
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by BlueCrab »

Neoblast wrote:I agree guaripolo, if you want them ask for them or just port allegro yourself. besides the author of those allegro libs for dreamcast havent publicly released them, because they are in beta stage and so we are beta testing them.

But thanks for posting quzar, as helpful as always :wink:
Any productive feedback from anyone that actually tried the game?

BTW, dciberia died years ago. You would need a time-travel machine for that.
You cannot legally distribute GPLed software without providing all of the source needed to build that software. If you do not have the rights/ability to distribute the source for the exact version of the Allegro library used, then you cannot distribute binaries that are based off of it. This is a matter of contract law, and is spelled out in the contract of the GPL.

Beta testing and such is no excuse. You're publicly releasing software based on it, you're liable for the issues at hand. You MUST distribute the source for the exact version of the Allegro library used if asked (since Allegro does not fall under the system library exception to this rule). If you cannot do that (or do not have the source), then you must immediately cease distribution of the binaries that use it.

It is plain and simple, and is spelled out clearly by the GPL. The only exceptions to the rule are when a library is included with the operating system or compiler. I know that a binary version of Allegro is not included with KOS (the operating system), and its certainly not included with the compiler (GCC).

See:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-license ... GuzzlerInc
and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-license ... timeAndGPL

I don't want to seem mean, I just call it as I see it. I write code under the GPL and would be furious if someone were distributing a modified version of my code in such a manner.
User avatar
Maturion
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Maturion »

I don't really see the point of this discussion. I understand that you need to provide all of the source needed to build your port according to the GPL. However, Neoblast seems to be in contact with the original developers, in fact he posted on the official OpenSonic website a while ago. The original coders know about the Dreamcast port and they're fine with it. The dreamcast port of Allegro will be released to the public sooner or later, anyway. I don't see why so many people start crying about this port, the only person that could be unhappy due to the fact that Allegro-DC isn't released, is the originial developer, and as said, he's fine with it.
User avatar
BlueCrab
The Crabby Overlord
The Crabby Overlord
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 11:31 am
Location: Sailing the Skies of Arcadia
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 69 times
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by BlueCrab »

Maturion wrote:I don't really see the point of this discussion. I understand that you need to provide all of the source needed to build your port according to the GPL. However, Neoblast seems to be in contact with the original developers, in fact he posted on the official OpenSonic website a while ago. The original coders know about the Dreamcast port and they're fine with it. The dreamcast port of Allegro will be released to the public sooner or later, anyway. I don't see why so many people start crying about this port, the only person that could be unhappy due to the fact that Allegro-DC isn't released, is the originial developer, and as said, he's fine with it.
Unless I see something from the original developer allowing a non-free library (which at this point Allegro-DC falls into this category) to be linked with OpenSonic (and all of the other Allegro-DC-based projects), then they are in violation of the license of the program. This is plain and simple.

It doesn't matter if it'll be released sooner or later, the users of the binary have the right to obtain all of the pieces (the EXACT VERSIONS USED) to produce said binary themselves. This is currently not possible, and no such exception has been granted. Thus, it is a violation of the GPL, and as I said, if this were my project being "ported" in this way, I'd be furious.

Claiming something is distributed under the GPL and then not complying with the GPL is almost as bad as taking a GPLed work and not distributing the source code. Both are legally violations of the contract that the GPL spells out. Both stop the end user from doing what they may want to with the program. Both are illegal.

Pursuant with the GPLv2, I demand the entire source code used to create this binary. Both the OpenSonic code (the exact version used), as well as any auxiliary libraries used to produce it. Hell, I demand that the GPLv2 be included with the binaries, because it isn't, and that is a violation of the GPL itself! I have obtained the binary from the dreamcast.es website, and thus I am entitled to receive that which I am demanding by the GPL.
User avatar
DCDayDreamer
DCEmu Respected
DCEmu Respected
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:59 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by DCDayDreamer »

Can someone clarify some things for me? (BlueCrab perhaps?). This would relate to any port using Allegro really, but seeing as the OpenSonic port covers what I'd like to know about, I'm using it as an example.

With a port like this, who is actually responsible for releasing a library source?

To expand on that question a little bit:

As far as I can see, the OpenSonic project is licensed under the GPLv2, now the Dreamcast beta 1 release binary (or the CD Image that contains it) is released under the same GPLv2, the beta 1 release download has the port sourcecode within it, so that part is covered by the GPLv2.

Again, as far as I can see, the problem is with a library that is needed to compile the source for the Dreamcast beta 1 release into a binary - Allegro for Dreamcast.

Allegro does not use the GPLv2, it uses what seems to be a unique 'giftware' license, and according to the FAQ: "You can modify Allegro and distribute the modified Allegro under any licence you want".

Now, because the OpenSonic Dreamcast beta 1 release is using the GPLv2, and also the Dreamcast Allegro library, does this mean that the Dreamcast version of the Allegro library needed to compile the beta 1 source automatically falls under the same GPLv2? (because it IS required to compile the GPLv2 licensed OpenSonic source).

Back to my original question (with more questions): If the Dreamcast Allegro library does fall under the same GPLv2, who is responsible for releasing that source?, the OpenSonic port author?, or the original Allegro Dreamcast port author?.
Across the Universe
Guaripolo
DCEmu Freak
DCEmu Freak
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:04 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Guaripolo »

Read the Allegro license:

http://alleg.sourceforge.net/license.html

http://www.allegro.cc/manual/miscellane ... 016947b8f0

Open Sonic is GPL, but that doesn't mean that the Allegro parts included must match with it, the Allegro license is unclear. It's a legal trouble and legal troubles belongs to lawyers (can you imagine a world without lawyers?).


This conversation is over. After all we are not going anywhere. I really, really, really, really don't know why are you making this bigger and bigger. Nobody cares but you, and surely when allegro-dc, dc-allegro, allegro or whathever allegro-name-of-the-library-that-uses-sonic-that-neoblast-the-spanish-dumb-guy be released, you will make another trouble, like:

a) I don't like the font included. Change it.
b) The DMA code is wrong and for that it never has to be used by anyone (but i will not fix it).
d) Berlusconi.


So, give him the library, he's right (or not, i don't know, i'm going to sleep).
User avatar
DCDayDreamer
DCEmu Respected
DCEmu Respected
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:59 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by DCDayDreamer »

Guaripolo wrote:Read the Allegro license
I did read it, that's why I said it's 'giftware' etc.
Guaripolo wrote:Open Sonic is GPL, but that doesn't mean that the Allegro parts included must match with it, the Allegro license is unclear. It's a legal trouble and legal troubles belongs to lawyers (can you imagine a world without lawyers?).
Why do you think I started my post with "Can someone clarify some things for me?", I simply do not understand when one license says one thing and another license says another thing.
Guaripolo wrote:This conversation is over. After all we are not going anywhere. I really, really, really, really don't know why are you making this bigger and bigger. Nobody cares but you
It's not that I care or do not care, I just want to understand the licenses and the implications of ports like this, that is all.
Guaripolo wrote:and surely when allegro-dc, dc-allegro, allegro or whathever allegro-name-of-the-library-that-uses-sonic-that-neoblast-the-spanish-dumb-guy be released, you will make another trouble
Wait a minute, I am not calling anybody a "dumb-guy", if anyone is dumb - it's me!, I just want to understand the license with ports like OpenSonic which use libraries with different licenses. Is it so wrong to ask questions about a project that uses 'OPEN' in it's name?, when obviously it should include 'CLOSED' in there somewhere.

It really is no wonder why the DC homebrew community virtually disintegrated into it's own self-made void.
Across the Universe
User avatar
BlueCrab
The Crabby Overlord
The Crabby Overlord
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 11:31 am
Location: Sailing the Skies of Arcadia
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 69 times
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by BlueCrab »

DCDayDreamer wrote:Now, because the OpenSonic Dreamcast beta 1 release is using the GPLv2, and also the Dreamcast Allegro library, does this mean that the Dreamcast version of the Allegro library needed to compile the beta 1 source automatically falls under the same GPLv2? (because it IS required to compile the GPLv2 licensed OpenSonic source).

Back to my original question (with more questions): If the Dreamcast Allegro library does fall under the same GPLv2, who is responsible for releasing that source?, the OpenSonic port author?, or the original Allegro Dreamcast port author?.
The GPLv2 states that all code used in the production of binaries licensed under the GPLv2 must be provided. This can be done in one of three ways: distributing the binary and source together (the binary I downloaded certainly did not have the source to any part, nor the GPL license document, which must be included no matter how the source is distributed), distributing them separately but equally (i.e, two separate archives available on the same site (or linked to on the same site), but they must always be available together in this case), or by accompanying the binary with a written offer to obtain the source code by mail (only really applicable to binaries on a physical medium, such as a CD-ROM). Note that any of these only apply to those that have obtained a license for the binary, so the source may be withheld from anyone who does not have a valid license to the binary (so, it can be withheld from anyone who does not download the binary, for instance: you can require people to ask).

The GPLv2 states that ALL parts needed to build the EXACT binary must be either provided under a license compatible with the GPLv2 or must be something that is normally included with the compiler/operating system/interpreter in use. That is to say that everything must be available in a GPLv2-compatible license, effectively.

Distributing Allegro-DC in binary form is fine, as long as it is not linked in any manner (statically or dynamically) to a GPLed component. For instance, if the programs in question were licensed under the BSD license (of any type), then they'd be able to release without any source of anything (assuming the other components licenses also allowed), if they wanted. However, the issue at hand is that Open Sonic, and many other Allegro-DC ports, are licensed under the GPLv2, which is explicit in its requirements that the EXACT code used to create the binaries MUST be available, at least on demand, unless the component in question is normally distributed with the operating system or compiler (there's no interpreters involved here, so we can ignore that safely).

I assure you that Allegro-DC is not distributed in binary form with KOS (the operating system in question) or GCC (the compiler in question), so the GPL states that the source must be available. It is the responsibility of the person hosting the binary to make sure that the conditions are fulfilled, so in this case dreamcast.es is responsible for making the source available.
Guaripolo
DCEmu Freak
DCEmu Freak
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:04 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Guaripolo »

DCDayDreamer, i wasn't talking to you, the thing is with BlackAura and Quzar. Sorry.
User avatar
BlueCrab
The Crabby Overlord
The Crabby Overlord
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 11:31 am
Location: Sailing the Skies of Arcadia
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 69 times
Contact:

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by BlueCrab »

Guaripolo wrote:DCDayDreamer, i wasn't talking to you, the thing is with BlackAura and Quzar. Sorry.
I'm sure you don't mean BlackAura, as he hasn't complained in this topic at all.
User avatar
DCDayDreamer
DCEmu Respected
DCEmu Respected
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:59 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by DCDayDreamer »

Guaripolo wrote:DCDayDreamer, i wasn't talking to you, the thing is with BlackAura and Quzar. Sorry.
That's ok, I misunderstood because of your reply after my post, no worries :) .
BlueCrab wrote:The GPLv2 states that all code used in the production of binaries licensed under the GPLv2 must be provided.
This is one part that I do not understand fully, the download has a CD Image of the game port, it has the source files of the game that was ported, and it also includes the GPL license document. The Dreamcast OpenSonic beta 1 release has all the requirements to comply with the GPLv2 from what I can see. This is where I'm getting confused, and I am also not sure if we have the same set of files here, I downloaded the release from the OpenSonic SourceForge Files.
BlueCrab wrote:The GPLv2 states that ALL parts needed to build the EXACT binary must be either provided under a license compatible with the GPLv2 or must be something that is normally included with the compiler/operating system/interpreter in use.
This is another part that I do not understand fully, and this goes back to one of my previous questions: "does this mean that the Dreamcast version of the Allegro library needed to compile the beta 1 source automatically falls under the same GPLv2? (because it IS required to compile the GPLv2 licensed OpenSonic source).".

From what I understand so far: all the source HAS to be compatible with the GPLv2, some parts that are not directly compatible with the GPLv2 MUST be available, but also may be in a separate form, and possibly under an alternative license.

Am I sort of on the right track here? :? .
Across the Universe
Ex-Cyber
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3641
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by Ex-Cyber »

DCDayDreamer wrote:This is one part that I do not understand fully, the download has a CD Image of the game port, it has the source files of the game that was ported, and it also includes the GPL license document. The Dreamcast OpenSonic beta 1 release has all the requirements to comply with the GPLv2 from what I can see.
It doesn't contain the corresponding Allegro source code, which is part of the combined program and therefore subject to the requirements of the GPL.
DCDayDreamer wrote:From what I understand so far: all the source HAS to be compatible with the GPLv2, some parts that are not directly compatible with the GPLv2 MUST be available, but also may be in a separate form, and possibly under an alternative license.

Am I sort of on the right track here? :? .
Non-GPL-covered code is allowed, but the combined work must be distributed in accordance with the GPL, so any other licenses must be GPL-compatible. Otherwise, one license or the other would have to be violated. Allegro's license is GPL-compatible, but someone distributing a binary containing both Allegro code and GPL-covered code must satisfy the requirements of the GPL for the Allegro components as well as for the GPL-covered component(s). This is the so-called "viral" aspect of the GPL.
BlueCrab wrote:I assure you that Allegro-DC is not distributed in binary form with KOS (the operating system in question) or GCC (the compiler in question), so the GPL states that the source must be available.
I don't think KOS qualifies for that exception in the first place. It's pretty much an "operating system" in name only, and that exception does not apply to any linked OS component that "accompanies the executable". Current consensus seems to be that this doesn't apply to "mere aggregation" (e.g. shipping a bunch of packages on a Linux distro disc), but was intended to avoid the OS exception being abused for something like this OpenSonic release.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
OneThirty8
Damn Dirty Ape
Damn Dirty Ape
Posts: 5031
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:11 pm
Location: Saugerties, NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released

Post by OneThirty8 »

For whatever it's worth, the license for the 4.9 branch of Allegro doesn't look like the giftware license anymore. I have no idea which version the Dreamcast Allegro is based on (is Allegro 5 compatible with 4.2? I've not messed with Allegro much) but I did notice a different license when I was looking at the Allegro SVN repository last night.
Guaripolo wrote:Open Sonic is GPL, but that doesn't mean that the Allegro parts included must match with it, the Allegro license is unclear. It's a legal trouble and legal troubles belongs to lawyers (can you imagine a world without lawyers?).
You clearly do not understand how the GPL works. The license in question here is, after all, the GPLv2, and what BlueCrab and Quzar (and now add my name to the list) are pointing out is that all of the ports of GPL-ed software compiled against a non-free Allegro library are in violation of the GPL. Period. There is no gray area there whatsoever.
Guaripolo wrote:This conversation is over. After all we are not going anywhere. I really, really, really, really don't know why are you making this bigger and bigger. Nobody cares but you,
BlueCrab and Quzar are not the only ones who care. I brought this matter up in the Staff forum but was reluctant to post here because I remember a similar situation a few years ago and didn't want to be the one to set off the inevitable flame war. We had a lot of trouble here a few years back with a certain fellow who had issues with releasing his source code when he was required to do so.

The fact of the matter is that people who have themselves released code under the GPL find it incredibly irritating when they see others disregarding that same license. And, like BlueCrab, if somebody did that with a program that I wrote, I would be furious. There are a lot of us who care about Free Software, and not just getting games for free.
Guaripolo wrote:and surely when allegro-dc, dc-allegro, allegro or whathever allegro-name-of-the-library-that-uses-sonic-that-neoblast-the-spanish-dumb-guy be released, you will make another trouble, like:

a) I don't like the font included. Change it.
b) The DMA code is wrong and for that it never has to be used by anyone (but i will not fix it).
You totally miss the point here. If the source code was released, we would be free to fix the font if we did not like it. Any capable coder would be able to fix buggy code if they saw fit. That's the point of free software, and the only issue being raised.
Post Reply