Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released
- Neoblast
- 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
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
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...
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
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...
- Quzar
- 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
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
- Maturion
- 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
1) Time travel (to the future).Quzar wrote:The readme says 'or compile your own with the sourcecode', how might anyone outside of dciberia do so without allergro libs?
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).
- Neoblast
- 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
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
Any productive feedback from anyone that actually tried the game?
BTW, dciberia died years ago. You would need a time-travel machine for that.
But thanks for posting quzar, as helpful as always
Any productive feedback from anyone that actually tried the game?
BTW, dciberia died years ago. You would need a time-travel machine for that.
-
- 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
This is great stuff!!!! Thank you a lot!!! THE GAME IS GREAT!
- Christuserloeser
- Moderator
- Posts: 5948
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:16 am
- Location: DCEvolution.net
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
- dream devil
- DCEmu Freak
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:31 am
- Location: Brazil
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
- BlueCrab
- 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
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.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
Any productive feedback from anyone that actually tried the game?
BTW, dciberia died years ago. You would need a time-travel machine for that.
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.
- Maturion
- 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
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.
- BlueCrab
- 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
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.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.
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.
- DCDayDreamer
- 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
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?.
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
Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released
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).
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).
- DCDayDreamer
- 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
I did read it, that's why I said it's 'giftware' etc.Guaripolo wrote:Read the Allegro license
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: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?).
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: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
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.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
It really is no wonder why the DC homebrew community virtually disintegrated into it's own self-made void.
Across the Universe
- BlueCrab
- 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
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).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 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.
Re: Open Sonic port for Dreamcast Released
DCDayDreamer, i wasn't talking to you, the thing is with BlackAura and Quzar. Sorry.
- BlueCrab
- 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
I'm sure you don't mean BlackAura, as he hasn't complained in this topic at all.Guaripolo wrote:DCDayDreamer, i wasn't talking to you, the thing is with BlackAura and Quzar. Sorry.
- DCDayDreamer
- 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
That's ok, I misunderstood because of your reply after my post, no worries .Guaripolo wrote:DCDayDreamer, i wasn't talking to you, the thing is with BlackAura and Quzar. Sorry.
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 code used in the production of binaries licensed under the GPLv2 must be provided.
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).".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.
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
-
- 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
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: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.
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.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? .
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.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.
"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
-
- 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
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:Read the Allegro license:
http://alleg.sourceforge.net/license.html
http://www.allegro.cc/manual/miscellane ... 016947b8f0
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: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?).
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.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,
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.
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.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).