CtP2 Source Code Project FAQ

[MrBaggins]

I just miss... "blood will run"

[Locutus]

I don't, it's the start-up sound of my PC

[Mercator]

The answer to question 15 contains this:

According to the EULA, you are indeed allowed to distribute new versions, as long as you do not distribute them non-commercially

I don't think that can be right. That looks like one negation too many.

[Locutus]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up

[Vasc]

That license is veeery restrictive. IMHO just licensing the source code under the GNU GPL would be good enough. Someone could resell it, but Activision would be able to do the same as they would be forced to release their code in the open as well. Besides, a major part of any game is the data, the source code by itself is useless. Not to mention Activision would still hold the rights to the name "Civilization: Call to Power". ID Software has no qualms releasing their old source code for Doom II and Quake I/II under the GNU GPL and they actually make it a major business to re-sell their engine source code. This would not be the case here.

I could understand why Activision would want to reserve the right to re-sell the product, not allowing someone else from milking profit from it. However, the restrictions in source code redistribution by 3rd parties, with a license that even doesn't clearly allow the simplest thing like using a public CVS site... Unnaceptable for me. I would be willing to spend some time porting CtP to SDL so we could use our Windows game CDs on Linux and other platforms, but not when I can get a lawsuit from doing it.

Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa - Freeciv development.

[Maquiladora]

I love how all these programmers come out of the woodwork waving their keyboards to slam Activision for not being less restrictive

You know i think if youd been here for 3 years non-stop waiting for the source code under any license, like all the modders, you would have a more reasonable view.

[Vasc]

Let us see how you will feel if Activision in the future wants to pull the carpet from under your feet and remove the right you seem to think you have to work on the source code and distribute source code/binaries.

You agree not to sell, rent, lease, license, distribute or otherwise transfer the Call to Power II Source Code, or any copies of the Call To Power II Source Code, without the express prior written consent of Activision.

I see people in here, working in closed CVS trees, hiding behind click through licenses, thinking they are safe. Perhaps you should read the license again. Have you got your express written consent (i.e. a paper, signed and rubber stamped) from Activision?

Remember:

LIMITED USE LICENSE. Activision grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to install and use one copy of the Call to Power II Source Code solely and exclusively for your personal, non-commercial use.

The license is non-transferable. Even if you have a signed piece of paper granting you a license. Which you do not have.

It is very nice to live in fantasy land, where people tell you they really don't mean to do something, cross my heart and hope to die, but then the contract you agreed to says another thing altogether. These things have a tendency to bite back. It may take days, months, years. So what if the current people in charge of Activision are all right with what you are doing? Management of corporations changes, so does policy. Better to cover one's ass while one can.

I am not a lawyer. But I know that contracts are supposed to be read. You have your own mind, do whatever you think is best. I wouldn't touch that code with a 10 foot pole.

All the best.

[Locutus]

Vasc,
I've been in contact with Activision regarding the interpretation of the license and (as I've noted in the FAQ), they seem to interpret it very liberally. Basically, they only want to ensure that the code (or products derived from it) won't be sold. As long as you distribute everything free of charge, they are very lenient. I know that's not how the EULA reads and how most people would interpret it, but eventually their interpretation is the only one that matters.

My personal impression is that the EULA is so restrictive only so that Activision can be absolutely certain that they have a legal leg to stand on when someone does cross the line and they want to be able to recall them. 'Normal' use of the code, within the directions they give us, should never cause anyone to get into trouble.

I specifically asked them about using CVS servers and 3rd party distribution and they specifically gave us explicit permission to do these things (as long as everyone who can access the code has signed the EULA). Of course a license that actually reflected their interpretation would be preferable, but this gets the job done and in the end that's what matters.

Apolyton has had a good relationship with Activision that goes back a long time, and we know they keep their word, also when it comes to these legal issues. Activision could almost certainly sue Apolyton for millions if they really wanted to, but they've never done so. Quite the opposit in fact, as I think the release of the source code on this site (among other things) proves.

I know their word is not necessarily legally binding (actually, by Dutch law it is, but one's word is always hard to (dis)prove; and if you want to take the safe road I don't think you can assume the same to be the case by Californian law) and that a lot of people wouldn't trust big companies like Activision if their life depended on it, but not trusting Activision to keep their word regarding this license is really just paranoia if you ask me...

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I love how all these programmers come out of the woodwork waving their keyboards to slam Activision for not being less restrictive

You know i think if youd been here for 3 years non-stop waiting for the source code under any license, like all the modders, you would have a more reasonable view.

Exactly!! I mean...if this were some plot by Activision, they'd be darn stupid to pull it. Angering the fanbase of a large online community, with links and contacts to numerous other large online communities is right on the fast track to losing a whole lot of money. But sure. Let people be paranoid if they want to

Asmodean

[Vasc]

Like the way SCO, formerly Caldera Linux, is angering the Linux community? Thank God I am paranoid. Like I said, company administrations change, policy changes.

[Leland]

Still, even the worst case scenario is better than Activision not having released any source code. Richard Stallman may be rolling over in his grave, but in the real world corporations can do whatever they want with the source code, they don't owe anybody anything.

(Yes, I know Stallman is not dead, but a man can always dream right? )

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Vasc
Like the way SCO, formerly Caldera Linux, is angering the Linux community? Thank God I am paranoid. Like I said, company administrations change, policy changes.

And we all know how important Linux is in the grand scheme of things

Asmodean

[Asmodean]

So, Locutus. Any word from Activision regarding licensing CtPII?

Asmodean

[kaan]

The for the source code is almost identical with the license that you agree to when opening the scenario editor and we have been living with those rules for "new game material" for a long time without even being told to remember the disclaimer “THIS MATERIAL IS NOT MADE OR SUPPORTED BY ACTIVISION.” and that is pretty large by my standards.

klaus

[fladiv]

20 minutes. Connection terminated by remote. 3.9 MB downloaded. Retrying from position 0...
Should I keep wasting money on retries or it
won't allow sessions more than half an hour anyways?
Is resuming really all that forbidden in this case?
Is it related to a wish to count downloads?
then maybe count total traffic for the particular file and then divide it by this file's size?