[Scummvm-devel] Re: Sourcecode for ScummVM / RiscOS

[Max Horn]

Am Donnerstag, 20.03.03 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb David McEwen:

> Hi...
>
>> However,  you only provide binaries, no source code. ScummVM is
>> protected by the GPL and as such you are required to publish any
>> modifications you make to the source. We have repeatedly requested 
>> that
>> you post the source code. I hereby repeat this request once more, in
>> public. Not complying would be a violation of our license.
>
> I don't recall being requested to release the source code... but I'm 
> sure I
> would have given the same response.
Hm, I was told we did. Maybe there was a problem with the mail 
delivery? Or somebody used the wrong email address? IIn any case, I 
think this shouldn't be a problem anymore. I didn't believe that you 
had any bad intentions in the first place anyway, and am glad to hear 
this was justified :-)

> I don't mind sending you the current source or to anyone else that 
> asks,
> however you should be aware that it is not clean (mainly to get around 
> some
> compiler issues at the time) and of an old version of the source.

We don't mind the source not being clean, don't worry about your 
reputation or anything like that. Just look at the ScummVM 0.1 source 
if you want to see really dirty code :-)



>> Personally I'd be happy to work with you on merging your port into the
>> main ScummVM CVS if that's possible.. However, the current situation
>> (only binaries available) is not acceptable, and we have to act on it
>> (I do not like to utter any threats, and I hope it's not necessary to
>> go down to that level :-/). Please publish the source ASAP on your
>> website or another public reachable place to which you link from your
>> web page.
>
> If you want it to be placed there fine,

One of the following options should be done in order to comply to the 
GPL:
1) Put the source code up on your homepage
2) Put a statement there that tells how to get the source code (e.g. 
"Email me and I will send you the sourcecode)
3) If bandwidth is an issue we can host the archive for you, too.
4) Just publish a diff against a released version of the source (e.g. 
if your port is based on 0.3.0b, against that).

> but really it's not much use to most
> people in its current state, I have been really busy for quite a few 
> months
> and have not had the chance to sort out the source to a level which 
> could be
> merged into the CVS.

Understood. But even if it's not clean, having the source code changes 
available is desirable, this way should you lose interest on this port, 
or don't have any time anymore, somebody else could continue work on 
the port based on your efforts.

>
> So would you rather I sent you the current source or would you rather 
> I just
> placed it on my site and when I get the chace to sync up pass on the
> necessary files to you to merge into CVS ?

See above for what I think are the options. Besides we would love to 
get this merged into CVS if possible, yes. I am sure we could also give 
you CVS access so you can work on future versions of the port directly, 
if you are interested. We would of course also put you into the credits 
list etc.


> Sorry about the confusion, but really if the source was of any use to 
> anyone
> in its current state I would place it on my site.

Well, this is about principle, we have to uphold our license if we 
don't want to get into principle.


Once more, thanks for your work, I hope you have time in the future to 
work with us on merging it into CVS!

Max