Why's SRB2 1.1 Source Private?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sik said:
Listen, the 1.1 beta was meant to test something. The test is over, so at this point, anybody having the 1.1 beta should actually delete it. So stop complaining about it.
It's not that we should delete it, it's that the source code should be provided.

If you're going strictly by the GPL, it's pretty much required for the source code to be included or made available with all binary distributions, as far as I've read.
However, if someone could show us a clause in it (the GPL) for private testing or something, that would change things.
 
Jacy said:
Mystic said:
The source was not released because it's not supposed to be a public release. It leaked out to people that aren't supposed to have it, and now they're complaining that they don't have the source code.

We're not responsible for providing source of leaked files. When 1.1 is released, I assure you, the full source will be included and you can do anything you want with it.

Ummmmm... Do you know when it will be released... Stupid question, DON'T BAN ME!

When its done.
 
Ryan said:
Sik said:
Listen, the 1.1 beta was meant to test something. The test is over, so at this point, anybody having the 1.1 beta should actually delete it. So stop complaining about it.
It's not that we should delete it, it's that the source code should be provided.

If you're going strictly by the GPL, it's pretty much required for the source code to be included or made available with all binary distributions, as far as I've read.
However, if someone could show us a clause in it (the GPL) for private testing or something, that would change things.
I think the GPL forbids private versions at all.

But I'm not sure if SRB2 is really GPL...
 
Ryan said:
If you're going strictly by the GPL, it's pretty much required for the source code to be included or made available with all binary distributions, as far as I've read.
However, if someone could show us a clause in it (the GPL) for private testing or something, that would change things.

I think the GNU website has a FAQ about GPL where it asks about releases getting "leaked" and such and what the policy is in such cases. Too lazy/tired to look it up, but that's what the 1.1b goes by.

Main reason we don't let anything slip is because it's like being told the end of a movie or reading the last page of a book before you've read the whole thing.
 
SSNTails said:
Main reason we don't let anything slip is because it's like being told the end of a movie or reading the last page of a book before you've read the whole thing.
And because a lot of people would unlock the locked features and distribute a hacked 1.1 saying it's the final 1.1, right? :P
 
God I hate spoilers, but they suck you in and you just need to know, In America!
You people shouldnt care about the private beta, since it very similar to the current version.
Not alot of new things...
 
There may not be alot, but what is there tells me a bunch.
(keeps his copy for historical reasons)
 
The truth is, while it may have been leaked, you at least need to give the source to the people who were supposed to have the game.

Sorry.
 
Or not, if they were meant to only test the game rather than doing any development on it.
 
A common misconception is that the resource files included with SRB2 are GPL are well. This is not true. So if I were to give you the code, you could only use it on your own box, unless you constructed your own IWAD -- which might be a little harder than normal, since a lot of the structure in 1.1 has changed.

But, this community has proven they can't be trusted. If you aren't going to honor my request to not distribute the resources, why should I honor your request to distribute the source?

A better alternative for you is to look at the public SVN of 1.09.4, which Alam has retrofitted with a lot of 1.1 things that you might find useful.
 
So would this mean that porting any old levles to 1.1, once it's out, will be like porting the old christmas level to the current version?
 
No. Publicly released builds need to have the source. Private/closed builds do not, I believe.
 
Sorry! :O

Oops!!!! You just replied to my post that I edited so it said something completely different. I already found my answer to the question you answered, it was on Page 2!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top