Author Topic: [FF7PC-98/Steam] Multiple mods and Modding Framework-The Reunion [R06f]  (Read 2122761 times)

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
That isn't remotely the issue here.  The source code for aali.dll has always been free and open - but will now also be public.  That isn't why this mod is removed.  It's removed because a member here believes calling a function from my dll to aali.dll also breaches gpl and it doesn't - because there is wild debate online about that - AND on the wiki page about it.

I am more than happy to upload aali.dll code - which is being done.  That isn't the issue here - so please stop getting involved and causing trouble.  This does not concern you and you have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
Again, I want to stress this - as it keeps getting missed.  The code that QP and True Odin are using is based on a build that Luksy created from aali's original code. That code was supplied to them - with fixes from me, Luksy, and Maki - openly.  It has NEVER been closed source.

The source that is closed - and which QP is demanding / threatening all sorts that doesn't make sense - is ddraw.dll.  His argument has nothing to do with aali source - it has to do with 2 external functions from aali.dll that are called from ddraw.dll. 

Again - plainly - I have never withheld aali code.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
ddraw.dll is 100% my code, written in Borland Delphi - it does not constitute ANY violation.  It is completely separate and can even be used separately if needed to work without aali.dll - this is why it isn't in breech of gpl.  Please understand that and learn that.

OatBran

  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • moop all day skeent all night
    • View Profile
    • Discord
That isn't remotely the issue here.  The source code for aali.dll has always been free and open - but will now also be public.  That isn't why this mod is removed.  It's removed because a member here believes calling a function from my dll to aali.dll also breaches gpl and it doesn't - because there is wild debate online about that - AND on the wiki page about it.

I am more than happy to upload aali.dll code - which is being done.  That isn't the issue here - so please stop getting involved and causing trouble.  This does not concern you and you have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

From all my research and understanding of this topic and context, you actually are/were in violation of the GPL. Your main defense of "its dynamically linked so it doesn't matter" is irrelevant here. You claim theres wild debate about this online, and even dispute on the GPL wiki page, and you are correct. There WAS massive debate on this topic seemingly because of ones interpretation of GPLv2. Everything you have linked is from over 10 years ago. All of the wiki citations are from even longer ago - from 1992-2006. The debate over linking in GPLv2 doesn't matter because aali.dll is licensed under GPLv3 and not GPLv2. According to the FSF, if your work links a library at all it is a derivative work and the entire work is subject to GPL. Even this is clarified on the wiki page you say is in dispute.



https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic

It's been shown that you do in fact link aali.dll, and if you say you don't need to do that, then why have you been all this time and distributing it anyway? Why take the risk?

It's likely none of this would have happened in the first place if you hadn't gone out of your way to slander people.

so, maybe its you that doesn't know what you're on about. It's at the very least the complete opposite of a non-issue - and definitely not something I would want a lawyer or judge reviewing if I was in your position.

quantumpencil

  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
DLPB, stop lying to people immediately before you get yourself into more trouble than you are already in. Your DLL is not separate, and this is not debatable. There is no legal grey area here.

Import tracing reveals that DDraw.dll has a forward linked dependency on Aali.dll, nothing else you say on the matter is relevant since anyone can independently verify this and it's impossible for this to be the case if you aren't linking.

From GNU.org: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic

It doesn't matter if you link statically or dynamically (Also, you have admitted to linking in this thread which is admissible evidence lol), this propagates GPL and makes the entire combined work GPL in perpetuity. Even if you remove the references now DDraw.dll is still GPL'd code and you cannot distribute it unless it is open source under the terms and conditions set forth by the GPL3 license agreement.

Since it's clear you have no understanding of GPL, let me address the nonsense you have been sending people in private messages. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/707501179831189505/707588532494925834/Screen_Shot_007.PNG

Wrong, the terms of the GPL do not require that both executables "communicate with each either" (This could actually be fine if the communication involves only module style data exchange and not linking, which constitutes sharing of protected material under GPL) -- and it isn't the case that the GPL'd dll needs to "communicate" back. Just think about this rationally, why would a copyright holders right to control distribution of derived works be conditional on whether or not the derived work called some other persons code?

There is no ambiguity on linking being allowed when you are distributing the binary, which is a form of the material protected by GPL. You are not linking and then running your code on a server, distributing effectively only the "output" of the combined derived work -- there is some ambiguity regarding whether this is allowed or not but since you are distributing the binary that is irrelevant in your case.

Oh, GPL contaminates so this applies to future versions of DDraw.dll even if you attempt to remove the linkage dependency. Oh and I don't want your source code, as evidenced by the peace offering made earlier in this thread (before you doubled down like an idiot and attempted to further slander me in your spreadsheet and in private messages), you would have been allowed (at least, I would not have struck you) to redistribute DDraw.dll after all linking dependencies were removed without open sourcing it, even though it would still be a violation of the terms and conditions of GPL due to license contamination.

I urge you to reflect on the seriousness of your current situation and comply with the law, one way or another.
« Last Edit: 2020-05-06 14:09:00 by quantumpencil »

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
There is no seriousness here, QP.  What there is is you - coming into this thread like a lunatic - when the mods have already asked you not to do.  This issue is closed.  I've complied with what the moderators have asked. Go get your lawyer and make all your reports - it will be a good laugh when you discover you have no legal basis for any of that diarrhoea you keep spouting.

quantumpencil

  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
I have consulted with my lawyer. If you repost the offending material, i.e opt to continue distribution of material while in violation of the terms of the licensing agreement (which you will not be permitted to do on qhimm, precisely because you are in fact in violation of GPLv3) you will be receiving a formal legal notice.

Ver Greeneyes

  • *
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
This debate, by the way, is why GPLv3 is a vicious and awful license that does nothing but insulate the open source community and make it less attractive for commercial investment. Even LGPL has issues, but GPLv3 is just a cudgel that vindictive people use to attack others. If anyone reading this thread aspires to be a FOSS developer, I urge you to choose a more reasonable and permissive license for your code. No one likes to have their code stolen and used without attribution, but this is not a reasonable way to prevent that.
« Last Edit: 2020-05-06 14:18:05 by Ver Greeneyes »

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
Good - Am I now supposed to suddenly quake in my boots?  How are they arriving?  By Chinook?  You let me know, won't ya?

Look, we all know you're bluffing.  It's sad.  And if you aren't, you're mad - and set to waste a load of money. And I'm still not arsed.  There is no law being broken.  There is no material on here that you have a case with.  Your entire case is a house of cards resting on diarrhoea.  And you're wasting everyone's time and your own.  Keep sending those silly messages and posts though - it's making me laugh.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
This debate, by the way, is why GPLv3 is a vicious and awful license that does nothing but insulate the open source community and make it less attractive for commercial investment. Even LGPL has issues, but GPLv3 is just a cudgel that vindictive people use to attack people. If anyone reading this thread aspires to be a FOSS developer, I urge you to choose a more reasonable and permissive license for your code. No one likes to have their code stolen and used without attribution, but this is not a reasonable way to prevent that.

Agreed.  And it allows macho men like the guy above to suddenly think they have some power in their insignificant little lives.

hasteroth

  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Speaking purely as an outside observer. It doesn't seem to me like either party will cease acting like children. I personally think that if DLPB removes the offending code and doesn't redistribute the older versions, everyone should just move on with their lives.

Personally I like both FFNx and The Reunion, they are both great in their own rights. I wish y'all could get along.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
One final point to make here is that - whether QP realizes it or not - his own posts here are actually backing up everything I said about him in the other post in general.  It's like I asked for evidence, and he submitted himself.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
@Ver Greeneyes

What it comes down to is this >

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1394623/can-i-dynamically-call-a-lgpl-gpl-software-in-my-closed-source-application

That and many other discussions are the grey area QP says does not exist.

In order to wage a petty disruptive campaign, QP is arguing that 2 external functions in aali.dll that are called by ddraw - mean there is a violation.  And what are those 2 functions?  1. To call a function to display txt to screen. 2. Code to report kernel2.bin text ID.

Yeah - that's what he's fuming about.  Yawn.

quantumpencil

  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself. You publicly slandered TrueOdin and myself without cause for theft while indisputably in defiance of the terms of the terms of copyright with which Aali released his driver, you refused my peace offering simply out of stubbornness, which would have allowed you to continue distributing DDraw.dll as a closed source application, in-spite of contamination making all future versions of it in violation of GPLv3 absent the source code being released.

Your incoherent rambling and desperate protestations(about gplv2 nonetheless, gplv3 was amended specifically to address the ambiguity you are trying to claim) to the contrary will not change these facts, which are now a part of public record, open for anyone to review.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
I proved the case for non credit and permission QP.  As you well know.  I had to prove it - which is why you are now forced to provide that credit.  So one good thing came out of all this.

You haven't got any peace offering.  You have proven to everyone that you would go to insane lengths to close me down - and temporarily, you have robbed the entire community of a mod that most people love.  So reflect on that.

quantumpencil

  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
@Ver Greeneyes

What it comes down to is this >

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1394623/can-i-dynamically-call-a-lgpl-gpl-software-in-my-closed-source-application

That and many other discussions are the grey area QP says does not exist.

In order to wage a petty disruptive campaign, QP is arguing that 2 external functions in aali.dll that are called by ddraw - mean there is a violation.  And what are those 2 functions?  1. To call a function to display txt to screen. 2. Code to report kernel2.bin text ID.

Yeah - that's what he's fuming about.  Yawn.

LGPL is a different license than GPLv3. So that link is completely irrelevant. That grey area does not exist under GPLv3 as evidenced by my link to the section on static/dynamic linking, as well as the explicit clarification on the wiki regarding the amendments made to v3 to address ambiguities that existed in the verbiage of v2's clause. Also, it applied to proprietary applications which do not distribute the source as opposed to distributing the binary (running code on a serve and distributing the output is a completely different thing than linking)

Continue your provocations and protestations if you like, unfortunately for you the facts -- and the law pertinent are both clear and verifiable.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
^turned into a lawyer again.

strife98

  • Global moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Doink!
    • View Profile
Alright it's time to stop. Keep this thread about Reunion and not the legality of it. Quantum you were asked to refrain from posting here. I understand this is a heated argument but this is something that can be handled in the PM's. If this continues I'm going to mute both of you until this is over. Now because one of the agreed to terms were changed and your links were removed I'm going to extend your time by 2 days pending how much work it takes to get it working. While I'm not in a position to reverse what was done I can at least do that. Now, this conversation is over and I don't want it to continue here or in any other thread. Keep it between you two. I also express this to everyone else. If anyone else brings it up they will be warned and then muted.

quantumpencil

  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Hey DLPB, I see you've decided to try and continue your slanderous behavior in this thread. Please stop lying to your users and the rest of the community. The screenshot I posted comes from an import tracer. Aali.dll is a (forward-linked) dependency of your DLL, and this is in violation of the GPL. You are not using it as a module, you are linking with it. Since GPL propagates through linking and is a contaminating license, this means that DDraw.dll, and all future versions of DDraw.dll, are GPL'd software and any copyright holder (myself, Nax, TO) among others can easily have the source seized by the court and made public at any time. Again, let me reiterate, Due to GPL being a contaminating license, all future versions of this project are GPL'd and by not releasing them under the terms of the license, you are in violation of the GPL.

You can't lie about no peace offering being made when it was done so in the public record.

So, DLPB, You must remove all code in violation of the GPL (which includes DDraw.dll, both in its current an all future versions) from any distribution channel to remain in compliance with the GPL. This is the position you are in and it is a serious one. I advise you treat it as such.

This is my peace-offering: Publicly apologize to the people in this community that you have wrongfully slandered. Immediately (in accordance with moderator judgment) remove Reunion from distribution as currently implemented. Then, out of respect for the people who love your work, I will not strike you (although I very clearly could) for future versions of your code provided that when you repost your code, it includes a link to the full source for your fork of the Aali driver, and that any other DLL's included on it have no static or dynamic linking, or otherwise prohibited relationships with a modification of  Aali's source, which I will verify.

The next time you mention me or TrueOdin, or any other member of this community in a slanderous way, I will copyright strike you, and have your code force-ably seized by law enforcement and any references to it scrubbed as a copyright holder.

Consider this a notice.

sl1982

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • GUI Master :P
    • View Profile
Enough with this in here. If you want to battle take it to the discord or PM. This isnt the place.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
Please lock this thread until I return, sl.  That way - we can be sure that the drama ends.  When I return, Aali source will be public and ddraw edited to remove the 2 function calls.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1ECbXCS70&t=1m18s

The Reunion (R06f)

Download link Here

Also read The Reunion - Help.rtf

Code: [Select]
LATEST CHANGES
13-May-2020

Please see The Reunion Database for a full list of bug fixes.

Main changes:

1. The audio devices available are listed in audio.log (and you can then specify which of these to use in Options.ini)
2. Aali.dll code is not optimized to help with debugging
3. window_width and window_height do not have to be 0 in order for full screen mode to take effect
4. The game will no longer hang at Temple of the Ancients and elsewhere. Menu order bug finally resolved.
5. A second Cloud no longer appears in the Gaia cliff where you fight Twin Head.
6. End game dialogue has been updated from Charlie Beer's latest proof check

I will now begin merging ffxn [updated Aali graphic DLL] by True Odin with The Reunion, if practical.

A link to the source code for Aali.dll is also in the help file.


I would very much appreciate it if people helped me seed and test the current download :)

Full download mirrors are also appreciated.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt1ECbXCS70&t=1m18s

The Reunion (R06f)

Download link Here

Please note - if audio does not work, use this fix:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gMBGHEsK54sug-YdV9tDEWgsNVDjRmHJ/view?usp=sharing



Also read The Reunion - Help.rtf

Code: [Select]
LATEST CHANGES
13-May-2020

Please see The Reunion Database for a full list of bug fixes.

Main changes:

1. The audio devices available are listed in audio.log (and you can then specify which of these to use in Options.ini)
2. Aali.dll code is not optimized to help with debugging
3. window_width and window_height do not have to be 0 in order for full screen mode to take effect
4. The game will no longer hang at Temple of the Ancients and elsewhere. Menu order bug finally resolved.
5. A second Cloud no longer appears in the Gaia cliff where you fight Twin Head.
6. End game dialogue has been updated from Charlie Beer's latest proof check

I will now begin merging ffxn [updated Aali graphic DLL] by True Odin with The Reunion, if practical.

A link to the source code for Aali.dll is also in the help file.


I would very much appreciate it if people helped me seed and test the current download :)

Full download mirrors are also appreciated.
« Last Edit: 2020-05-14 14:10:05 by DLPB »

lizardp

  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Thank you so much for that audio device selection! It's very appreciated. Seems to be working! I'll let you know if I come across any issues.

DLPB_

  • Banned
  • *
  • Posts: 11008
    • View Profile
you're welcome.  please post yoir audio.log so i can check out the device listing