54 replies to this topic

[Emily]

What do you think the termination section of the license is for? This isn't someone trying to shut down a fork.

It absolutely isn't for what it's being used for here lol! And it cannot be invoked, either; the license is *irrevocable* as long as we don't breach the specific terms of the license, per section 2. As we have not breached any of the terms of this license, it cannot be revoked. War Lord here attempts to be declaring us moving the repo as a violation of the license.... but uh, nowhere in the license does it say "Don't move the repo", so, that does not appear to be a valid thing to base a breach of license claim on.
 
The types of things the license WOULD forbid include:

• Conveying a modified version of the source without notice that it is modified by someone aside from the original source (Given that we post all our builds very conspicuously, and the repo has all of our usernames on the commit messages, that seems like plenty of notice to me - plus `changelog.txt` in every download serving similar purpose)
• Attempting to convey the source under a different license, or failing to include the license with a conveyed version of the source (license.txt is in the repo, last modified when Saffith committed it initially 8 years ago)
• Conveying the object code (.exes) without conveying the source (either directly with the download, or in a known location) (the source is on the github repo, that covers this)

...which clearly we have not violated any of. War lord's stated reason of "It does not permit the licensee to remove, move, or otherwise modify a MASTER CODE BASE  to a location controlled by another entity;" is nonsense. While the license does not explicitly state that someone MAY do so, it does not state that they MAY NOT do so either; and if something that is not mentioned either allowed or denied being done is enough to get the license revoked, then, well, breathing or drinking a glass of water would be enough to revoke your license as those are not explicitly allowed as part of the license.

[Nightmare]

I have done further research, and I have unfortunately found out some details that Armageddon Games has been dissolved.  While their claims might have been true in the past, any such issue would make them 

 

If these are coorect (according to http://www.ohiosos.gov),then War Lord would have no claim over Zelda Classic anymore.  This is probably why I was informed that I was part owner (probably now true and acting owner) of Zelda Classic at the current moment.

Under these documents, I feel the community has to survive.  I do not have the means to fund the project to make it survive, so I have to do what I have to do, and allow the repo to be turned over, under these conditions:

1.  None of Jarrod (War Lord), Gleeok's, or Zoria's personal projects are stolen.  These must be returned in a timely manner.  Stealing is wrong, regardless.
2.  Permanent record of contribution of me as founder (along with War Lord and PM) from being there since like Day 5.
3.  A number of personal favors to be done for me for 25 years of contribution that are reasonable (like buying me certain things).  These can be worked out later.

If these terms are met, I will fully autheroize the transfer of the repo (if AGN wants it cloned back please do for record sakes) and I will be taking off to do my own project.

 

Also, I expect legal challenges to be made.  The new owners (Connor and Emily and their constituents) should prepare themselves.  I don't know the full dissolution of Armageddon Games, so I highly suggest the name change to "ZQuest Classic" or whatever stays and they brand it as "ZQC" going forward.

Edited by Nightmare, 27 September 2023 - 03:40 PM.

[Mani Kanina]

If these terms are met, I will fully autheroize the transfer of the repo (if AGN wants it cloned back please do for record sakes) and I will be taking off to do my own project.

Literally anyone can clone the repo right this instance, including AGN.

Like, ZC is, and has been, an open source project for years. The codes only ownership is tied directly to the license and it's authors, not any organization or body. It's taking increasing levels of restraint here to not just completely devolve into shit posting.

If literally anyone in the AGN corner wants to be taken the slightest level of serious here then you'll have to start with actually knowing the slightest bit about the topic in question. At this rate this thread might as well just get locked so people can move on.



Like, you have to realize that getting the repo back, at most is a Pyrrhic victory. The current devs that actually give a shit about developing the engine will literally just fork it and move on. You're also the one who asked the repo to be moved in the first place. So either Gleeok and Warlord are correct in their earlier implications that you did not have the right to "let Emily do that", in which your post is just complete nonsense. Or you did have the authority, in which case you already gave permission, or rather, demanded it be moved.


Lastly, this is fucking PureZC. If AGN wants to throw legal threats at the current devs and throw demands at them, you can do so in private with them. But of course, you all kicked them from your platform. Frankly, at this point I can only mirror Matthew and other's assertion: You lot are only here to fling shit. In which case, I'm not sure why Pure platforms you at all.

[Evan20000]

I'm claiming Post #49 in this historic shitshow thread that will be remembered through the ages.

If you'd like to advertise in this space, feel free to DM me and we can work out licensing terms. Just think of how cool your advertisement will be sitting in such an important part of zelda classic history! 

[Reserved for Ad Space]

You lot are only here to fling shit.

In full fairness, I suspect a lot of us are to some degree. There's not really anything meaningful to discuss when the only people who actually matter in this discussion are Warlord and the current devs. idfk why this is even being aired for the peanut gallery, but I'm at least enjoying the circus act.

[Mani Kanina]

In full fairness, I suspect a lot of us are to some degree. There's not really anything meaningful to discuss when the only people who actually matter in this discussion are Warlord and the current devs. idfk why this is even being aired for the peanut gallery, but I'm at least enjoying the circus act.

I'm definitively not above it myself, as should be evident.

[RadiantCowbells]

I claim myself the 100% legal owner of ZC and demand that type B quests be made in my honor

[Phosphor]

Can't wait for the Netflix documentary on the code heist of the century.

At this point, why not just call the current dev builds a PZC community fork and leave it at that? This entire situation feels completely asinine and could be resolved without airing dirty laundry for everyone to see.

Edited by Phosphor, 27 September 2023 - 04:47 PM.

[Majora]

tfw when someone tries to dictate the development of and claim ownership of a program that years ago was made open source and bound to the GNU General Public License version 3:

[Evan20000]

I claim myself the 100% legal owner of ZC and demand that type B quests be made in my honor

Checks out. 

Some of you Type A players are alright. Don't come to 2.53 tomorrow.

[Matthew]

Wee-woo wee-woo, the fun police are here!

By now, people have had the chance to share their thoughts and the discussion has more-or-less run its course. At this point, staff do not see any utility in leaving the thread open and will be locking it.

If any pertinent developments come of this, they will be relayed to the community either as another post in this thread, or as another thread entirely.