this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
187 points (97.9% liked)

RetroGaming

20812 readers
275 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Xylinna@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
gts@lemmy.world
187
BREAKING: EA releases C&C source code under GPL3! (peertube.wtf)
submitted 1 day ago by meldrik@lemmy.wtf to c/retrogaming@lemmy.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Potatisen@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I didn't know so someone else might be wondering what GPL3 means.

  1. Anyone can copy, modify and distribute this software.
  2. You have to include the license and copyright notice with each and every distribution.
  3. You can use this software privately.
  4. You can use this software for commercial purposes.
  5. If you dare build your business solely from this code, you risk open-sourcing the whole code base.
  6. If you modify it, you have to indicate changes made to the code.
  7. Any modifications of this code base MUST be distributed with the same license, GPLv3.
  8. This software is provided without warranty.
  9. The software author or license can not be held liable for any damages inflicted by the software.
[–] Womble@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

For a bit of extra context, points 5,6 and 7 only apply if you distribute the software that is based on the GPL licenced software, if you just use it for your own internal use you dont have any obligations (not really relevant for games but just for additional info).

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

That's honestly quite fair.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So you say we might get new scenarios and stuff?

[–] figjam@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago

At a minimum yes.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 10 points 1 day ago

I.... Huh? I'm fucking flabbergasted. What's the catch? Are they high? Are their lawyers on a teamwork sauna conference for a week? What's going on? This is so fucking unnerving

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I said it in another thread, but...

Good guy EA.

It is unlikely I will ever say that sentence again, but I hope they prove me wrong.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Like I said there, it's not the first time, either. They've already open sourced a bunch of their (actually cool) accessibility tools. I do believe it's the first time they release a game, though, but I'm not sure about that.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That being said, they patented it and it's not open source because they have a clause that let's them block you from using it if they don't like you.

Patents in videogames are overall gross imo.

From what I remember, they even patented the little ping selection wheel you find in Apex. EA is shit.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The language on their patent info page doesn't say that:

Electronic Arts (EA) promises not to enforce against any party for infringing any of the listed EA patents. A list of patents subject to this pledge can be found below, and EA may add additional patents to this pledge at a later date.

EA makes this pledge legally binding, irrevocable (except as under “Defensive Termination”) and enforceable against EA and all subsequent patent owners of the listed patents. This pledge does not provide any warranties or assurances that the activities covered by pledged patents are free from patent or other intellectual property infringement claims by a third party.

Defensive Termination

EA reserves the right to terminate this pledge for a specific party or its affiliates going forward if that party files a patent infringement lawsuit or other patent proceeding against EA, its affiliates, or partners.

They seem to be claiming that they are legally bound to allow usage of these patents unless YOU try to patent them or sue them for infringing on your patent.

I'm not a patent lawyer, though, so if you are or I'm missing a different piece of info I'm all ears.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"You can use it as long as you don't sue us" isn't very open source. Although I was exaggerating when I said they can refuse access for anyone they don't like.

The things they patented are also seriously simple. One of them is for changing UI color, they should have never been given them in the first place.

It's better to assume the worst when dealing with EA.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, that is "you can use it unless you specifically sue us for infringing on the patent we're releasing", as I read it. I don't know how necessary it is to protect yourself from somebody taking the patent you've released freely, patenting them themselves and then suing you back, but that seems to be what they're protecting against.

This entire thread is about how assuming the worst when it comes to EA is often not giving them credit for a number of actually cool stuff they do. This included, in my book. I don't think that "oh, sure this someone is doing seems fine, but don't trust them anyway" is a particularly good way to handle... well, pretty much anything. You don't need to fanboy for corporations, but you also don't need to rage against them consistently. The whole idea is to reward them for good moves and punish them for bad ones.

This seems like a good move. More of this, as far as I'm concerned.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok, but it's simply not open source and patents aren't something that should be encouraged in the videogame industry. Patents are expensive (too expensive for the indie scene) and usually used to bully smaller players.

Not to mention they patented things that were already common. If they were altruistic, they would have just actually open sourced it and called it a day. They also have other patents of common things that they didn't add to the pledge, this "altruisme" is mostly just there to add weight to patents in the industry when it thoroughly didn't exist before EA and Warner Bros smelled blood in the water.

The wording from what I understand also means they can hit back for any kind of patent related litigation, not just for this one specifically. It's a threat. "Don't fuck with us and you can keep using this thing we made", but the thing they "made" has already existed for a decade or two and they certainly weren't the first. It's just bad vibes behavior imo.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I guess...? Were you planning to sue EA for patent infringement? Because it specifies that the exception applies to patent-based lawsuits.

I mean, "let's plant some patents for accessibility tech that we give away with a specific caveat and then turn the tables on someone who is trying to sue us for some unrelated patent infringement but may have used our accessibility patents before" is a hell of a long con.

Look, you're fixating on finding a caveat to this so you get to keep being angry with these guys and I'm here to free you from that burden. You get to keep being mad with them and still acknowledge that someone, somewhere in there did a mostly good thing for mostly good reasons. It's fine.

EA isn't a person. There's a ton of people there. Some seem quite nice. On a more general level, the entire risk of unbridled corporate dominance of public life is that it's perfectly possible for a company made entirely of very nice people to do some bad shit sometimes, or even most of the time. You don't need them to be an evil cabal to call them out when they do that. And you don't lose any face for acknowledging when they don't.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The caveat is literally that they patented ui color changes, as well as a bunch of other stuff without the pledge for those to boot.

You are asking me to trust them but that very behavior makes them untrustworthy. There is no need to wait and see what they do with it since since the base action is already bad.

They have a patent for a simple dialogue wheel which isn't under any pledges. There is no defending them imo.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not asking you to "trust" anything, you can see what they did. It's out there. That's not how reality works, it's not based on "trust". Things either happen or they don't. You can look it up.

For the record, they did not patent "UI color changes", the list includes automated tech for checking for flashing lights, that automatic ping system you were talking about, stuff for touch controls and a bunch of other stuff. There's a list on the link. I'm not going to read through twenty-odd patents just to disprove some random piece of misinformation you blurted out. Plus, it's a sterile converation. They released the patents they released and it's better than not releasing them, so who cares. Good for them in any case.

Seriously, why try so hard? You're factually wrong about a bunch of what you're saying and all that's doing is making me defensive about clearing the record, which as a side effect gets me defending them. And it's cutting into your credibility whenever you have a REAL issue to complain about. It's just all the way counterproductive. I don't understand the compulsion to assume the people you dislike are consistently, one-dimensionally good or evil in all circumstances at the expense of demonstrable reality. How simplistic is people's moral compass that they can't parse the slightest ambiguity? It's bizarre.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You're going to give me attitude?

They've already open sourced a bunch of their (actually cool) accessibility tools.

My whole comment was setting you straight that it was a patent, there is no code and it isn't open source at all.

I'm getting mixed on the detail because I went through their patents quite a while ago, but it doesn't change my points.

  1. This isn't open source.

  2. Patents are gross and don't belong in the industry.

  3. They cannot be trusted because of the mountain of other patents not in the pledge (like the dialogue wheel which does exist, I just checked) and the mountain of other anti-consumer behavior that makes up their history. This is basically just posturing.

You ever ask yourself why you are trying so hard to defend them? Like ya, I assume they are the bad guys but a literal scratch on the surface shows that they still are in this case.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Hah. Holy crap, who goes "you're going to give me attitude?" in an online conversation? That's amazing. Are you going to tell me to meet you after class?

I am not defending them. It's not an "attack" and "defense" thing. They did a thing. The thing is cool. I noted that they often don't get credit when they do cool things because they are a very satisfying punching bag (ditto for Ubisoft, Activision and Microsoft in general, incidentally).

That's not a defense. It barely counts as backhanded compliment. It's just an acknowledgement that companies aren't people and they very rarely have a personality, so it's a bad idea to assign them one.

For the record, releasing a patent isn't open source, but they HAVE released code for some of these application as open source. And some C&C games, which is of course what the original post is about. Which is a distinction that is entirely irrelevant but you made me look it up anyway. Because, as I said, your willingness to sacrifice factuality for the sake of enforcing your antropomorphization of these guys as your archnemesis has the side effect of making me defensive about your claims. If that is attitude it's one I'm fine with having, here and behind the gym.

Hell, if you're going to pick an archnemesis at least make it a social media company. Those guys are doing actual damage. Game companies just aren't relevant enough to get riled up about.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You are misrepresented it, that's all.

I'm just informing you of what it really is and how it isn't as altruistic as it seems.

If you can't respond without being rude, you can just choose not to interact.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I didn't. I am not. It is what it is. It's not even that convoluted, they've listed this stuff. You've been factually wrong about a bunch of these things. Like, not even the "look it up" things, the list of things in the link you are reacting to. You're taking my pondering why people can't parse even the slightest ambiguity on their projections on brands and companies as a rude slight. Which is... increasingly on brand, I suppose.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Well, you are being quite belittling and passive agressive, I don't think my brand comes into it.

In any case, what you describe as cool open source tools are literally just a paragraph and some screenshot for the most part and only really benefit their legal team. This isn't anything praise worthy.

It seems we both have been factually wrong, except I'm the only one that has admitted to it and clarified my points to move the conversation. I also believe your overall message is wrong but on a deeper level.

Try pondering about what's being talked about. You also don't need to slip in a paragraph of your angst every comment.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

No, there are actual pieces of software they've released alongside the patents. It's a thing. Look it up.

You can't really bothsides this, that's not how this works.

I guess on one thing you were right, which is that we can choose to not interact.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I only know of fonttik and iris but neither of those are in the patent pledge. Those were actually open sourced, so Im guessing there isnt much need for it, but everything since has gone through lawyers from what I know.

I'll admit though, I haven't read through all their patents. I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

[–] RVGamer06@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago

Rare EA W

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

God damn it, we've jumped timelines again, haven't we? Buckle up.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Being EA, I'm waiting for the monkeys paw to kick in

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You'll still need to buy the games to get the assets legally. EA is just checking if they can offload the modernization of old games they don't want to remake to the community to keep the revenue stream going without having to invest on it.

It's a win-win situation if it works.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I dont think that is the motivation, they already have modernised versions of these games available on steam.

[–] WarlockoftheWoods@lemy.lol 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What is the modernized version of generals?

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Modernised as in made to work on modern systems, not a change to the game.

[–] WarlockoftheWoods@lemy.lol 1 points 1 day ago

Ic. My bad.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

Subclause they can inject microtransactions into any derivative works /s

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m confused, years ago they released the game for free. Then openra came around and built a modern ish game from it. Then they did a remaster and the source code was available. Now they say you can do just about anything you want? How did openra work without this license ?

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

OpenRA was written from scratch and just uses the assets from the free game.

This is the source of the original game