The legality of iojamp & eula discussions

[Defiant]

It states right there in the passage that you mentioned that we have the right to distribute copies of the software (the mod DLLs) free of charge. The part about the mods only operating with JA don't apply in this case because iojamp is just software that uses other software (technically it would then be a modification of iojamp, which is distributed under the GPL). Using the mod DLLs does not constitute a mod of JA if only iojamp uses them.

 

It states right there that the SDK code is for us with only "...full version of the software game Jedi Academy..."

 

You cant pick and choose which parts of a license agreement you adhere to. You cant simply treat the SDK code as open source when it clearly isnt. If Raven or Lucas Arts care is an entirely seperate issue. One would assume that neither LucasArts or Raven would object to the use of what is ancient code from a dead engine, but, from a project point of view - thinking of MB2 here. It's safer not to spend what would probably be a good year of replacing base JKA assets just to be stamped with a 'Cease and Desist' from LucasArts, remember according to the reply you got from Raven, LucasArts still own the JKA code - Including the SDK. From discussions i've had with the MB2 team, especially the Vets who have been down this road before, like you, talking to Raven about it have advised me that the answer in the past has always been 'You'll have to ask LucasArts - they own the code'. You cant simply take code that you dont own, and with the permission of a firm involved in the development of the code who also doesnt own it, assume you're gonna be ok dropping it into a project which is expressly prohibited by the License Agreement. I am aware that the License agreement for the SDK states the license is issued by Raven, but, again, from talking with MB2 Team Members who have been down this road before, that doesnt neccisarily mean alot. As a development company Raven might not care, but in my opinion and as a project lead, i'd stick to the side of caution slightly and not just assume Lucas Arts consent here. To be absolutly sure that what you're doing is above board you'd need somthing from both Lucas Arts and Raven's legal departments. Surprisingly, the private comments and opinions of a developer who was sorta involved in some of the side bits of a project are not legally binding and arnt gonna mean a thing if you get sued (Well, you wouldnt get sued, you'd most likely adhere to the 'Cease and Desist' they send you...). Chances are they dont care, but i'd hate to be the one biting the bullet if they decide to make an example. Chances of getting a reply from Lucas Arts historically isnt great, that being said, it may well worth be taking the chance that they dont care, the technical benifits this could give would be incredible. I really hope LucasArts are in the mood for some good PR and decide to smile on your efforts, if they do, i can guarentee you that MB2 will look VERY seriously at switching.

[afi]

And it wouldn't be the first time that LA stops a fan-project.

[Scooper]

I had a discussion about this topic with eezstreet yesterday @Defiant. And as far as I'm concerned we did conclude there to be some issues as you pointed out.

But the issue isn't with the iojamp project itself. Since it uses original code or open source code from the q3 engine, and no parts of the JKA SDK; it doesn't fall under the SDK license agreement.

 

The issue is with the goal of iojamp, which is to liberate mods from the limitations of using the closed source engine. This basically means that new mods can be created utilizing new or improved features in the iojamp project. This goes against that section of the SDK agreement. Since using these improved/new features would make the mod aimed towards a different program than the "full version of the software game Jedi Academy".

 

So there is no legal issues in this section about creating the iojamp project. But it presents problems for people who wish to use it for their mods. And that can destroy the reason for the project to be created in the first place.

[GoodOl'Ben]

It's definitely a touchy subject, but one worth looking at no less, as Defiant says.

 

Since it uses original code or open source code from the q3 engine' date=' and no parts of the JKA SDK; it doesn't fall under the SDK license agreement.[/quote']

Indeed, so it's essentially its own thing. The biggest certain hurdle would be LucasArts having a problem with its IP being used in a freely distributed game. However that is a problem even MB3 faces and that isn't stopping the team from moving ahead.

 

Let's hope for the best, shall we

[afi]

Well if you remove everything sw-related from the raw iojamp download it should be okay

[ensiform]

ohai

 

I don't get why you guys think that anything raw sw related will be getting distributed with iojamp? Its a drop-in replacement for jamp.exe. While I get that some of you want mods that would be based off it, the grey area says u really can't. However the same applies to mods that are closed source on quake3 yet they will try to run on/with ioq3 or ioq3-modified builds.

 

When everything is hunky dory it will end up being:

 

(If by going with the above rules, you won't be able to have a 64-bit version then either and possibly not other platforms than what is already there?)

 

(For windows anyway)

curllib.dll

iojamp.x86.exe

iojampded.x86.exe

libeay32.dll

OpenAL32.dll

openldap.dll

SDL.dll (harr)

ssleay32.dll

wrap_oal.dll

zlib1.dll

[Defiant]

ohai

 

I don't get why you guys think that anything raw sw related will be getting distributed with iojamp? Its a drop-in replacement for jamp.exe. While I get that some of you want mods that would be based off it, the grey area says u really can't. However the same applies to mods that are closed source on quake3 yet they will try to run on/with ioq3 or ioq3-modified builds.

 

That is against the JKA License agreement - although i doubt that would be enforced. though you never know - LucasArts moves in mysterious ways.

 

The problem with mods is that they would require the JKA game logic (That is the code that compiles into jampgamex86.dll, cgame.dll, and uix86.dll) to be re-written, and then the modifications be made to that code in order to not be infringing on LucasArt's IP. Of course, assuming you did all that, you may still be violating the JKA copyright (this is a seperate issue from the IP), as you have literally copied the game, even if it has been remade from scratch, that is to say, JKA is protected by copyright in whole and in part. You can use SW imagary, ideas, and some likenesses under copyright fair use, but my knowledge of software law is alot better than my knowledge of copyright law. Im not sure if iojamp would be protected by fair use, particuarlly given that JKA is still being sold for profit on steam. LucasArts is a business remember, i doubt they're above squabling over whats maybe a couple of grand a year from steam sales.

 

When everything is hunky dory it will end up being:

 

(If by going with the above rules, you won't be able to have a 64-bit version then either and possibly not other platforms than what is already there?)

 

Actually, the beauty of it is that you have full control. Technically you can use the JKA-SDK to build 64bit versions of the game DLLs, you just dont have an engine capable of loading them.

[ensiform]

You're thinking this way too critically and in the wrong sense of legality bro. A drop in replacement for the core exe has no berings on the assets or the dlls as such the ONLY problem is making new mods that no longer function with JKA. If the base dll is still the base dll (completely unmodified), the "License agreement" has no say what-so-ever if I choose to load a dll from whatever. If that were the case, then I shant be allowed to link some random dll thats in the system32 folder.

 

FYI The SDK License means absolutely shit all NOTHING when you aren't going to be using the SDK (using the dlls in assets3.pk3)

[Defiant]

At the very least it is as serious as a no CD crack. It's certainly against the EULA to by pass the copy protection. Without a copy of the JKA EULA to hand i cant tell you for sure if your license to use the assets (Including the game DLLs) is restricted. But i'd be fairly confident it is. If it isnt then it's not an issue. Chances are it wouldnt be enforced anyway, but you can never be sure.

[ensiform]

Just drop it kiddo, go play with the other younglings in mods-ville. You can bring up this discussion if it matters at time of release.

[ensiform]

Whatever. Just so long as this discussion about licensing doesn't keep being brought up in a non released form of a wip project.

[eezstreet]

LucasArts is a business remember, i doubt they're above squabling over whats maybe a couple of grand a year from steam sales.

Yeah, that sounds about right. With all the dough they're making from merchandizing and TOR (it's pure profit for them, since they receive a cut for using the SW name) and other games such as TFU, BF2, etc. I doubt they'll notice anything but a slight dip in the sales (especially if you do the moral thing and make the MB2/JKG/whatever launcher require JA to be installed using the registry).

 

Actually, the beauty of it is that you have full control. Technically you can use the JKA-SDK to build 64bit versions of the game DLLs, you just dont have an engine capable of loading them.

Argh it be illegal etc

 

 

----

 

 

On a slightly unrelated note, if I were to port GSA to iojamp, I could totally base it off of Q3's SDK ( )

[afi]

Just drop it kiddo, go play with the other younglings in mods-ville. You can bring up this discussion if it matters at time of release.

 

Wtf

 

Its a drop-in replacement for jamp.exe

 

I know it's different, but it pretty much sounds like a no-cd-crack and I guess legally it will be seen by LA as the same (if they really care)

[ensiform]

I know it's different, but it pretty much sounds like a no-cd-crack and I guess legally it will be seen by LA as the same (if they really care)

 

"Pretty much sounds like a no-cd crack" When it has nothing to do with removing cd key checks other than its not even the same game engine anymore so that license does not apply.

 

I don't really want to keep discussing this, so:

 

A) The license agreement with the game will apply to assets (Nothing from the assets will be distributed with iojamp if it ever released)

B) The SDK License agreement prevents you from making new mods that don't specifically also run with jamp. If you keep them compatible, then I don't see it violating this (the same applies to Quake3 mods that are still closed on the MOD SDK)

C) The iojamp license is under GPL rules, not the license agreement for the jedi academy installation therefore the cd-check bits do not apply.

[eezstreet]

B) The SDK License agreement prevents you from making new mods that don't specifically also run with jamp. If you keep them compatible, then I don't see it violating this (the same applies to Quake3 mods that are still closed on the MOD SDK)

But how compatible is 'compatible'?

[Scooper]

"for operation only with the full version of the software game Jedi Academy"

 

This thing is nasty when it comes to using the SDK to code mods for iojamp.

[CaptainChar]

I stopped paying attention, and went back to doing calibrations

[eezstreet]

"for operation only with the full version of the software game Jedi Academy"

 

This thing is nasty when it comes to using the SDK to code mods for iojamp.

That could imply that the user can't make mods which work on iojamp period, which is impossible to prevent..right? I mean, as soon as you are compiling the code, you're making code that can operate on iojamp, thus instantly voiding the use policy, correct?

Also, there is nobody mentioning that the license is a shrinkwrap license and that there is no way mentioned in the license about how to get out of said agreement, by removing it off of your computer or whatever. The license takes effect as soon as you run the exe, and you have no option to read the license, nor are there terms for the license. For all we know, there could have been a hidden section in the licensing agreement that said 'you must pay us one billion dollars' and the terms would have become automatically agreed to. I just feel like it would be totally illegal for them to have such licensing terms.

[Scooper]

Well I'm not sure what they can legally demand in their agreement. But the demands I've seen so far seem within reason.

 

If you are compiling the SDK normally with jamp.exe as the intended program to run it, there is no way that it can be prosecuted if it happens to work on iojamp as well. But if you are intentionally including features that will only work on iojamp, then it is no longer created to be only used by jamp.exe. So it will be against the license agreement.

 

And just making sure that it is compatible with both of them in this situation isn't enough. For instance the situation we discussed off-site eez: Adding additional trap calls by utilizing new engine features in the iojamp project. It should be possible to make it compatible with jamp.exe by disabling the new features if this is the program that runs it. But there is no denying that this mod project was now created with iojamp in mind, thus breaking the license agreement, and you are no longer allowed to use the source code provided in the JKA SDK to make this mod which is intended for iojamp.

 

Unfortunately it seems to be pretty conclusive that this is the intention of the mentioned section of the SDK license agreement. It seems like a reasonable demand, and I can't think of any arguments to get around it. Neither have I seen any arguments mentioned here that would allow us to get around it.

 

Still, the JKA SDK license agreement does not pose a threat to the actual iojamp project. Just its actual practical use after its completion. Though there might be some copyright issues that can cause problems for the project. And I think the only safe method to get around this is to get conclusive answers from lucasart/ravensoftware about what is allowed and what isn't.

 

Or people can just break the license agreement at their own risk.

[eezstreet]

Unfortunately, I haven't gotten any word back from Raven at all. Contacting LA would be pretty hard to do properly.

[eezstreet]

hai i'm 12 and wot is this