Ok lets be honest, how many people have the time and resources to check the code out of CVS and compile it themselves. Ok it looks like GweeDo767 from Xlink is being extrodinarily childish. Chad keep up the good work, no harm done by little GweeDo767's temper-tantrum. My advise? Keep the binaries down until you have a product that you can in good concious release, and leave the project open so that anyone brave enough to sort through CVS can appreciate your hard work.

Phil Howard

Ehh?

Remove the source codes from Source Forge CVS servers then?

Read that and then post. People should only speak when they have knowledge.

Looks like the link didn't get shown in my last post:
http://boards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=48150776&page=1

Warp Pipe is stealing from Source Forge.

Fuck you GweeDo

How very childish of you "anynomous" one.

I love all the finger-pointing by the Warp Pipe guys. At what point did GweeDo become a member of the X-Link community? In talking with him, he posted it over there because the Warp Pipe moderaters were deleting all his other efforts to show the truth in the Warp Pipe forums -- so posting somewhere else brought the truth out in a way that couldn't be ninja-deleted.

Yes. That is why I did it. Thank you mister "" :)

I will state, again, for the record. As soon as we were made aware that we were unable to release binary-only releases, we pulled them and began to terminate our association with SourceForge. This person who made reference to the source still existing took advantage of the fact that we had (and still have no) control over the fact that our source resides on SourceForge's CVS server. This, however, does not give this person the right to violate our license. That is the issue at hand. Just because you are able to do something does not give that person the right to do so. Ethicly or otherwise.

For starters, the members of XLink have not stolen any of your code. I'm not a member of XLink as flat235 would know but I do know coding. Flat235 has already created the tunneling software way before development even started at Warp Pipe. His design was for the XBOX, hence the title, XLink. He also owns a Gamecube and low & behold, they released the network adapter for it recently. Since the same concept works for both systems, just a different MAC Address, you can't say he stole anything from you. He's using his existing code but changing which MAC Address is looks for. I'm a member of XBConnect, another XBOX tunneling software. When XLink started, we didn't threaten to sue because they created an application like ours. That's completely absurd. Granted XBC and XLink have had their differences in the past but I have to stand beside Flat235 in this situation. Just because someone creates and application similar to yours, you can't hold them liable. I mean come on, you don't see Microsoft suing the developers of Linux. Secondly, how could you possibly prove that XLink has stolen your code? Just because a member of the XLink forums finds something you've done wrong, you can't blame XLink themselves.

"The term "Open Source" is defined by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) in their Open Source Definition. Only Open Source projects may be hosted on SourceForge.net. Projects are expected to meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition and abide by the spirit of that definition. With this in mind, it is important to understand that projects hosted on SourceForge.net are expected to release their source code (as per Clause 2 of the Open Source Definition) -- projects may not make binary-only releases. It is also important to understand that, once released, we feel the importance of ensuring the long-term availability of source code. We have strict policies regarding the removal of project data."

That is exactly what you agreed to when you signed up for Source Forge. Learn to read I guess.

huh? come on is this really worth a news post? It's not right to steal intelectual property - but neither is using sourceforge for non osr project.

How was their IP stolen? They released it to Source Forge. No one stole it. They released it.

Come on, guys-- was this news post really necessary? Both projects are cool. I'll use whoever's works best, plain and simple. "Members of XLink's Community" seems an unnecessary thing to say-- would you appreciate someone dragging your site's name into the mud if a forum member comitted a crime? "Warp Pipe Project community member commits burglary!" Seriously. You guys screwed up putting it on sourceforge. A few forum-monkeys are being overzealous in holding you to your agreement with SF while you relicense. Nobody's being civil. Why not just quit making anything out of it? Nobody needs to see this crap on the front page. Relicense, remove your CVS repository, and move on. If SF won't let you remove the old stuff-- fork the code, leave the old, and then move on.

But why drag XLink's name into it when it's just some random user with a login on their site?

basically stfu. you stuffed up, someone pointed it out on a competitors, so you turn around and try using it to besmirch they're name. thats just wrong.

so, you fuck up, and kick up a fuss, and all a sudden its xlinks fault. right.

FUCKING MORON.
I suggest an apology to Xlink is required.
assuming your man enough to accept the fault is your own.

Sorry, hosting their project on sourceforge would not entail a lifelong contractual agreement to be open source. Once the mistake was found, the project should have been removed. No one who downloaded it would be held at fault, but they would not have the license to continue using it as open source either.

Not GweeDo: never said they couldn't relicense their software. But anything on the SF CVS server is open, that can't be changed.

as for the apology to X-Link...I totally agree.

Once open-source, always open-source. You can, at any time, relicense-- but anybody with a copy of the code from when it was open can do anything with it that was allowed under the original license. Any changes you make *after* relicensing are NOT open source.

This is an unfortunate circumstance. The polite thing for the community to do is to let them pull out of SF and move on to closed-source-- but nobody has any obligation to do so.

In short, everybody on both sides is being a dick, but nobody is breaking any rules. (Except WPP's accidental use of SourceForge to host their downloads)

Quit being dicks. All of you.

Addendum. Looking at their forums, XLink's project members do not seem to be acting like dicks. I think somebody needs to apologize, and it isn't XLink.

If the source is already on SourceForge, and he posted a link to where it's stored (not his own copy), what has he done wrong? He hasn't hacked anything. He may be a little rude. But he hasn't done anything wrong. If you don't want your source code released, don't make it publicly accessible. :P

There will most certainly not be an apology issued to Xlink. As my statement is very clear, a member of the Xlink community was at fault. Furthermore, Xlink did nothing to help the situation. We have the right to pull back this project from open source, as all who contributed to the project agreed to do so. I would understand if GweeDo was a contributor, but he is not. As I stated before, we were at fault for using SourceForge's resources when we decided to go closed source. This was an oversight and was not intentional. However, what GweeDo did was, indeed, intentional and malicious.

Chad, you make me laugh. What I did had nothing to do with X-Link. I only did it there so you couldn't ninja-delete my posts like you normally do. As for why I released the link to your public CVS server. It wasn't malicious. I have nothing against you. I just wanted everyone to have access to what they had the rights to. People want to try the new releases, let them...or get off Source Forge. Simple as that.

I think everyone is blowing this out of proportion, and it's mostly due to misunderstandings. Everyone here did what they thought was right and that's fine. No one here is a horrible person.

Chad was not fully aware that by posting to sourceforge he implicited agreed to several aspects of the open source philosophy, namely open CVS access.

GweeDo thought that Chad was trying to take advantage of an open source community resource and took him to task for it by downloading the source code, as is acceptable, before CVS access was removed for the warp pipe project.

Both parties should simply move on, and forget the whole thing happened. It's not as if GweeDo is the only person who may have the source, anyone at any point could have downloaded it the entire time it was on the sourceforge servers.

There is nothing you can do legally, Chad, so please don't persue that "my dad is a lawyer and i'm gonna get him to sue you" route. To prove the Xlink project stole your code would require subpoenaing the source for that project and expensive reverse engineering/decompiling of the code to see if anything was lifted from your's, which, admit it, is doubtful.

My opinion is that there is nothing to be lost by having an open source project, unless you plan on trying to make some money on your propriatary code later, which I'm sure Nintendo and Microsoft would take exception to, one way or another.

In addition, why the animosity between the xlink and warp pipe projects? Aren't both trying to achieve the same goal? Shouldn't you guys be sharing code instead of fighting over it?

If you both could embrace the GPL instead of hoarding your code you could probably gain a lot and lose nothing. Plus, you could understand that in the future, should either of you decide to leave your respective projects, someone would probably pick it up and maintain it in the future, for the good of all gamers.

As part of the XLink Crew, what I think you are doing is ridiculous. For starters, you are going to put the blame on us for stealing something we didn't, only because 1 of the 73000 or so users on the XBox-Scene forums decided to exercise his freedom of speech?

GweeDo767 only managed to expose your incompetence. I think it's time XLink starts sifting through the posts of the Warp Pipe community, and whatever we find, we'll say that Warp Pipe is doing the same. *sigh*

Have fun editing this comment of mine to suit your silly standards ie. from truth to lies.

Chad, I don't see exactly why you claim that Gweedo is acting maliciously. As an analogy, all he did was give out the reference number of a book in the library, a public space. You created a new edition of the book, which was not to be used in libraries, but you have no control over the previous version anymore.

You may not like that this source code is out, but little can be done to change matters. I suggest all just work on their projects, rather than having all parties waste time by tossing allegations around.

At this point I am mostly wondering what license the code in the CVS server at SourceForge is under. Since they didn't explicitly state a license this could be the most interesting part of the whole thing.

>> Once open-source, always open-source.

And what legal precedent has set this in stone?

I could create a license that requires you to hand over your firstborn child upon using my software, but that wouldn't hold up in court either.

Incorporating Warp Pipe's software currently on sourceforge CVS into your own would be a very ill-advised move, unless you want to spend time in court.

Chad says: "As my statement is very clear, a member of the Xlink community was at fault."

Clear like this:

"this does not give Xlink the right to use our code as it is not under a GNU/ GPL license."

Sounds like you accused Xlink of doing something they didn't to me. If you're not gonna apolgoize, AT LEAST remove the baseless accusations from your site's front page.

Another poster (Huh?) makes a good point. There isn't a clear license on the code on sourceforge, as it was put there without knowledge. So, by SF rules, it has to be open-source-- but without a definite license in place, nobody knows HOW. A real license mess, and Huh is absolutely right.

What this doesn't change is that Warp Pipe is accusing XLink of something they didn't do. If WPP wants to holler "legal action" at somebody, let it be GweeDo. If they really feel like it, the courts can sort out the whole SF/WPP/GweeDo license fiasco, and I suspect nobody involved but SourceForge will come out unscathed.

Damn shame nobody's gonna just apologize and move on. Why is everybody such a dick on the internet? What does XLink have to do with ANY of this, besides that their forum was used?

Again, I will state. I am not accusing Xlink of merging our code into theirs. I am simply warning them, given our history. I am indifferent when it comes to the xlink team. I am not a fan of their unprofessional manner and choice words.

In closing what's done is done. The facts are clearly represented in my news post. Its all a matter of moving on. We are considering making the daemon an open source component project.

That would be sweet.

Profession smessional..

Do you think our users care about anything other than playing XBox / GC games online for free? Do you think they really give a root if we type in capitals and kiss everyones ass. Hell no...

We support OUR users, you just want to make yourself look good to all your users.

Dipshits...honestly read the Terms of Service on SourceForge, you agree that whatever you put up is in public domain. If your posting stuff under open source and then suddenly switch, what's the problem with people seeing your old stuff that people have been able to see before. Seriously you abuse a free service and then threaten to sue people for utter nonsense. Grow up!

Well, GweeDo didn't do anything wrong. Anything you put on a public server is just that - public. And now I see you have your site on gamefarmer.com. Are you going to host the downloads on there now?

"Do you think our users care about anything other than playing XBox / GC games online for free?"

Um, to be perfectly frank, who do you think is posting here? People who have no interest in any of this?

I was looking forward to comparing WPP and Xlink, but seeing how Xlink's team members are reacting on their forums (regardless of whether or not they were responsible), I think WPP's the way to go.

"Um, to be perfectly frank, who do you think is posting here? People who have no interest in any of this?

I was looking forward to comparing WPP and Xlink, but seeing how Xlink's team members are reacting on their forums (regardless of whether or not they were responsible), I think WPP's the way to go."

good for you... that's your choice

hope all this stuff won't prevent me from playing my mario kart jap online as i just ordered the BBA for that purpose...
i'm am an non-english-speaking-unaware-of-legal stuff-and-not-really-interested-in-it person but i can get that both teams are loosing their energy in a post contest since noone will attempt anyhting legally to close this (legitimate or not)chapter.
i think a thread with posts like "fuck you" or "your childish" or"apologise or i won't stop reply" or "i will restate what i re-restated at post number #0123.01b to show you why i don't have to apologise to you", won't solve anything
(if ever i could be solved) and is a waste of energy.
then why do I waste my energy posting in that thread? i've nothing else to do tonight other than practising my english....... and im interestred in playing online with my copy of mario kart jap also
so keep your energy for a novice user like me;)
and trash down virtual arguing

maybe it's worth since i didn't get most of the post but i have a real doubt...

Bonne nuit de Paris
bon courage for both teams
ciao

well said my French friend...

The sooner everyone forgets about all this, the sooner we'll be playing online.

Worry not, all Warp Pipe energy is being focused on development. I look forward to playing a game or two of MK:DD with you all.

bueno

Chad, you are a retard. A xlink community member is responsible? The key word is community, it has nothing to do with the xlink team. Any proof that xlink actually used your code? Nope.

can everyone just stop this rediculious legal crap!! God, we are supposed to a community a "Family" and what the hell are we doing? abosuletly nothing!! We are getting nowhere fast and if this keeps up i don't think anyone will be playing GCN games on-line soon! Stop bickering (spelling) and just LET IT GO!!

I don't understand. Do you one day plan on profiting from the Warp Pipe project? I can't think of any other case where sharing your source would be harmful to your cause. Sharing the source can only help the community, get you free hosting for your project, and attract more testers and coders to your project who think this is a good thing for the Gamecube.

Or, you can be greedy.

I would assume a profiteer would look for a better place to make money though.

"I mean come on, you don't see Microsoft suing the developers of Linux."

They did sue the developers of Linux, they lost in court. Because MS had stole their GUI from Apple who had taken it from Xerox's PARC program.

This squabbling is pointless. All parties should just get out while the getting is still good.

"They did sue the developers of Linux, they lost in court. Because MS had stole their GUI from Apple who had taken it from Xerox's PARC program."

That's my point. It doesn't work. They learned and they lost. Same will happen in this situation if it comes to that.

Nobody is suing anyone. I think everyone should calm down. What is done is done. This is the last snapshot of source that you will see, as will remain a closed-source project.

If any of our code pops up anywhere else, we will take legal action. What is posted on the front page was not intent to start legal action. It was merely a warning to the Xlink team that they have gone too far. They can read the code all they want, but that's as far as it should go.

The way I see it, whoever brings such a product to market (mass consumption) first will feature in the industry spotlight and that is mainly what people are getting grumpy over here. One great concept and two competing parties.

"We are currently looking for donated legal representation to ensure the present and future integrity of the Warp Pipe code"

Cloud cookoo land pal.

A. Xlink have done nothing wrong, looks like a lot of fuss over nothing.
B. It's pointless. For example, MS have not busted a single homebrew developer for using an illegal XDK during development (not binaries - thats a different story). So what chance do you think one man has against the xlink team, you don't even know who they really are, and thats if your not talking complete shit about the theft of your code, which is going no where, at best they only pimped your code as it was an OSP, try finding a lawer that would give a shit!

Putting source code on Sourceforge does NOT automatically put it under an open source license.

It IS a breach of your agreement with Sourceforge to declare it closed source, but the most they can do is sue you for breach, and the most they can collect would be actual damages (quite negligible).

While its true that once something is released under an open source license (i.e. including a perpetual, transferable license to distribute and use the source code) it can never effectively be made closed source again, you can't ACCIDENTALLY license your code under an open source license.

Even if the Sourceforge contract explicitly places the code under an open source license, there clearly wasn't a meeting of the minds here so its not valid (at least in any US jurisdiction).

That said, your chances for collecting damages for anybody using the Sourceforge CVS repository are essentially zero, since everybody had a reasonable expectation that you DID license it under an open source license.

I sure as hell won't be donating legal help or anything else to the project. Why be closed source? You should be flattered that they are using your code, and happy to be making the online gaming landscape better, not crying about it.

I can't believe warppipe think their users are plain dumb!

It sure looks like they want their users to believe XLink author(s) steal their source code (!) to use it in their own Xlink (!)

You'll have to be dumb to believe something like that.. and would they brag about it in a public forum? No..

Better luck next time.

How is this an exploit? SoureForge is for sharing your source, right?

GPL'd is GPL'd is GPL'd...

By changing the license AFTER sumitting to SF's CVS you forked yourself from that (GPL'd) development branch and therefore from your project in that GPL'd state. According to your pathetic way of handling this situation I guess it is the best that could have happened to your project. Even if it dies now it will be better, because that kind of EGO you displayed with your actions isn't worth to be known or to be connected with the open source spirit. Good night and fuck yourself (..oh, you already have).

Come on. . . this is just absurd. I'm going to support XLink now that you guys are acting like 12 year olds.

Is anyone really willing to give chad the benefit of the doubt here regarding "his mistake" and not undestanding the obligations he was setting out for himself and his projects by using SF? I have no sympathy for that nor do I think anyone should be given the chance to "take back" what they had donated--accidental or not. You may have done it "by accident" chad, but you sure did go out of your way to create that accident. In fact, it is unbelievable assertion.

I do have sympathy for you, chad, in terms of the outcome of your actions--not empathy, but sympathy. Do you realize that you were done a favour by having the situation pointed out to you? Now you can fork your project and stop any new code of yours from being open sourced as per your wishes. The fact that you intended to remove your previous code altogether (and in a clandestine effort) reflects very poorly on you.

Your only course of action now is to live with your mistake and stop posting your changes to sourceforge. You are quite free to close your sources from here out but what is done is done. You OWE apologies to a lot of folks, including those at SF, if you ask me. Not the least, you have denegrated someone who actually HELPED you and insulted and slandered an entire community of VOLOUNTEERS who are completely without fault--and whose work and contributions you yourself can benefit from. Presently, your standing in the community is mud and I heartily suggest you take every opportunity given to you to make proper ammends.

Finally, I don't think you understand OSS at all. Your quote regarding BSD licences made me fall over laughing. A BSD licence is even more liberal than the GPL. I suggest you keep all of your future projects closed until you learn better the implications of your actions.

Stop taking your bone-headed mistake out on others and learn to be diplomatic--particularly if you are intending to be a commercial entity of some kind. Particualry if you made a mistake, be gracious. The way I see it, you just sadly shot yourself in the head and perhaps killed your project altogether.

I think I have been very fair in my assessment and I have tried to be lenient. Your actions since this occurred appear to indicate that, despite your claims of ignorance, you intended to take advantadge of others for your personal gain from the get-go. Prove me wrong by making the proper ammends.

Please undertand that I write this without any malice and without any grudge to bear against you. I do this with an open heart and I hope it helps you find the wherewithall to bridge this unfortunate series of events.

May your future endeavers prove to be rewarding.

Cheers!

Sorry "concerned" but I think you are unaware of many of the facts. We started out as an open source project, hence our relationship with source forge.

All members and contributors of the project decided to go closed source. Nobody was left out in the cold.

As for the status of the project, it is very much alive and remains exactly as it was before this unforseen event occured.

As for your thoughts on BSD vs. GPL, you are very wrong and you should read this:

http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/social_dynamics_of_BSD_and_GPL.shtml#The_author_be_damned_problem

Not to mention the fact that we have our own license BASED on the BSD license. The fact is that we closed our project months before this happened.

Again, this was our oversight, and we have terminated our relationship with Source Forge. However, it still remains my thought and opinion that what was done was unethical.

The person that made the source public knew we didn't wish the code public. They could have told us in private. However, what's done is done. We remain the IP holders and we will deal with moving forward.

Thank you for replying and the link as well. The fact is that BSD released code (your licence may not fit that definition--I won't bother to check) grants rather unlimited rights to users. If you don't believe me, feel free to research the famous USL vs Regents of Berkley case. *BSD nix variants exist today mainly because of a situation very reminiscent to the one your project has entered. If you don't recall, USL's loss was complete in that case to the extent that they lost all control over the pre-existing code base. When I say tread careful, it is not to insult you but to warn you.

I assert your right to re-licence your code but the fact remains that code existing prior to re-licencing is out in the wild. You are correct that I am unfamiliar with the details of your case. Please accept my apologies for any mischaractarizations that I have made. I'm an outsider and you should take my opionions as such. Still, you should pause to imagine what others think.

Now, if you continued to use SF after closing your source, it is clear that something was amiss. Let us assume that is a grey area. I have no knowledge or opinion of the person who highlighted the grey area--but it is hard to understand your feeling that it was unethical for him to do so. "Unethical" is better saved to describe those that (for example) STEAL privately held code as was the recent case for half-life. The person in question posted a public link available from a community site--that your team setup. You may not have appreciated that and for all I know, you may be correct that it was done in malice. The point is that he had every right to do so and it appears to me that he did so under the notion that something was wrong with the way the project change was handled. I suspect he could have at least given you a warning, but it sounds like a case of shooting the messenger.

Indeed, it is your project and only you and your team have the right to decide how you wish to deal with your code in the future. I suppose that is what you mean by "IP holders" but to be honest, I find that term imprecise and filled with colorful notions that probably don't apply.

I do hope you consider my suggestion to patch things up with the community. As an aging developer myself in both OSS projects and closed source, I lament the the animosity that has grown as a result of this situation.

Again, good luck and good tidings.

Again, I don't think you understand. There is a common misconception out there that we just changed our license days ago. That is false. We changed the license over a month ago.

It was our mistake to keep using Source Forge's CVS, but that does not mean the presence of the code on their server makes it fall under a standard GPL or BSD. Rather, we are using our own license that is totally closed source.

We have made full amends with Xlink and, aside from some foolish back-and-forth, none of this should effect our product or userbase. Development continues and our team remains dedicated. Every single person that contributed to this project is still on board, and will remain so.

So, in closing, nothing has changed. On behalf of Warp Pipe we were wrong for thinking that SF supported closed source projects. We were under this misconception because we were able to change our license on the SF project page. We were able to disable the "browse CVS feature" which we wrongly thought gave our code protection.

bueno

What the hell? Do you not READ a website's Terms of Service before using it? SourceForge's TOS says plain as day that SF only supports projects with approved Open Source licenses. In fact, you have to select an Open Source license or provide the text of your license for review (which the application spells out must be Open Source compatible) during the application process!

It seems awfully hypocritical to be so uppity about license terms while disregarding someone else's license terms.

1) You licensed your code under an open source license

2) You made a copy of that code on the source forge servers

3) Source forge is free to redistribute that code for as long as they want because of point 1, and you can do nothing to force them to remove it.

If you continued to use Source Forge's repositories after moving the project to closed source you're an idiot.

The fact remains that SF has no obligation to you to remove code that you previously released under an Open Source license. They are free to redistribute the code you have released under that license. If you accidentally released some extra source that you didn't mean to, well, that's your problem not Source Forge.

They are free to redistribute http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/cubeonline23-cvsroot.tar.bz2 because you agreed to their TOS.

hey guys you can't blame anybody but yourself for this, sourceforge guidelines are common sense, you can't accuse anybody from stealing your code since you agreed to sourceforge rules

and btw, your license is "bsd style" well let me tell you that it is not like a GPL, in fact nobody needs your approbation, and nobody needs to tell "I've taken source from warp pipe" if one makes a software with your sources; THAT is BSD style license from which comes great (and world around leeched) networking software such as OpenSSH

If you have made full amends with Xlink, why have you not removed the unfair post on your site accusing them of IP violation? Or at least updated it.

You all should know one thing - the version of open source code the wpp has/had on sourceforge can be used by anyone who feels like it for any reason. Look, DIPSHITS, if I take your code, use it to create my own projects, lets say I make this server that can bring xbox, gamecube, and ps2 online - not with each other, but with themselves - and I just want to have a big server that handles any console it sees, then guess what? I can use your open version of code for my gamecube part. Um... for example, take a look at open office versus staroffice. As long as I provide the original source that was open, and any modifications I make, either to your code, or to the overall project, depending on your license or lack thereof, I can close my own source (the bits that handle xbox and ps2 in this theoritical project), and not only that, I can sell the whole lot of it. Why? cuz Im selling my stuff and giving yours away in its original or modified form, but nonetheless a form that is public domain. Get it? No? I didnt think you would, but this whole thing is hilarious - too bad WPP seems to be such jackasses. And like another poster said - good luck selling your product - when nintendo gets done with you, theyll have to stick a hambone up your ass and let the dogs drag you away - there'll be so little left of you.

Whelp - you guys do have one thing in common with Gates - He used to 'hack' and 'share' code in high school - untill his mommy set him up with his first customers and he saw he could make a buck if only those nasty 'hackers' would stop 'sharing'. If youre old school and reading this, youll likely see my point.

Youre kidding me, right? Youre afraid someone will misuse your couple-a-k of code? Dont make me giggle - I read this whole post thinking we were talking about some real coding time - what? did you guys take ALL weekend to finish this thing? whoop dee freakin doo!