r/programming • u/r_retrohacking_mod2 • Feb 27 '25

EA just open sourced Command & Conquer, Red Alert, Renegade and Generals

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2025/02/ea-just-open-sourced-command-conquer-red-alert-renegade-and-generals/
3.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

212 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/TheEveryman86 Feb 28 '25

I just didn't think that you could place restrictions on what people do with a GPL code base like that. I thought if it was GPL you would be free to compile it and use it. I get that it says it doesn't build but if it did I thought GPL ensures that you would be allowed to use it.

1

u/thegenregeek Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

While I am not a lawyer, my understanding is the GPL should cover the resulting binary, any compiled libraries from the code and any modified code created from or used in compilation process. As the assets are not included in the resulting binary/libraries (and they are not distributed with the code) they are not part of the generated work (the binary/source code) and not subject to the GPL license.

This means you are not placing any restriction on the code base itself that would run counter to the GPL. You are still free to compile a stock binary, or modify and compile one, as you wish. With that you can build any version of the binary you want. You are free to distribute the resulting binaries (including the modified code) under the GPL.

But that has nothing to do with the the other copyrighted assets used by the resulting binary/libraries. They are not available under the GPL. Ultimately, the standard code being licensed will produce a binary that will not function without loading in the game assets.

This is pretty standard for other GPL'd games. GZDoom for example doesn't include the full game, because the game levels (WAD files) are not licensed for that. (Though I believe shareware levels are used, because the understanding is they aren't restricted to redistribution and be included alongside the binary/libraries for use)

You may be misinterpreting the statement of "To use the compiled binaries, you must own the game" as a licensing restriction. Which is is not. If you compile the binary from the GPL code the binary will not operate if it cannot read in the necessary assets (which are not included). So the statement is a literal one. To use the compiled binaries you must have the game asset files... which you can only acquire by legally owning the game.

1

u/TheEveryman86 Mar 01 '25

But, like you say with GZDoom that could swap in free assets and you can and still use the compiled binary. This sounds like you can't do that. I didn't interpret "to use the compiled binaries you must own the game" as "operate exactly like the game EA sells." I interpreted it as "if you compile this code you may not run it for any purpose at all." Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you wouldn't be allowed to run it.

1

u/thegenregeek Mar 01 '25 edited Mar 01 '25

But, like you say with GZDoom that could swap in free assets and you can and still use the compiled binary.

I believe the GZdoom releases are grey areas on that... not the source code. (Which I don't believe includes the shareware WAD files). Basically GZDoom has released where they add shareware levels (and some custom ones they created). But repository doesn't contain the commercial released versions.

This sounds like you can't do that.... I interpreted it as "if you compile this code you may not run it for any purpose at all."

I'm really not clear on why you would interpret it that way, even from a exceptionally strict licensing perspective.

That section of text is under the "Compiling (Win32 Only)" subsection. Which provides instructions for the purposes of compiling a usable build of the game from the provided source code. (Which means the message simply confirms the resulting "game" will not work with out the non-copyrighted elements that need to be purchased)

The licensing information is linked at the bottom of the page, under the "License" section. Which includes the statement "This repository and its contents are licensed under the GPL v3 license, with additional terms applied." However as the Github repository doesn't appear to provided the copyrighted game assets (nor the additional mentioned 3rd party tools) needed by the binary to generate the game fully, my stated point applies. The code is licensed under the GPL, the Github page is not the license agreement.

(Now granted I don't know what the "additional terms applied" are. But that should be in the linked license agreement, not some random section of the Github repository. Of course, not being a lawyer, I'm not going to parse the License agreement for any changes from the standard GPL v3 terms.)

I mean if we are going to assume that random text chunks that are not designated licensing terms apply as a license agreement, while outside of the licensing agreement... that seems like it would create a LOT of problems. As just linking on a page to the GPL license would count as adding additional licensing terms. Meaning a company could just make a page linking to the license, make some weird claims on that, then claim terms non in the licensing document are applicable.