Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
dazedandconfused

Disasteroids 3D Source Code

This topic is 4132 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Hi, Does anyone have the source code for Thom Wetzel's, Disasteroids 3D. I found several links to this demo, and even a post from Thom Wetzel himself, in a GameDev thread, saying the source was available. But I cannot find it, and here is his website www.lmnopc.com I am really impressed by his GUI style, and would like to take a look at it. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Keep in mind that a liscence can very well be revokable. Even if you are able to find some other way to get ahold of it, it would still be illegal to derive work from it unless the liscense at the time of its pulishing explicitly states that the liscense is irrevokable.

If you're able to find it, be extra carefull in making sure that the liscense is still valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi VegaObscura,

EXACTLY !!

I mean license or no license (big debate), if want to go publish your code in any form, on a website, a forum, or a book.

It kind of becomes public domain right?

Can the Oxford English Dictionary, suddenly claim copyright over every word it's published .. NO.

Should we all have a disclaimer, and not 'signatures' in here.
Everytime someone helps us, or we help them.

Hey (random guy) here's your answer, this will fix all your prayers.
Hope you get that project finished soon.
Oh, and by the way, that "C++ code snippet" was not open-source by the way. touch it, and I'll see you in court !!

Come on be real, I'm not knocking Thom, I mean if he feel's he doesn't want to share it anymore, that's fine.

But what's the harm in sharing something that was already made 'public'.
Unless he himself 'borrowed' the code from another source, and is facing legal action, hence the withdrawl.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you make information 'in ANY form' public.
Then it's EXACTLY that .. PUBLIC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree 100%

If someone wants to release information into the public domain, then that's where it should stay.

How can someone for example, claim rights over a language/code they didn't invent.

I mean technically, the rights belong to the inventors/founders of the programming language (C,C++,Java etc)
Shouldn't THEY get the credit for the code.

Lets say some Government (FBI/CIA/NSA) wants (or HAS to) release information.
Or official secrets after say 20 years, because that's the law.

Can that suddenly be revoked, and told hey wait a minute, you all have to forget we ever told you that.
Or we'll send the 'Men In Black' to come and erase your memories !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by dazedandconfused
Hi VegaObscura,

EXACTLY !!

I mean license or no license (big debate), if want to go publish your code in any form, on a website, a forum, or a book.

It kind of becomes public domain right?

Can the Oxford English Dictionary, suddenly claim copyright over every word it's published .. NO.

Should we all have a disclaimer, and not 'signatures' in here.
Everytime someone helps us, or we help them.

Hey (random guy) here's your answer, this will fix all your prayers.
Hope you get that project finished soon.
Oh, and by the way, that "C++ code snippet" was not open-source by the way. touch it, and I'll see you in court !!

Come on be real, I'm not knocking Thom, I mean if he feel's he doesn't want to share it anymore, that's fine.

But what's the harm in sharing something that was already made 'public'.
Unless he himself 'borrowed' the code from another source, and is facing legal action, hence the withdrawl.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you make information 'in ANY form' public.
Then it's EXACTLY that .. PUBLIC


copyright laws tend to disagree, copyright is still valid even if you make something publicly avaliable. (There is a big difference between making something viewable or even useable for free and releasing something into the public domain).

code snippets are generally not unique enough to be covered by copyright law. (and neither are words in a dictonary, however the dictonary as a whole is covered by copyright law as are software).

There are plenty of valid reasons to withdraw the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to disagree Simon (but I'm gonna), plus this thread is getting WAY off topic now.

I would say copyright/trademarks are 2 totally different things from a license.

copyright/trademarks are the 'property' of the owner (until sold), and a license is just the terms under which you may use the 'product/information'.

Now if the software in question was released as open source, and the license (for THAT version) does not prohibit distribution/sale for profit.

Regardless of code/information since being withdrawn, someone is free to distribute the code/information, as THEY see fit. So long as they abide by the terms of the license right ??

[Edited by - darren_mfuk on March 25, 2007 8:10:01 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by darren_mfuk
Not to disagree Simon (but I'm gonna), plus this thread is getting WAY off topic now.

I would say copyright/trademarks are 2 totally different things from a license.

copyright/trademarks are the 'property' of the owner (until sold), and a license is just the terms under which you may use the 'product/information'.

Now if the software in question was released as open source, and the license (for THAT version) does not prohibit distribution/sale for profit.

Regardless of code/information since being withdrawn, someone is free to distribute the code/information, as THEY see fit. So long as they abide by the terms of the license right ??


Provided that there was a licence.

my post was regarding dazeds misconception that anything published on the web is in the public domain and that a licence was needed to restrict rights. (A licence is used to grant distribution rights, not restrict them)

Thus unless anyone has a valid licence from Thom that gives them the right to distribute his code it would be a copyright violation to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!