• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

Disasteroids 3D Source Code

This topic is 3951 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
It appears that he no longer makes the code public. Send him an email and see if he'll send it to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

Yeah I did and got no response [sad]

Seems odd someone would withdrawl source, once it was made public though ??

I hoped someone on here might have it ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Well, I certainly didn't mean to stir up a liscense debate, so let me clear things up.

Some liscenses will always and forever place the code into the public domain - in which no person or organization retains ownership, others are permissive - in which a person or organization retains ownership but allows free use under certain terms. Sometimes, certain uses are dis-allowed (such as military use) or certain liscense terms are required in derivitive works. A common example of this type of permissive liscense is the GPL, which states that code derived from it must also fall under the GPL liscense.

However, not all code that's made public is under the GPL (there are many other liscenses, such as the BSD or MIT liscenses, and many, many proprietary liscense agreements,) so you must make sure to comply with the terms of the liscense.

Liscenses also can, and often do, contain catch-all clauses which assert the authors right to modify the liscense at any time, for any reason, without notice. Dispite it being a monumentally dick move, an author is perfectly within their right to revoke any liscense rights at any time unless they are explicitly granted as irrevocable.

Basically, before using any code (and snippets do not necessarily apply, as someone said) you must make sure that it is either in the public domain or that the terms of the liscense agree with your use and you are reasonbly certain that the author(s) will stand by his/their terms.

There is a huge difference between something thats visible in the public eye, and something that has explicitly been placed into the public domain.

[Edited by - ravyne2001 on March 26, 2007 2:27:57 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by ravyne2001
Well, I certainly didn't mean to stir up a liscense debate, so let me clear things up.

Some liscenses will always and forever place the code into the public domain (sometimes restricted against certain uses, such as military use) this also can apply to derivitive works. A common example of this is the GPL, which states that code derived from it must also be open source.


GPL is NOT the public domain, it is a permissive licence. (There is a huge difference between GPL Licenced software and software in the public domain).

Software in the public domain are not owned by anyone and has no legal protection at all.
Currently works only fall into the public domain 70 years after the authors death or 95 years after publication (for companies), or if the copyright holder explicitly waiver his rights

All countries doesn't let you waiver all your rights though. (The US does, but many european countries doesn't and thus doesn't have a public domain for software (as no software is old enough yet)).

The GPL is revokable as all other licences are.

(one notable case is CyberPatrol whos GPL licence was revoked after its ownership was transfered)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So does anyone have a copy, so we may 'review' the license.

It was purely for reference anyway, as it seemed a very good example that possibly didn't use XML or some other difficult to implement GUI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the readme

Quote:


Disasteroids 3D is (C)2001 Thom Wetzel, Jr.

Copyright (c) 2001 Thom Wetzel, Jr.

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express
or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held
liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it
and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:

1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you
must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you
use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the
product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.

2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and
must not be misrepresented as being the original software.

3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEET !

Quote:

Disasteroids 3D is (C)2001 Thom Wetzel, Jr.

Copyright (c) 2001 Thom Wetzel, Jr.

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express
or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held
liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it
and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:

1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you
must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you
use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the
product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.

2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and
must not be misrepresented as being the original software.

3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.


Well that's a pretty cut and dry case.

So, latentdisposition, Do you have a copy ?? [wink]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by SimonForsman
Quote:
Original post by ravyne2001
Well, I certainly didn't mean to stir up a liscense debate, so let me clear things up.

Some liscenses will always and forever place the code into the public domain (sometimes restricted against certain uses, such as military use) this also can apply to derivitive works. A common example of this is the GPL, which states that code derived from it must also be open source.


GPL is NOT the public domain, it is a permissive licence. (There is a huge difference between GPL Licenced software and software in the public domain).


Simon, correct. That was a poorly constructed sentence on my part. I had meant to name GPL as an example of the restrictions I meantioned; the restriction being that derived software must also be open source. I did not intent to imply that the GPL is a public domain liscense.

Thanks for pointing that out. Chalk it up to a quick reply and a less than precise use of the phrase "public domain."

I'll edit my post to read the following to avoid confusion:
Quote:

Some liscenses will always and forever place the code into the public domain - in which no person or organization retains ownership, others are permissive - in which a person or organization retains ownership but allows free use under certain terms. Sometimes, certain uses are dis-allowed (such as military use) or certain liscense terms are required in derivitive works. A common example of this type of permissive liscense is the GPL, which states that code derived from it must also fall under the GPL liscense.

Share this post


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

  • Advertisement