Skip Navigation

BREAKING: EA releases C&C source code under GPL3!

peertube.wtf BREAKING: EA releases C&C source code under GPL3!

You read that right. In a staggering move, Electronic Arts (yes, that Electronic Arts) has released the full source code for C&C Tiberium Dawn, C&C Red Alert, C&C Renegate, and C&C ...

BREAKING: EA releases C&C source code under GPL3!
34

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
34 comments
  • Ok, but it's simply not open source and patents aren't something that should be encouraged in the videogame industry. Patents are expensive (too expensive for the indie scene) and usually used to bully smaller players.

    Not to mention they patented things that were already common. If they were altruistic, they would have just actually open sourced it and called it a day. They also have other patents of common things that they didn't add to the pledge, this "altruisme" is mostly just there to add weight to patents in the industry when it thoroughly didn't exist before EA and Warner Bros smelled blood in the water.

    The wording from what I understand also means they can hit back for any kind of patent related litigation, not just for this one specifically. It's a threat. "Don't fuck with us and you can keep using this thing we made", but the thing they "made" has already existed for a decade or two and they certainly weren't the first. It's just bad vibes behavior imo.

    • I guess...? Were you planning to sue EA for patent infringement? Because it specifies that the exception applies to patent-based lawsuits.

      I mean, "let's plant some patents for accessibility tech that we give away with a specific caveat and then turn the tables on someone who is trying to sue us for some unrelated patent infringement but may have used our accessibility patents before" is a hell of a long con.

      Look, you're fixating on finding a caveat to this so you get to keep being angry with these guys and I'm here to free you from that burden. You get to keep being mad with them and still acknowledge that someone, somewhere in there did a mostly good thing for mostly good reasons. It's fine.

      EA isn't a person. There's a ton of people there. Some seem quite nice. On a more general level, the entire risk of unbridled corporate dominance of public life is that it's perfectly possible for a company made entirely of very nice people to do some bad shit sometimes, or even most of the time. You don't need them to be an evil cabal to call them out when they do that. And you don't lose any face for acknowledging when they don't.

      • The caveat is literally that they patented ui color changes, as well as a bunch of other stuff without the pledge for those to boot.

        You are asking me to trust them but that very behavior makes them untrustworthy. There is no need to wait and see what they do with it since since the base action is already bad.

        They have a patent for a simple dialogue wheel which isn't under any pledges. There is no defending them imo.

        • I'm not asking you to "trust" anything, you can see what they did. It's out there. That's not how reality works, it's not based on "trust". Things either happen or they don't. You can look it up.

          For the record, they did not patent "UI color changes", the list includes automated tech for checking for flashing lights, that automatic ping system you were talking about, stuff for touch controls and a bunch of other stuff. There's a list on the link. I'm not going to read through twenty-odd patents just to disprove some random piece of misinformation you blurted out. Plus, it's a sterile converation. They released the patents they released and it's better than not releasing them, so who cares. Good for them in any case.

          Seriously, why try so hard? You're factually wrong about a bunch of what you're saying and all that's doing is making me defensive about clearing the record, which as a side effect gets me defending them. And it's cutting into your credibility whenever you have a REAL issue to complain about. It's just all the way counterproductive. I don't understand the compulsion to assume the people you dislike are consistently, one-dimensionally good or evil in all circumstances at the expense of demonstrable reality. How simplistic is people's moral compass that they can't parse the slightest ambiguity? It's bizarre.

34 comments