Zapeth (and the rest of the Re-Volt community), as one modder to another, I will have to tell you that you do need to see under what license you were able to modify the original code. I have done a bit of work for JA2 1.13, but any modifications I've done can be used by Strategy First (or now, Bitcomposer) due to the license.
If you do not have a license, then the most likely legal result is that the current owner of the source code can use your modifications, though using them without acknowledgements is a dickish move. Dickish, but legal.
If you do have a license to modify and retain ownership of the modified code, you are legally clear, though your actions have prevented me (and others) from playing Re-Volt.

I still hope you will manage to reach an agreement, but you may need to consult a lawyer to see if your modifications are your own or derivative work of the original.

Thanks for the explanation. Though as I said, I am not the one who created the patch. Only the 2 people who made it have access to its source so it is up to them to figure out the license details and take eventual actions.

I'm merely a community member who loves this game and tries to set things straight here (regarding facts and discussions). I'm truly sorry for all the people who are now unable to obtain the game legally, that this situation ended the way it did.

However I hope that you also understand our point view and our efforts to make people aware of this issue. I also very much appreciate GOG's decision to take the side of the community even if they had every right not to (and even if they would perhaps change their mind now).

I do, and we did have a similar issue with one of Kazuya's drawings appearing in Jagged Alliance: Back in Action, especially since that wasn't part of the code, but a drawing. So yes, using something without acknowledgment does suck, and the community did well to point it out.
My main question though was if Huki and Jigebren gave their blessing to this endeavor (the removal of Re-Volt from sale) or if Skarma, ZR and Marv acted on their own.
Pre-post edit: Seems that Kenny also asked the same in the invision board, didn't see an answer.

Any time there is even a small chance that GOG is selling something they don't have the rights to, they delist it. Same thing happened with Dark Fall when Jonathan Boakes posted that he was unaware of GOG selling his games, especially since he wasn't credited. So GOG always removes the games when their rights are questioned. I just hope that Marv's involvement doesn't worsen the things for the Re-Volt community.
Edit: Ah, Skarma is here as well. Let me ping him

I don't think it'd be wise for the community to take legal actions against WeGo, since they obtained the source code of the cancelled Xbox port under unclear conditions.

As I said in another thread, given that:
-- the community patch was made using the source code of an unreleased Xbox port that was obtained under unclear conditions, and
-- with the name of MS popping-up in relation to the development of that port,
I believe that GOG did the right thing to pull the game. Even if the IP holder and the community come to an agreement regarding the use of the patch in the official release of the game, the best course for GOG would be to stay clear of it - the legal uncertainty is too high to take a risk, unless they also own the rights to the source code for the cancelled Xbox port, which seems quite unlikely though.
So basically regarding GOG, the best course is to release whatever version is regarded as the latest official one by the previous rights holder (Throwback Entertainment). Unless the current one comes up with their own patch based on the source code they do have legal rights to.

What a mess.


EDIT: Spelling

Ok from what i can deduce with the info here the patch is plain and simple constructed from abandonware. This means the community is not in legal wrong, technically - they don't monetize from it, and the code used to make it is not commercial. If the xbox version is a abandoned project, there's nothing else it can be. Considering they were given the code as well (supposedly from a guy who worked on the code), this means the author/s are OK with it.

Now, however, for the patch to work, you need some kind of a game right? The koreans have the rights to the PC game and that's it (if that is the whole truth). But if you use the patch on the game it's no longer considered theirs, because it changes the code and they didn't wrote that change. They can pretend it's theirs couse it's used under the trademark of the game. In other words if you patch the game and rename it it may as well be consider a entirely different game, no matter how similar it may look to the unpached game, but that's kinda complicated couse you used "their" code to make that change... damn, i dunno, it may as well be considered the same the koreans did, but with the only exception someone will no longer profit from it.

At the end of the day cooperation is needed. What would be the easiest scenario is to release the game patched to the latest official patch - end of story OR come to some agreement with the unofficial patch community and release the whole thing.

Wait, what?
Does that mean that if I modify the Win2K code that was leaked by its authors back in 2004 I am ok? No, it doesn't.
There is no such thing as abandonware. The question here is if WeGo also has the rights to the XBox port of Re-Volt or not. If they do, they do have rights to the patch as well. If they don't, the rights to the patch are with whoever has the rights to the (cancelled) XBox port.

As for cancelled games going rights-free, try to make a game called Van Buren and see if you are allowed to, or if Bethesda (or does Interplay still have those rights?) makes a move or not. Just because a game is cancelled doesn't mean there are no rights owners.

Not always true. Strategy First can use any of the 1.13 patch changes to JA2 in their games, because the license under which we are allowed to modify it does give them the rights to use any modifications. I think those rights have currently being transferred to BitComposer who in turn licensed them to Full Control, but that depends on what rights BitComposer got from Strategy First regarding Jagged Alliance. As I recall though, they did get everything, so they can (legally) use any of the 1.13 modifications. Whether it's morally right to do so without acknowledgement is another thing, but they are legally clear.

So, the questions for Re-Volt are:
1) Does We-Go have the rights to the XBox port and/or source code?
2) Does the community have rights to modify the code?
3) Does the code license allow the rights holder to use any modifications?

If all three are true, We-Go can use the community patch, though it would be best if they did acknowledge the coders, and even better if they did compensate them.
If 2 is false, then the whole community patching may be in trouble. Worst case scenario, they ask them to cease and desist any and all further modifications. Best case scenario is that they either ignore them and let them continue as they have been up to now, or even better, cooperate with them. I fear however that the community is doing their best to alienate We-Go

On the other hand, if questions 1 and 2 are true, but 3 is false, then We-Go has no rights to the patch, and the community is right. I do however doubt that this is the case.

Didn't say abandonware was rights free - it's still falls under copyright protection. It's just software ignored by the author/s and they usually don't enforce copyright law couse they abandoned the work, a.k.a they don't really care.

You can still modify the Win2K code for personal use, what's the problem with that? If you start selling it it's not ok, yes.

I understand that whoever owns the xbox code owns the patch. What i said in my previous post is that i think neither of the relevant sides (wego or community) owns it. If that's true, the koreans can't sell the game with the patch without the authors permission, and the author is unknown. Unless the author shows up and agrees (won't probably happen), legally there won't be a conclusion.

If the koreans own the rights to the xbox port then yes, they can do what they please with the patch, dickish move but the law let's em . But come on, do you think they will put out the game just because of the modders request? That's silly... and fishy.

There is no legal term "abandonware". The meatspace equivalent is squatting at a house because its owner never uses it, though no squatters rights.

FTFY. In the Win2K source example, the code wasn't legitimately obtained, so I do not have rights to modify and/or distribute it. Mainsoft on the other hand did have the rights to modify and/or distribute (I think), because of the license under which they had obtained the code.

We-Go is unsure if they own the rights or not. GOG pulled the game, not We-Go, until legal proof from either part appears.
But the community does act as if it's their legal right, when in fact they got the code when "It fell of the back of a truck"...

P.S. clicking reply does send a notification, thus making it easier for me to see (and reply) to your posts. No big deal though :)

I still think the best solution for this whole mess would be if WeGo just simply released the original (patched) version. They own it, they have the source for the latest official patch (afaik) and that patch lifted the CD-check anyway, so it'd be practically no work on their side (as opposed to spending time and money to go against the community if necessary).

The community would (probably moreless) be satisfied, people could legally obtain the game on GOG again and WeGo would still make money from it.
And if any issues occur the users could simply just obtain the community patch from the community website. Btw the latter situation would be existent even if WeGo would still distribute the older community patch, simply because they just have the binary and no code for it.

Or is it a requirement for a game on GOG to work out of the box? I mean, as I mentioned before, the latest official patch requires a simple additional parameter to launch fine on newer systems so thats the only thing that would need to be done by the user (if WeGo isn't nice enough to care for that and just puts it out in its original form).
But even if thats the case, WeGo could just put some effort in it and do a simple patch themselves which they could use, its seriously not that hard to do (maybe just hire a developer to do it, it'd most likely be done within a few hours, a day at best).

Sure, the legal details about the Xbox version would still be unresolved but I fear if someone would dig deeper into that matter then it'd end bad for everyone. Don't get me wrong, I don't know any details about the legal situation but I believe the chances are rather slim that neither the community patch is entirely legal nor that WeGo owns everything regarding the game (perhaps even Microsoft would be involved).

GOG sells games in simple to play installers, and they do want the games to run as-is when installed. The simple parameters are (usually) taken care of by the installation script, so assuming the official patch works, it could be a willing compromise for now (assuming of course it passes GOG's tests).

Not sure though how the Re-volt community would react to WeGo selling the game patched to last official.

Oh well, let's wait and see.

If I may slightly disagree: the meatspace equivalent to "abandonware" is not " squatters" but "abandoned (something)" e.g. land or houses (or in the legal domain orphan works). "Squatters" are the society's response to "abandoned properties" as "abandonware websites" are the response to "abandonware" in the software domain.

True, though if I may continue the simile a bit more, is an unused and unreferenced software abandonware, or must someone be using it to be labeled abandonware? So is the abandonment itself or the squatting that gives the term abandonware?

P.S. Had a pint or two, so feel free to ignore the musings of a tipsy man.

*cheers* :)

Good question, hits the core. While I think the concept "Abandonware" comes essentially from the first case, it seems to be most often associated with the second case. (While second case usage is slightly counter-intuitive as it is then not abandoned anymore.)

Reading in "their" forums just leaves the impression that the main reason for all the bitching is not "they didn't ask us", it is because "we are a small elitist community and don't want new people playing "our" game at all" - so they are fine with just letting the original game being removed from the store...

I would have never believed, that a game community can be this destructible to their own game...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/Revolt_Live/index.php?showtopic=3236