When is the real .6 comming out?

[BeerHunter]

When its done.
<3
Oki!

Seriously,days weeks or months?

Would like to know as I don't have the .6 Beta , have tried 4 times to DL the 1.5G but so far have ended up being disconnected at anywhere from 80 -95% (3 or so hours later) so gave up in frustration.

If it's days I'll wait , if it's weeks or months I'll keep trying.

Revelation : Firefox doesn't allow a retry , only pause and resume.. Maybe I need a DL manager that retries.
Any suggestions if there is such a beast?

[dbzao]

Torrent.

[Zodiaccup]

Seriously,days weeks or months?

Would like to know as I don't have the .6 Beta , have tried 4 times to DL the 1.5G but so far have ended up being disconnected at anywhere from 80 -95% (3 or so hours later) so gave up in frustration.

If it's days I'll wait , if it's weeks or months I'll keep trying.

Revelation : Firefox doesn't allow a retry , only pause and resume.. Maybe I need a DL manager that retries.
Any suggestions if there is such a beast?

Why don't you dl the torrent?

And I think, we don't have to wait that long for 0.6 as "C5 PHASE II will be battled out on Project Reality version 0.6".

[OkitaMakoto]

Seriously,days weeks or months?

Would like to know as I don't have the .6 Beta , have tried 4 times to DL the 1.5G but so far have ended up being disconnected at anywhere from 80 -95% (3 or so hours later) so gave up in frustration.

If it's days I'll wait , if it's weeks or months I'll keep trying.

Revelation : Firefox doesn't allow a retry , only pause and resume.. Maybe I need a DL manager that retries.
Any suggestions if there is such a beast?

All what just was said and more, from my non R-position of power mouth: I am fairly certain things are close to being done... weeks? a few? something of that nature. From what i see in-game, most gameplay ideas for .6 are working (i hope?) and the major stuff is the license thingy?

But you know, im just a guy who plays PR and ends his comments with things like:

<3
Oki!

[BeerHunter]

OK I found a DL manager that resumes/retries dropped connections and am gonna try this torrent thingy then

[{GD}Snake13]

While I agree the =CDU= members are extremely immature and their game play modifications blasphemous t the nature of PR, the EFF supporter in me can't help but be simultaneously saddened and angered by this decision.

It is somewhat surprising that all of these supporters of what is in fact a mod of a game with a very different game play intent, make so many comments condemning what is in fact doing the very same thing. I find it deeply disturbing that BSS would decide to make itself a contributer to the rising tide of overly obtrusive and legally questionable software licensing, and an enemy of our fair use rights as consumers.

And while IANAL, and I can't seem to find a copy of the BF2 EULA handy, I find it suspect that re-licensing software which is already under license from EA is not actually a violation of the original EULA.

[KingofCamelot]

While I agree the =CDU= members are extremely immature and their game play modifications blasphemous t the nature of PR, the EFF supporter in me can't help but be simultaneously saddened and angered by this decision.

It is somewhat surprising that all of these supporters of what is in fact a mod of a game with a very different game play intent, make so many comments condemning what is in fact doing the very same thing. I find it deeply disturbing that BSS would decide to make itself a contributer to the rising tide of overly obtrusive and legally questionable software licensing, and an enemy of our fair use rights as consumers.

And while IANAL, and I can't seem to find a copy of the BF2 EULA handy, I find it suspect that re-licensing software which is already under license from EA is not actually a violation of the original EULA.

While you may have a point about the BF2 code, any of the Python code that our coders write is copyright of the mod team and we can certainly license out that original code, without which the mod could not run.

I also wouldn't say this is an 'overly obtrusive and legally questionable software licensing'. Its basically akin to the standard EULA lines about 'it is illegal to reverse engineer or modify this software executable'. All we are trying to do is put limits on how server admins can modify OUR code.

[{GD}Snake13]

KingofCamelot']While you may have a point about the BF2 code, any of the Python code that our coders write is copyright of the mod team and we can certainly license out that original code, without which the mod could not run.

Again IANAL, but I do know for a fact that in the case of patent law this is unequivocally false, and I suspect in copyright it is similarly handled. In the case of patents if entity B patents a modification to a patent from entity A, then while entity B has an legally binding patent, they cannot sell or license their patent without a license to do so from the original patent owner (and likewise company A can't use companies B's improvements without a license)

KingofCamelot']I also wouldn't say this is an 'overly obtrusive and legally questionable software licensing'. Its basically akin to the standard EULA lines about 'it is illegal to reverse engineer or modify this software executable'. All we are trying to do is put limits on how server admins can modify OUR code.

What a over obtrusive license actually is is an entire debate in of itself, but I would point out that Project reality in of itself would not be possible if EA put the same limits you did on its software.

By legally questionable I was referring to the myriad of unresolved fair use issues surrounding software licensing.

[KingofCamelot]

I'm also not a lawyer (had to look that one up :razz but I do know that the Python code, while it does depend on BF2 to run, is very much original content. I'm fairly certain that it is legally covered under copyright laws since it is an original work. Technically you can't write any software without it being dependent on a seperate piece of software (Windows anyone?).

Also, Project Reality would indeed be possible if similar restrictions had been put on by EA/DICE. In fact, if I remember correctly they put a restriction on atleast the Ranked servers where they smashed all the "pistol and knife only" servers.

Theres a big difference between mods, and what you can do with said mod on a server. As DICE showed they were fine with people making mods, but they didn't want server owners who were running stock BF2 to be doing server side mods.

In the same vein, we are fine with our community making custom maps, sounds, etc. In fact we have two community modding projects going on at this moment. What we are NOT ok with is servers modifying the core content of the mod, just like DICE won't let you modify the BF2 executable.

[IAJTHOMAS]

Again IANAL, but I do know for a fact that in the case of patent law this is unequivocally false, and I suspect in copyright it is similarly handled.

Translation: I have no idea what I am talking about. For a start, do you even know what jurisdiction PR falls under?

No offence, but have a wild stab in the dark about the law is usually a futile effort. Egg said he has taken legal advice from some business contacts, i'm guessing they'll have thought of these things!

[daranz]

Patent law != copyright law, 'nuff said. Copyright certainly applies to whatever code the PR team writes, regardless of its use. If you dynamically link someone else's library in your program, that program doesn't fall out of your copyright... What license you can distribute it under is another story.

However, as far as I know, DICE/EA does not prohibit you from limited distribution of BF2 modifications (otherwise, closed betas would be impossible).

[IAJTHOMAS]

Patent law != copyright law,

They're two different things...

[{GD}Snake13]

KingofCamelot']I'm also not a lawyer (had to look that one up :razz but I do know that the Python code, while it does depend on BF2 to run, is very much original content. I'm fairly certain that it is legally covered under copyright laws since it is an original work. Technically you can't write any software without it being dependent on a seperate piece of software (Windows anyone?).

While I do not know enough about the code to render an informed judgement (and to be honest even if I did the issue is probably gray enough it would warrant its own case), my initial impression would be that PR would constitute a derivative work.

That said, as currently you are releasing a program which contains both your original code and EA's code that entire debate is somewhat moot. To use you're own example, (which is somewhat flawed because being dependent on another work is not the same as being derivative of it) BF2 being entirely dependent on Windows to run does not give EA the right to distribute windows under its own license. EA's EULA provides for the express right to redistribute parts of its code if certain conditions are met (this is why modding BF2 is legal). The two points of concern regarding the legality of the new server program I have are thus:

1) The program would seem to constitute an act of licensing a piece of software that BSS does not own the rights to do so (referring to the EA code which is part of the mod). This is theoretically avoidably by only licensing the python code included in the mod, and only having the license cover modifications made to the python code. Whether you can treat the two as separate entities in this way is beyond the scope of my knowledge and I would speculate that it is most likely a gray area.

2) The license provision that allows you to mod and distribute EA's code has many restrictions to it, unfortunately I still can't seem to find the text of it somewhere online. My initial, and main concern is that this new plan would run afoul of one of these such restrictions, which would put BSS in violation of BF2's EULA.

KingofCamelot']Also, Project Reality would indeed be possible if similar restrictions had been put on by EA/DICE. In fact, if I remember correctly they put a restriction on atleast the Ranked servers where they smashed all the "pistol and knife only" servers.

Theres a big difference between mods, and what you can do with said mod on a server. As DICE showed they were fine with people making mods, but they didn't want server owners who were running stock BF2 to be doing server side mods.

In the same vein, we are fine with our community making custom maps, sounds, etc. In fact we have two community modding projects going on at this moment. What we are NOT ok with is servers modifying the core content of the mod, just like DICE won't let you modify the BF2 executable.

Well in the case of ranked servers I see that as EA providing a set of rules of a competition they are hosting, and server admins are more then welcome to host unranked servers. I understand that people are allowed to run passworded mod servers, but I don't think that the two are comparable in that I believe the later rises to the level of an undue burden on the server admin.

[{GD}Snake13]

Translation: I have no idea what I am talking about. For a start, do you even know what jurisdiction PR falls under?

No offence, but have a wild stab in the dark about the law is usually a futile effort. Egg said he has taken legal advice from some business contacts, i'm guessing they'll have thought of these things!

You're taking my statement completely out of context, I was using my patent law reference both as an example to refute a very specific point and to illuminate the argument I was making, I was not in any way implying that "this is how patent law works, copyright is the exact same thing in every way".

Patent law != copyright law, 'nuff said. Copyright certainly applies to whatever code the PR team writes, regardless of its use. If you dynamically link someone else's library in your program, that program doesn't fall out of your copyright... What license you can distribute it under is another story.

However, as far as I know, DICE/EA does not prohibit you from limited distribution of BF2 modifications (otherwise, closed betas would be impossible).

This is partly covered by what I said in response to the first post, I think I clarified my argument better with my second response. As to limited distributions, you raise in interesting point which I had not thought of. I have to wonder though if closed betas actually constitute licenses or just a selective distribution combined with an NDA, its an interesting question.

[knewman]

I'm ashamed to say that I was a regular on CDU's short spawn .5 server. Mainly because it was usually populated and had a low ping. Bearing this in mind I see the PR's stance on the issue as very logical, and I can see the damage a single modded server can do to the image that PR should cast on to newcomers. I've been having ten times as much fun with the .6 beta on TG's server as I did with .5 and I can see what kind of gameplay PR is trying to encourage. Its great and I support you guys 110%. Can't wait for the finished product!

[KingofCamelot]

1) The program would seem to constitute an act of licensing a piece of software that BSS does not own the rights to do so (referring to the EA code which is part of the mod). This is theoretically avoidably by only licensing the python code included in the mod, and only having the license cover modifications made to the python code. Whether you can treat the two as separate entities in this way is beyond the scope of my knowledge and I would speculate that it is most likely a gray area.

Fair enough. I can see your point. If there were any problems then yes, we'd just license the distribution of the Python code, which we have every right to do as they are fully original pieces of work, and as such we can license them however we see fit. Now enough legal mumbo jumbo. None of this would ever get to court anyways. If you have some kind of serious objection, contact eggman.

[Wasteland]

It is somewhat surprising that all of these supporters of what is in fact a mod of a game with a very different game play intent, make so many comments condemning what is in fact doing the very same thing.

This argument does not hold. EA is a corporation. It operates with the intent of making money. PR does not in any way get in the way of EA's goal. In fact it contributes to it (I have personally convinced three people IRL to buy BF2 for the sole purpose of playing PR). So the BF2 "modders" in the case of PR do not get in the way of the "moddee's" (EA's) goal.

However, CDU and other SSMs do get in the way of their "moddee's" (PR's) goals. PR attempts to create a tactical gaming community from a game that is originally non-tactical.

I find it deeply disturbing that BSS would decide to make itself a contributer to the rising tide of overly obtrusive and legally questionable software licensing, and an enemy of our fair use rights as consumers.

"Fair use rights as consumers". This is interesting. I am indeed very much in favor of this kind of advocacy generally. I believe that if I buy a CD, I should be able to upload it to my computer, remix it, etc. If I buy the latest Harry Potter book, and my little sister and I both want to read it, I should be allowed to download it in PDF form for one of us to read while the other reads the hard copy.

However, when you don't buy PR, you have no rights to it. By playing it, you're just capitalizing on the good will of the devs. And because you are entirely in their debt while playing it, they should of course have limitless rights in telling you how it must be played. If you don't like it, you have the option of not playing.

[Gaz]

"Fair use rights as consumers"....
...However, when you don't buy PR, you have no rights to it.

Thanks for saying it before I did You are only a 'consumer' under law if you have paid for a service or product.

The decisions regarding this approach have been taken by the highest levels within the Project Reality Modification Team. No amount of arguing about your rights, of which you don't have any to be perfectly honest by using a free mod, will change this approach. This approach has proved to be a nesessary step from past experiences. This approach will safeguard how we, the creators of this mod, insist the mod should be played. It will not suit *everyone*, and it's not meant to. Those who do enjoy it will have a pure experience from 0.6 onwards, ensuring no server creates a less than pure playing experience that would be 'less than PR'.

Just to clarify one small point. This approach has not just been implimented *just* because of =CDU= clan, although they were the catalyst that has triggered the renewed call from the Dev team for us to protect our own work and Intellectual Property (IP). There were other servers during 0.5's lifespan that had a negative effect in much the same way.

I think this has been discussed to death to be perfectly honest. Any further developments will be handled by the appropriate PR Management team members.

To answer the *original* post, it's should be weeks, but hopefully no more than 4. Keep checking the news page, along with new updates regarding the Open Beta for info from eggman Locked, as the topic's off-topic and the original question's been answered.

Regards,

Gaz