Federal Prison Tablet version

[sdevaney]

I think they could make the case that the BOP version is not actually 'released to the public' so they don't have to release the source of their modified version.

[tactical371]

I think they could make the case that the BOP version is not actually 'released to the public' so they don't have to release the source of their modified version.

The BOP is not under obligation to release the source code of their modified version on github. But they ARE under obligation to give a copy of the source code to the users of their program upon request. And those users ARE permitted, but not obligated, to post the code publicly on the internet. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... stedPublic , https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... PLAllowNDA , and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... llowModNDA .

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? (#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA)

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org.

If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? (#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA)

No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work on a more restrictive basis.

[tactical371]

Also see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to ... tml#Access

“Access”

It is a common misunderstanding to think free software means that the public has “access” to a program. That is not what free software means.

The criterion for free software is not about who has “access” to the program; the four essential freedoms concern what a user that has a copy of the program is allowed to do with it. For instance, freedom 2 says that that user is free to make another copy and give or sell it to you. But no user is obligated to do that for you; you do not have a right to demand a copy of that program from any user.

In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy to anyone else, that program is free software albeit in a trivial way, because every user that has a copy has the four essential freedoms (since the only such user is you).

In practice, when many users have copies of a program, someone is sure to post it on the internet, giving everyone access to it. We think people ought to do that, if the program is useful. But that isn't a requirement of free software.

There is one specific point in which a question of having access is directly pertinent to free software: the GNU GPL permits giving a particular user access to download a program's source code as a substitute for physically giving that user a copy of the source. This applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of the program in non-source form.

Instead of with free software, the public has access to the program, we say, with free software, the users have the essential freedoms and with free software, the users have control of what the program does for them.

[rijackson741]

I think they could make the case that the BOP version is not actually 'released to the public' so they don't have to release the source of their modified version.

That's a stretch. I doubt a court would agree with that. But it's a moot point, and they know that. Since we have zero income, we have zero money to hire a lawyer. So they know they can just do whatever they want to do, and we can't do anything about it. For them, it's easy money. We do the work, they sell what we created. Immoral? Yes, but they don't care. Illegal? Perhaps, but they still don't care because we have no resources to pursue it. So they win.

On the upside, the incarcerated get what we have been told is the most popular game in prisons. I don't want to take that away from them.

My beef is that they didn't even contact us, and would not reply even when I reached out to them. Given that we created the content, that's really f*****g rude! Then they make botched changes to a couple of quests. We could have done a much better job in a tenth of the time it took them, at no cost to them (because we have no way to collect money). So they are both rude and stupid. And I hope those responsible read this!

[Fednmate24]

How many quests are not completable? I'm in the BOP, and play this game all day, every day. I cannot seem to get past a few quests or get to certain parts of the map.

[Message posted on behalf of inmate from family member]

[Antison]

There's 4 from us in version 0.8.9, but we know virtually nothing about what BOP has done to our game and no idea what version they have.

[Canuck]

For whatever one lone voice is worth, on purely humanitarian grounds we could decide to provide an alternate path for Flagstone that doesn't involve killing the undead warden, or (more simply) rename the monster so that it doesn't have "warden" in its name.

Standing too firm on principle can make us forget about basic kindness.

[Antison]

We're not going to modify the quest because some jerk group decided to modify our quests to satisfy their requirements.

[Nut]

I don't agree here. We are not the same opinion in the dev team - I would be in favour to add changes that would work for prison versions.

Anyway it is pointless to discuss it further, because the people who take and change our version never talk with us.
So we neither know what they change nor we know what would be acceptable for prison.

So it makes no difference, if we want to do anything here or not. We can't so we won't.

[Canuck]

From the discussion here, It looks like the restriction is only against things that imply prison violence, such as attacking prison staff or escaping. That's not fully confirmed, but I didn't read a report in this thread of anything else that was taken out.