An alert player informed me that a company named GCM Enterprises released a shareware port of Space Trader under the name "Galaxy-G". According to the GPL, under which Space Trader is released, this is illegal. Furthermore, I see no reason why someone would create a shareware Windows port of the game when a free one already exists.
I sent GCM the following email message on September 23, 2005:
Dear sirs,
Someone informed me of the fact that you created a Windows port of my game "Space Trader" (http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/p.spronck/picoverse/spacetrader/), which I created for the Palm. You have named the Windows port "Galaxy-G" (http://www.gcment.com/galaxyg.aspx). I have checked out the demo version, and I have confirmed that it is, indeed, a straightforward port of Space Trader, with new graphics and sound added.
Space Trader has been released under a GPL license. As such, you are certainly allowed to create a port of the game. In fact, I applaud your efforts in this respect. According to the GPL, you are also allowed to sell your port.
However, the GPL specificaly requires two things you do not comply with:
(1) Any port of the game MUST also be released under the GPL. You do not comply with this requirement, since you try to impose your own license agreement during Galaxy-G's installation. This is not legal. Galaxy-G, as a port of a GPL game, should also be released under the GPL. If you do not wish to do that, you cannot release the game.
(2) Any port of the game MUST make its source code available to the public. You do not comply with this requirement, since I cannot find the source code on your website, nor with the game, nor do I find any statement with the game on how to acquire the source code.
I include the complete copy of the GPL license under which Space Trader is released with this message. I politely request that you as soon as possible implement changes to Galaxy-G and your distribution of the game to comply with the GPL license.
With regards,
Pieter Spronck.
I received an answer from Gerald McKoy of GCM Enterprises on September 26, 2005:
Greetings Mr. Spronck,
I was quite surprised to receive an email from you. I was even more surprised after reading it. I have received the attached GPL license for review. I have reviewed the GPL license and find that we will not be able to release the Galaxy-G game under it due to the fact that we used quite a few third party tools and libraries with varying license agreements in the development of the Galaxy-G product. Consequently, since the Galaxy-G product was a labor of love and since our company is involved with more pressing matters at the moment we have decided to pull the Galaxy-G game from our website and from our RegNow vendor listings and cease our marketing and selling of the Galaxy-G product.
Thank You,
Gerald McKoy
GCM Enterprises
www.gcment.com
I sent Mr. McKoy the following answer on the same day:
Dear Mr. McKoy,
Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate that you take this matter seriously.
While you have certainly answered my concerns by pulling the Galaxy-G product from you website and the vendor listings, I do not think it is necessary to take such drastic measures, which are not in the spirit of the GPL at all. The GPL is meant to stimulate software development and the release of good software products. It is not a "viral" license, as some large commercial software producers try to make the public believe.
As I said, two things are needed for you to comply with the license. First, you have to release the product under the GPL license too. Second, you have to give users access to the source code.
The first is easy: you just replace the license you show at the start of the installation with the GPL license.
For the second, you can, for instance, include the source code with the registered version of the game. You do not need to provide access to third-party products, as long as you include a short description of what is needed to compile the game.
The only circumstances I can imagine where this would not be possible, is if you have used proprietary code which is generally unavailable, or if you used proprietary code which you changed for this game but cannot release.
If Galaxy-G is indeed the product of a labor of love, as Space Trader is, I assume you deplore that it is no longer available to the public. Releasing the product under the GPL might even work to your advantage, as players can send you updates and extensions for the game.
All the best,
Pieter Spronck.
It think it is too bad that Mr. McKoy saw no other way to comply with the GPL than pulling Galaxy-G from the web. I hope my answer will stimulate him to seek a way to release the game again. However, if that is not possible, at least I am very happy that the GPL has been upheld in this case.