[GetDizzy]

I'm having a hell of a time finding the source to the latest official release of MZX. I want it because I'm on Sabayon and dont want to bother with the Arch or Ubuntu binaries. I can't find the source on this site, the sourceforge page has source for 2.82b and older only, and ajs's site only has trunk builds. What happened to the source for 2.83 and, more importantly, why is it not prominently linked somewhere? This would seem to be a major GPL violation.

[Lachesis]

You can readily get the latest GIT source. The missing 2.83 source (and 2.82b source) in The Vault has been known of for an entire year, just apparently nobody who cares has the ability to fix it.

This post has been edited by Lachesis: 22 July 2011 - 08:08 PM

[GetDizzy]

I don't WANT the latest GIT source. I want to participate in the DoZ.

Also 2.82b has source at sourceforge.

[Lachesis]

Then maybe you should use a REAL operating system, like MSDOS 6.22

edit: http://mzx.devzero.co.uk/mzx283/ 2 second google search :p

[Lachesis]

Stop editing my post and maybe you'll find the MZX 2.83 source :P

[GetDizzy]

Thanks lach. That should definitely be linked somewhere though. I think I'll make a community news post for now, if nobody has any objections?

It not being obviously findable seems to me to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL.

[Lachesis]

The Google search linked me to the MZX 2.83 release thread. Of course, the release was like 2 years ago so maybe that doesn't count as "readily findable," I didn't think of it at first at least

[GetDizzy]

Neither did I. In any case, that should suffice for now.

[ajs]

I agree that somebody should fix the fork of mzx283 in the archive to attach the source. How hard can this be? Even if MZXG isn't around to fix it, somebody else must have the keys to the dungeon. Right? You're not wrong that having the binaries hosted on DMZX without source DOES violate the GPL, as the binary package itself DOES NOT link to the source.

OTOH, I think the way you went about this -- ranting to the developers via the tracker, and posting an unnecessary community update -- was not the best approach. For starters, I didn't release to or upload to DMZX at any point. I never have. Somebody else submitted a re-packed version of MZX 2.83 to the archive with Caverns, and whoever this was should have uploaded the source at the same time. This action was completely out of the hands of the developers.

--ajs.

[Lachesis]

I'm guessing whoever did that didn't have the ability to add the source, either, or they'd have already done it. Most users can't add multiple zip files to an entry, leaving it to whoever has access to the Vault internally. MZXGiant would/should have at least given the keys to somebody else, since he's been quite clear that he doesn't plan to do any more work on this website.

edit: not that they shouldn't have uploaded a separate entry in the Vault for the source, since there's a separate entry for pretty much every flavor of MZX 2.83

This post has been edited by Lachesis: 22 July 2011 - 09:56 PM

[GetDizzy]

I'm sorry for any offense I caused any of the developers, I simply want this issue resolved as it really does not look good to not have a ready link to the source with the binary itself.

[Dr Lancer-X]

wow what the hell

Yes, it's annoying having to go to ajs' site to grab the source package, but it's been like that for ages and I don't get why all of a sudden it's a two-thread-and-bug-tracker-issue problem. Can't any of the many people with archive access fix it? Can't Insidious fix it?

[GetDizzy]

I don't have access to the archive part of the site at all, with the exception of being able to edit summaries and such. I can't add extra files to an archive. I gave a second thread to this because I wasnt aware there was a thread already with a link to the source in Community News, something ajs very kindly pointed out to me.

Also, its not a matter of annoyance, its a legal matter.

EDIT: To clarify for Lancer, you can't change the files on an archive once its been submitted. Nor can you add an "extra" file to an archive during submission. So to do what we have traditionally done, add the source as a link alongside the Windows binary, you would need raw access to the SQL tables, which nobody here has.

Someone could, easily, add the MegaZeux source as a different "game" altogether, but for some reason (probably because it would look odd alongside the 2.82-and-earlier releases which didnt do this) nobody has done that. Even a non-admin member could submit the MZX source this way.

[GetDizzy]

There was nothing here. There was never anything here >.<

Explanation: I found a hidden record from before the 2.83 refresh which did have source linked but I didn't want to confuse members into downloading an older, possibly broken 2.83