UE1 - Unreal 1 for PPC

First of all, I would like to thank @BSzili for sharing the PPC fixes for the project https://github.com/fgsfdsfgs/UE1
As usual, I was tempted to make a test version. The UE1 version for AOS4 is based on opengles2 and the latest version of SDL2 from 2.32.8.
Due to the lack of open source code for UE1, this will probably remain a test version only. It will not be made available to the public.
The UE1 code is still closed. The sources are based on code that has been leaked and is not officially available to the public.

Tests performed on my QEMU 10 + GPU passthrough -> https://www.amigans.net/modules/newbb/ ... id=154112#forumpost154112
My QEMU emulation is very poor, so please don't take the speed into account. QEMU doesn't like large FPU calculations.
On a real PPC with a Radeon HD/RX graphics card, it will blow your mind


Regarding the video - the default.ini file is not the one that UE1 runs with. Unreal.ini is the one it works with (I'm mentioning this because it can be confusing).




I hope that something will change regarding the Unreal Engine 1 license, or that it will inspire someone “brave” to do so and release it publicly for AOS4.

I'd like to remind everyone that wiepeout-rewrite was also based on leaked sources. Nobody tried to spread FUD and fearmonger that Sony is about to ruin everyone, so I hope cooled heads will prevail.

From the available information I do not feel it was fearmongering.
Of course I might have been wrong on my assessment of the risk.

I also did not want to badword your great work - I just felt you did go into quite a risk and should warn about this. I admit the discussion went a bit out of hand.

As to Wipeout rewrite I was not aware until you told me it was a similar situation. But probably the thing is that in this case the ID Holders really don't care for it any longer (still myselves I would not touch it, but that's because I do porting of commercial titles myselves).

I found it BTW great you shared your fixes with smarkusg, even though this is probably "more stuff not allowed"

And I sincerely hope that nothing bad will happen due to the MorphOS version release.

I personally (!) think the way smarkusg handles it is fine though - he did a compile for himselves and did not release it to the public.

Personally I think they really should OpenSource this old title and get this whole discussions on many platforms done and over with. I am sure this issue does not only exist for AmigaOS and MorphOS...

How many peole were sued by Sony for Wipeout-rewrite beause it's based on leaked sources? How many ports based on the Wipeout-rewrite were taken down by Sony? The answer is none. What makes people think Epic would do any of that for UE1?

I also wonder available information do you mean specifically. So far all the FUD is based on a single person's speculation, who proudly proclaimed they didn't even look at the leak. I can back up all of my claims with publicly available information, and give a detailed breakdown of my risk assessment regarding Epic's attitude towards UE1.

Not sure if Epic still cares about UE1, but Unreal and UT99 are freeware btw.

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/unre ... d-epic-says-thats-a-okay/

@helloworld: Yes, the datafiles are freeware. Nothing about the source-code. And the guys from OldUnreal cited in that article you link signed a contract with Epic for that. Epic still preserved that compiles for new platforms need to be agreed by them. IMHO they should not have made it so complicated and just OpenSourced the bloody thing ^^ I think on that we all here agree.

And I think it is dangerous to assume that because one huge company doesn't care another huge company will behave the same way. But well it is your (Bszili) risk, not my business, really ^^ As I said - I hope nothing bad will happen.

@BSzili
Quote:

Where is that written? There is no information about it here https://github.com/phoboslab/wipeout-rewrite

Do you see any copyright information in the source files of the port? There isn't any, unlike UE1.
There is a description on GitHub.
“There are none. This code may or may not be based on the source code of the PC version (ATI-Rage) that was leaked in 2022. If so, it probably infringes copyright, but it may also be subject to fair use.”
Full responsibility lies with the person who published the sources, even if they are sources that have been cut and the copyright information removed.
I can use them.


I don't understand the point of this discussion and examples. If someone wants to, they can copy UE1 at their own risk and publish whatever they want.

The point of this discussion is to stop the FUD and fearmongering. Here are the examples:
https://os4depot.net/?function=showfil ... =game/driving/wipeout.lha
Quote:

https://phoboslab.org/log/2023/08/rewriting-wipeout
Quote:

So are you saying that if I remove Epic's copyright messages then the leaked sources are fine to use?

@BSzili
For me, yes, I will definitely not suffer any consequences if I use them. For the person who did it, there may certainly be a problem in the future if someone claims them.
Why do you think license information is included in every source file?

Okay, so the sole means of taking ownership of sources is the license in the file header, so every leak automatically become public domain if it gets removed. Got it.
Let's move onto the next part. What makes you think Epic will take legal action on people doing ports based on the leaked UE1 sources?

@BSzili
Why are you asking me this?

They wanted to release the Unreal Engine 1 source code. This was not done because not everyone working on the code agreed to it. That's the problem.
They accepted the PC game that was uploaded to archive.org. They even wrote that it would be nice if a port for contemporary machines were released.
You did a great job with the PPC port, by the way. Maybe you should ask them what proprietary code is or if they have any complaints about the code?
I have no idea, and I don't know if you're just asking to troll me.


ps
I regret that I even did the UE1 test under AOS4
I apologize to everyone reading this thread.

I'm asking you because you are spreading the FUD too. Had Sony wanted to pursue legal they could have taken down all the ports based on wipeout-rewrite.
Rockstar issued DMCA takedowns on clean room reverse engineered GTA3 sources. Do you think those contained copyright information in their header?
If copyright law worked the way you described it then all the software licenses would be completely unenforceable and useless.

@BSzili
I'll just say it straight out—I'm not interested in SONY and the DMA description.
You used code with reserved rights. As I wrote, that's not my problem.
Licenses in the source code are always marked.

I believe that all the sides made their point, and I also believe that everyone here want to have the game for both OS4 and morphos available. It doesn't make any sense to try to persuade each other and we can't speculate what the companies did or may do in the future. It would be good to respect each other's opinion. Let's move on.

If github didnt remove it, why anyone worry about ? It just can be forked, patchs applied and readme written how to compile, at worst. At best just compile os4 version and put same at github. If action ever will be taken, remove and that all. No probs imho (and taking aside anyone from real world worry about os4 or mos ports today)

@smarkusg
Now you don't care about it, but you were eager to start an argument about it, and came up with mental gymnastics about copyright lines in source files being the only determining factor in whether a company can take legal action or not.
Anyway, let's continue with this claim:
Quote:
What do you base this on? Where did anyone from Epic, or someone who is in direct contact Epic with them ever say this? If it's only speculation on your part, then let me turn this argument on its head.
The leaked sources have been on GitHub since 2020. If Epic didn't want the sources to be out there, why didn't they take down this repository and all of its forks in all these years?
Are we to believe that Epic now cares about UE1 sources more, after they pulled the game from all digital stores and released it as freeware?
There is a PlayStation Vita port released in 2024 based on the same sources. This happened after making the game freeware, yet there has been no legal action taken against it. It remains available to this day.
My point is that the PS Vita is arguably more high profile than all the Amiga-NG platforms combined, yet somehow the NG ports would be the canary in the coalmine?

@smarkusg
I almost forgot about this gem
Quote:
Are you seriously arguing that every single game company that ever existed meticulously put copyright notices and licenses in their source tree, just in case they ever get leaked? Do you want me to link the archive.org category for game sources so we can play a counting game of how many have it?

@BSzili
Quote:
Read what I wrote again and you'll understand.
You changed the code containing this information.

As for the rest of what you wrote...

I'm definitely not going to answer, but if you try, you'll find the answer. I don't want to waste my time on pointless, stupid discussions.

I still don't understand what's bothering you so much, and I have to explain myself.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the story.

That's not an argument. What's bothering me is hypocrisy and dishonest scare tactics.
Look how confident you were proclaiming that you care deeply about legality of the sources,
and now you have argued yourself into a corner with the argument about copyright notices in source files.
If you really cared about being held responsible or the legal status of the sources then you wouldn't touched leaked sources period, just like Steffen.
Companies can take you to task for any work derived from their property, even if it's created using reverse engineering. EULAs usually have a clause that explicitly forbids this. Their legal department won't just throw their hand in the air because there was no copyright notice in the source files.