[...]
Looking at the article some more, I think I have a better understanding now:
In 2010, Gearbox buys some subset of the Duke Nukem IP from 3DR. There seems to be a disagreement over who got what from this:
- Gearbox believes they got full game rights, while 3DR kept full tv/movie rights.
- 3DR believes they kept all rights to the old games, and Gearbox got all rights to new stuff.
In 2013, 3DR -- believing they still own the rights to Duke3D -- contracts TerminX for HttK.
In 2014, Gearbox sues 3DR. They settle out of court. We don't know the terms of the settlement, but 3DR's letter to TerminX suggests that Gearbox got ALL rights -- new and old -- to Duke Nukem.
So now there are two interpretations of whether 3DR's contract with TerminX has any validity:
- From 3DR's perspective, they owned the rights to Duke3D when they contracted TerminX, but then gave them away in the settlement, transferring their contract to Gearbox in the process. In this interpretation, TerminX has every right to continue his work, and Gearbox has no right to retroactively change the terms of the contract they inheritted.
- From Gearbox's perspective, 3DR did not own the rights to Duke3D when 3DR contracted TerminX, and the settlement merely re-affirmed Gearbox's prior rights to Duke3D. In this interpretation, in order for TerminX to continue his work he needs to agree to a new contract with Gearbox.
So it re-opens the original question of who had which rights before the settlement. Either way it still sounds like Gearbox is jerking TerminX around.
I also wouldn't be to sure that eduke32 is totally safe. Gearbox owns Duke Nukem in full including Duke 3D and they have money and lawyers and ways to get what they want. Plus the new Duke 3D Gearbox is working on is going to make old con and map files not work with it. There will be a new con and map file layout that will cancel out existing mods and only work for new.
The source code to Duke3Dv1.5 was released under the GPL. Gearbox can choose not to release future versions under the GPL, but I'm not sure you can just retroactively revoke it from code that's already been released under it. It doesn't seem like it would make any sense, but I don't think it's ever been tested in court before.
Ken Silverman still seems to own the copyright to the Build engine itself, so at least that part's definitely safe.