Team ARG disappeared- how to get their games?

I don’t really think you fully comprehend the extents to which he doesn’t want to deal with this exact kind of issues any more. One commiserates.

I still might try.

However, since you found that complete fork/clone (though not forked using the GitHub feature) of Cabi, I think I could pull an earlier version from it, that has CC0 as the LICENSE file, then leave my version under CC0. One would have to assume that the LICENSE file would apply to the cabi.c source code. (As I said, lodepng.c and lodepng.h are covered by the zlib licence included in each.) The cabi.c file has not been altered since it was first committed, 30 seconds after the CC0 LICENSE file was committed, on the repository creation date of Feb. 15, 2016.

I would still attribute, in the README file, (though not assign copyright to) Team A.R.G. and Zep as authors (and myself as a modifier) of cabi.c.

As a point of interest, it appears the reason the repository was copied was to fix one of the compiler warnings that I also intend to.

Hi – I’m in the original author of cabi.c. I handed the source to JO3RI knowing it was to be added to the an MIT-Licensed repo. So technically it is available under both licenses, but you can go ahead and remove the CC0 note to make things clearer/simpler (and AFAICT, the stipulations of CC0 itself allow anyone to do so). I don’t remember what “abe” stands for, why I renamed it to “cabi”, or what cabi stands for.


My best guess: Compressed ArduBoy Image

1 Like


I’m @castpixel on twitter, I made graphics and animations (also the team ARG logo) for a few TEAM ARG projects.

@zep told me about this

I’d like to have my graphics under a CC-NC-BY ((requires attribution, non-commercial use)) license. Can whoever is managing that github make it happen?

Also, I doubt anyone will re-use those graphics, but if you want quality 1-bit graphics, hire me, I’m very good. And can do with some work.

I don’t know anything about the code, though.

thanks, Christina

ETA: blob attack, dice of fate and the splash screens of mystic balloon and virus lgq are mine


Hi @castpixel Nice to see you here.

Good to know thos graphics are yours and CC-NC-BY I thought the sprites of mystic balloon and virus LQP-79 where yours too.

Thank you for taking the trouble to give us this information. I was just in the middle of composing an email to you asking about it (which I’ve discarded).

I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that even though anyone could re-license a CC0 work under MIT, the work could still be treated as being under CC0 by anyone wishing to. Therefore, any copyrights and/or MIT licence stipulations could be ignored, since CC0 is less restrictive.

If any changes were made to the code, the MIT licence, or any other, could be applied to those changes, but in the case of cabi.c there were no changes made between stipulating the CC0 licence and @JO3RI changing it to MIT. (Note that the Cabi repository, including the CC0 LICENSE file, was created on Feb. 15, 2016 and the LICENSE file wasn’t changed to MIT until 8 months later on Oct. 25, 2016.)

Since it is now clear that the cabi.c code itself (not just the RLE algorithm) was originally under CC0, thus relinquishing any copyright claims, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to subsequently claim copyrights or add MIT licence requirements.

If you or anyone else doesn’t object, I propose that I change the licence back to CC0 but include, in cabi.c and the README file, an acknowledgement that you (@zep) are the author of the code and that you contributed it to the Team A.R.G. organisation.

@zep, Regardless of what licence ends up being used, how would you like to be named, as either an author or copyright holder? E.g.:
Zep @lexaloffle
Joseph White

1 Like

@Mr.Blinky I made the sprites of mystic balloon prettier, and made all the level graphics for that game, but I remember there were some graphics already. Possibly by @Gaveno


That’s an interesting point. I’m fine either way, and I think in any case the intention is clear enough. Just “zep” is fine.

@Mr.Blinky ah… of course that’s what it stands for. Thanks, that was bugging me!


OMG @zep on the Arduboy forums I better go post something over at pico8… :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


Or discuss future plans with @zep ? A creditcard sized pico8 console should be doable right? :smiley:


よろしくおねがいします、@zep さん。

First thing’s first, thank you for taking the time to get involved and help clear things up.

If I had to guess, probably ‘ArduBoy Encoder’.

I’ll put it on my to do list.

Presumably by “CC-NC-BY” you mean CC BY-NC 4.0?

(The versions have subtle but sometimes important differences.
More info here.)

If @Gaveno can confirm either way, that would also be helpful.

I can imagine hypothetical situations where this wouldn’t be clear cut and courts might side either way,
but fortunately we’re not dealing with hypotheticals or court cases and there are no confounding variables,
now that we have testimony from one of the authors that the original was indeed CC0,
it’s all quite straight-forward:

The version in the git history prior to the licence change is available under CC0 and the version published afterwards is available under MIT.
(Git history makes a lot of these licensing conundrums easier to resolve.)
The fact both of those versions are (more or less) identical saves us from having to worry about a situation in which code was introduced after the licensing change.

It’s technically allowed when the change accompanies the publishing of a new version of the code, but as long as the ‘public domain’ version is also still published*, having a ‘some rights reserved’ version is somewhat futile unless changes are made or new code is introduced.

(*Removing the public domain version so it’s no longer publicly accessible and thus no longer ‘published’ is the start of the road where things start to get complicated.)

Likewise I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve done quite a bit of reading into this sort of thing.

That raises another important question:
Did JO3RI actually change anything between being handed the code and publishing it on GitHub?

If not then technically Zep is the only author and thus the only one entitled to copyright (which has been effectively waived by publishing as CC0).
Otherwise, both are authors and both have effectively waived all copyright claims by publishing under CC0.
(‘Effectively waived’ because some jurisdictions don’t allow you to waive all copyrights.)

Not “more or less”; exactly identical. CC0 can only apply to cabi.c and (and maybe the added .gitignore and cabi binary compiled for MAC).

The LICENSE file, containing the CC0 text, and a simple two line, only, were added as the very first commit. cabi.c, only, was added as the second commit, 30 seconds later. cabi.c was never changed at all after this initial commit. was changed a number of times but not after the LICENSE file was changed from CC0 to MIT. Changing the license, only, was the last commits made to the repository, 8 months after the previous commit with a change to

So it’s really the “same difference”.

I get the feeling that Zep is the only author. (At least the only one claiming authorship.) The only mention of Team A.R.G. having a hand in it is in the copyright in the MIT version of LICENSE. Even if @JO3RI or some other Team A.R.G. member made changes, there was ever only one version of cabi.c published and that was (slightly) after the CC0 LICENSE file was published.

Anyway I plan on attributing authorship to Zep and saying he contributed it to Team A.R.G.

1 Like

Is it reasonable to open these up to enhancements and PR’s ?
For instance, I was just reviewing Virus LQP-79 that has bug fixes documented in these forums and the PR is trivial. Future updates may fix EEPROM management and improve compatibility with the FX chip, etc. … The code may just bit-rot as things move forwards and we keep the code locked.

Perhaps, but I’d have to spend some time thinking about the best way to do it.
There’s a lot of games and I don’t want to be suddenly inundated with more PRs and issues than a single person can handle.

I’d originally intended to just create a kind of time capsule - a museum rather than a renactment society,
but I’m open to either:

  • Splitting the games into the ‘archived’ and ‘active’ versions
    • As long as either the PRs are few or there are other people to help maintain it
  • Starting a second organisation to handle the ‘active’ versions
    • Again, with other people pitching in
  • Other people just forking the archived versions, making the fixes and then taking responsibility for maintaining those forks
    • I specifically checked that forks of archived repos can be modified for precisely this reason - the code is never truly ‘locked’ as long as someone can fork it and edit the fork
1 Like

@Pharap, If you do decide to make some repositories ‘active’, I suggest you try to find and clone a repository with the Team A.R.G. complete commit history as a base, as we discussed recently in a PM topic. I don’t mind doing the work for this.

Great to see this stuff is being ARGhived to this day Virus LQP-79 remains a favourite.

1 Like

I’d be happy to help maintain Virus at least. Would be great to have the full commit history. The Museum has none?

No. @Pharap just downloaded the .zip file for the latest commit of each repository. He then uploaded the files to newly created repositories in the museum.

sure CC BY-NC 4.0