risen3d licencing discussion

[Julian]

DooMAD said:

Yes, but unless Risen3D do release the code, nothing can be proven. It's entirely possible that code has been stolen, but it's not a certainty.

You're right on target here.

Say I want to make a closed-source doom-compatible engine. All I have at my disposal to start are open-source engines with parts (if not the entire engine) that put you in the obligation of releasing source code based on them (so-called derived work).

Yes, but you're that smart.

You take one or several of these engines and start hacking into it, slowly rewritting (no matter how heavily, it is still derived work) parts after parts. You release binaries to get regression tests for free but never release the code.

At one point, you have heavily modified everything up to a point it looks like code from scratch. If someone was to look at your code, he wouldn't be able to see what you based it on. However, legally, it is still a derived work. But it cannot be proven since you never distributed in-progress source code.

What it means is that you can make it closed-source now, since no court would be able to prove it is a derived work. Don't be fooled: there IS a market for this kind of engines on lower-end hardware.

That's why you're right on target here. That's the whole point of the discussion.

HOWEVER

I sense a bit of paranoia around here. The website clearly states R3D is based off JDoom which would defeat the 'plan' I described above (clear evidence of derived work).

It is also very possible the guys behind R3D don't feel comfortable enough with their code to have it released yet. On a personal note, this is the reason why I never released RORDoom's source code: not mature enough.

So no matter what you think of eachothers, no matter how outraged you are not to get an half-baked modification of your own creation "RIGHT NOW!", no matter how outraged you are people are actually asking you to comply with licensing: COOL THE FUCK DOWN.

I also wonder if it wouldn't be much more simple to ask Raven to dual license their code. My 2 cents tho.

[Quasar]

Raven refuses to deal with us in a fair and level-handed manner. They ignore emails, they ignore petitions, and they ignore all of the thousands of problems that their stupid license has caused.

I don't hold any hope that Raven will soon reverse the decision on this because I think it probably ultimately comes down to the higher-up suits in Activision in the end. In other words, guys who make their living dealing in "intellectual property." To them, the GPL is fiscal suicide, despite the fact they've now passed up obvious opportunities to officially port Heretic and Hexen to a plethora of new platforms including GBA and Nintendo DS. Frankly I was shocked that a Heretic and/or Hexen game didn't quickly follow GBA DOOM. For a company so concerned about keeping a grip on their "IP," they're certainly not going out of their way to make any use of it.

I wonder if something more personal than my previous petition attempt could get any results. Like maybe a committee-written letter signed by every single DOOM port author this problem affects. I'm sure Heit and Graf would sign, you've got me, SoM, and joe, the JDoom guys should be interested even if it's not a problem for them directly; who else? I think it's our last hope to put this stupid Raven license issue behind us for good.

[myk]

Quasar said:
who else?

John Carmack. I heard he did some development work on the Doom source as well, in his time. Once you have an agreement with all the others you can contact him to add twice the weight to the thing.

Note that this'll probably not change much of the particular problem in question here, though; it will merely help people be able to release GPL projects with Raven stuff, which is great for the future but not what this issue is about, since such a change isn't going to be applied retroactively.

Julian Hope said:
That's why you're right on target here. That's the whole point of the discussion.

According to the Doomsday developers the Risen3D team is working publicly with free software they have released, in a closed way. And apparently the reason why they do this is either that they will release it but it's "not ready" (that part about the algorithms not being worth showing yet) or that they consider the GPL nature of the version they take from not vaild (more or less what deep says).

I'd say a concern about free sources not being released or respected is a quite valid one that should be given space to be worked out. This community is possible through the agreements and licenses between the authors involved. Raw work alone without such organized agreements and mutual respect would not have got us far.

Also, how much of this depends on the Risen3D team releasing the code when the substance of the disagreement resides on the status of the Doomsday sources? To me the talk about Risen3D having possibly replaced all the free source is irrelevant because one of the authors of Risen3D stated that he thinks Doomsday was not under the GPL when Risen3D was started from it. If he thinks that, why then even try to replace anything? He didn't even bring up replacing stuff as an argument, except in explaining what he saw as an ambiguity in regard to another source code (GZDoom).

You can "derive" closed source software from free software in your own environment all you want, as long as you keep it to yourself (test it with your friends "offline") and what you do eventually release does not contain free sources. That it can't be verified? You never know, but in any case, publicly stating you're basing a closed project on open software tends to bring you attention, scrutiny, and potential trouble.

It is stated by the authors, on their site, that software that is claimed to be "free" by its (previous) authors is being worked on, with binaries that have been released to the public for user testing, and with the author having refused to provide any sources when asked for this software (since you must provide them if you release a binary of GPLed sources to the public).

Personally I have an idea; in a way the open source status of Doomsday was also disputed when it was not accepted into a Linux distribution, as it was not deemed suitable due to being mixed with Raven sources. Perhaps it would be wise to consider the GPL application invalid till now, that the project is being cleaned up for proper compatibility?

[andrewj]

Yagisan said:

I'm curious, why did you grant a GPL exception to Risen3D for GLBSP ?

I have not granted any exception to Risen3D.

As fas as I know, Risen3D is running GLBSP as a normal program, not linking to it as a library. Let me know if this is not the case.

[Quasar]

Ok, I'm going to move the Raven issue discussion to a separate thread in this forum. We can draw up a battle plan there.

[CODOR]

Well if the Risen3D team is in fact being evil and isn't just rewriting everything or unsure of their own code (and if that's the case then they should at least say so), then I think the best course of action would be to perform an occult ritual, cursing the hard drives of every single one the Risen3D developers' computers to crash in a GLDoom-like end to the port. Then everyone else could say "ah, if only you had released the source!"

myk said:
Probably 3D Downloads. Look at the date of the ZIP and TXT files at id Software's FTP.

That be the one. It's a little weird that id's own FTP server (and /idstuff) has the old licensed version and not the GPLed one.

[deathz0r]

A large variety of people have said:

Stuff about licensing and source releases

Meanwhile, over at ZDaemon and Skulltag...

Come on now, how long has the source codes for ZDaemon and Skulltag been undisclosed for? Well over a year for each? Why is Risen3D so important when ZDaemon and Skulltag aren't, yet they clearly fall under the same category as Risen3D?

Not that I'm actively taking a stand in this for the time being, but I raise a valid question that I would like answered by a major player in this debate.

[Quasar]

Yeah, I find it very hard to believe that there's no GPL code in either of those ports. Especially seeing how ZDoom at various points of time included code from Quake II. I've also heard of Quakeworld code being used in some closed-source ports, and I don't think that's legal either.

[myk]

deathz0r said:
Come on now, how long has the source codes for ZDaemon and Skulltag been undisclosed for? Well over a year for each? Why is Risen3D so important when ZDaemon and Skulltag aren't, yet they clearly fall under the same category as Risen3D?

Keep in mind that any relation they may have gained to the GPL in the past was through CSDoom, which mixed Quakeworld, DOOM license, and any ZDoom v1.22 specific sources. The only possible solution for that was the removal of the GPL code, the removal of any ZDoom stuff conflicting with the GPL, or the cancellation and deletion of the project. With ZDaemon v1.0 the Quakeworld source was gone, so I'd say that, from what I know, these engines are more or less safe with the license combinations that ZDoom uses. They certainly aren't free software in the sense GPL projects are, and I don't think it can be argued that they have to release their sources.

[RTC_Marine]

it would be nice to actually see some evidence that zdaemon states it has no gpl code in it, just to clear things up in that area.

[deathz0r]

myk said:

With ZDaemon v1.0 the Quakeworld source was gone, so I'd say that, from what I know, these engines are more or less safe with the license combinations that ZDoom uses.

Nightfang was maintaining ZDaemon post-0.99 from 1.0 to 1.04 (or was it 1.03? memory is hazy, but he did make an OpenGL version of 1.04), and he definitely had no intentions of not releasing the source. I'm not sure what his stance on his code is, but I could try contacting him for confirmation. I believe he was strongly in favour of GPL though. I'm almost certain that there is still code by Nightfang in 1.06.08a (the latest source release), and I strongly doubt that any of his code was removed, especially his demo recording code which quite obviously has changed very little since 1.0.

[RTC_Marine]

its interesting that I couldn't find a link to download the source of zdaemon 1.06 on their site anywhere.

they said devs could contribute patches by using the 1.06 source, which is kind of interesting, because it may mean that the source for 1.08.2 must be comparible to it.

since its not available, does it mean they're scared that someone might find gpl code in there.

[deathz0r]

RTC_Marine said:

since its not available, does it mean they're scared that someone might find gpl code in there.

They forgot about zdaemon.info, but that doesn't contain release version sources. It is post-1.06.08 however.

[Yagisan]

myk said:

Personally I have an idea; in a way the open source status of Doomsday was also disputed when it was not accepted into a Linux distribution, as it was not deemed suitable due to being mixed with Raven sources. Perhaps it would be wise to consider the GPL application invalid till now, that the project is being cleaned up for proper compatibility?

While two distributions have decided that they can not ship Doomsday with *ALL* plugins, it was decided on the fact that the Raven license does not specifically grant redistribution. They are quite happy to ship Doomsday with the two offending plugins (jHeretic and jHexen) removed. It was my choice not to remove those plugins after asking the users if they would be happpy for me to do that. The users said no, so Doomsdays inclusion into Ubuntu and Debian is on hold until either the Raven code is relicensed, removed, or a suitable replacement is implemented (I'm looking at this option - so expect major regressions in future). It is currently shipped by a variety of other distributions as-is, such as Gentoo.

I however do agree it is not an ideal situation, and if you need to speak to anyone on our team about cleaning up the code, I would be the one to talk too.

Ajapted said:

I have not granted any exception to Risen3D.

As fas as I know, Risen3D is running GLBSP as a normal program, not linking to it as a library. Let me know if this is not the case.

Risen3D ships a stand alone binary in there distribution ( r3dv2.1-setup.exe md5sum 098d11a0f63863d343427c56c9f22091 ) called R3Dglbsp.exe (md5sum d2c233d1a64eea5a9de7a203de169b4d )

Running strings over that binary produces this output

[i]strings output[i]
*** R3Dglbsp V5.0 (C) The Risen3D Team ***
*** Permission to release granted by Andrew Apted. ***
*** Please direct any questions about R3Dglbsp to ***
*** the Risen3D website and not to Andrew Apted. ***
*** Based on BSP 2.3 (C) 1998 Colin Reed, Lee Killough ***
This GL node builder is based on BSP 2.3, which was created
from the basic theory stated in DEU5 (OBJECTS.C)
Credits should go to :-
Janis Legzdinsh for fixing up Hexen support
Andy Baker & Marc Pullen for their invaluable help
Colin Reed & Lee Killough for creating the original BSP
Matt Fell for the Doom Specs
Raphael Quinet for DEU and the original idea
... and everyone who helped with the original BSP.
This program is free software, under the terms of the GNU General
Public License, and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. See the
accompanying documentation for more details.
Usage: glbsp [options] input.wad [ -o output.wad ]
For a list of the available options, type: glbsp -help
Usage: glbsp [options] input.wad [ -o output.wad ]

No source is available on their website, and they claim you have given them permission to release it.

Now - I also distribute glbsp from my site ( http://eyagi.bpa.nu/~jamie/ubuntu/dists/dapper/main/binary-amd64/utils/glbsp_2.20-2eyagi0_amd64.deb ) and I also need to distribute the source ( http://eyagi.bpa.nu/~jamie/ubuntu/dists/dapper/main/source/utils/glbsp_2.20-2eyagi0.dsc http://eyagi.bpa.nu/~jamie/ubuntu/dists/dapper/main/source/utils/glbsp_2.20-2eyagi0.diff.gz http://eyagi.bpa.nu/~jamie/ubuntu/dists/dapper/main/source/utils/glbsp_2.20.orig.tar.gz ) to fulfill GPL obligations.

You CAN NOT fulfill the gpl by pointing to another distribution and say you can get the source from there, especally if your copy is obviously modifed.

[RTC_Marine]

" *** Please direct any questions about R3Dglbsp to ***
*** the Risen3D website and not to Andrew Apted. *** "

ZING!

[myk]

deathz0r said:
I believe he was strongly in favour of GPL though.

He was commited to releasing the source, and put the releases he made under the GPL. But they were illegal, as they had ZDoom code in there, which made the combination explosive (remove one, the other, or kill the project altogether). He was keeping it under the GPL following the direction the source had taken with CSDoom after the incident where Carmack interceded with an email to Fly. But it wasn't eligible to be under the GPL, due to the license conflicts.

RTC_Marine said:
it would be nice to actually see some evidence that zdaemon states it has no gpl code in it, just to clear things up in that area.

As far as evidence that zdaemon states it has no gpl code in it, I guess this would do. But stating it has no such code isn't necessarily the same as not having any. If it were to have any, it would have to remove it, as it would probably be insane to try to make it compatible otherwise (considering all the ZDoom stuff).

[RTC_Marine]

myk said:

As far as evidence that zdaemon states it has no gpl code in it

ok, I guess I worded that wrong, I meant "is there any gpl code in zdaemon?", I'm not entirely sure whether I believe that website or the changelogs on there either.

[andrewj]

Yagisan said (Re: r3dglbsp)
No source is available on their website, and they claim you have given them permission to release it.

I simply told Graham Jackson that r3dglbsp was OK so long as he also releases the source code to it (as the GPL requires), which he agreed to. FWIW, I have seen the source and the changes are minimal.

Looks like I need to remind him of his obligation under the GPL. I'd be grateful if someone could PM me his current email address, otherwise I'll go dig it out of my backup CDs.

[myk]

RTC_Marine said:
I'm not entirely sure whether I believe that website or the changelogs on there either.

Well, NightFang's main objective for v1.0 had been to completely replace the Quakeworld network code with new stuff, so there seems to be some truth there. There could still be some stuff inherited from ZDoom v1.23 (or later), though, if that included any code from Quake2 or any such source and it hasn't been replaced.

[Yagisan]

For all the nay-sayers (Remember this is legal where I live)

Lets compare the pair shall we.

Risen3D.exe (md5sum fe0d82ab71894784816870824a8285ca )

strings
rend-camera-fov
rend-camera-smooth
rend-glow
rend-glow-height
rend-glow-wall
rend-halo
rend-halo-bright
rend-halo-dim-far
rend-halo-dim-near
rend-halo-fade-far
rend-halo-fade-near
rend-halo-occlusion
rend-halo-radius-min
rend-halo-secondary-limit
rend-halo-size
rend-halo-zmag-div
rend-hud-offset-scale
rend-light
rend-light-ambient
rend-light-blend
rend-light-bright
rend-light-clip
rend-max-distance
rend-mobj-smooth-move
rend-mobj-smooth-turn
rend-model
rend-model-aspect
rend-model-distance
rend-model-inter
rend-model-lights
rend-model-lod
rend-model-shiny-far
rend-model-shiny-near
rend-particle-diffuse
rend-particle-max
rend-particle-rate
rend-particle-visible-near
rend-shadow
rend-shadow-darkness
rend-shadow-far
rend-shadow-radius-max
rend-shadow-stealth
rend-sky-detail
rend-sky-distance
rend-sky-full
rend-sky-rows
rend-sprite-align
rend-sprite-align-angle
rend-sprite-blend
rend-sprite-lit
rend-sprite-noz
rend-tex-detail
rend-tex-detail-far
rend-tex-detail-scale
rend-tex-detail-strength
rend-tex-filter-sprite
rend-tex-gamma
rend-tex-maskmipmap
rend-tex-mipmap

Doomsday 1.7.7 http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/deng/tags/release-1-7-7/doomsday/Src/con_console.c?revision=33&view=markup

Deng svn
rend-camera-fov - Line 289
rend-camera-smooth - Line 290
rend-glow - Line 277
rend-glow-height - Line 279
rend-glow-wall - Line 278
rend-halo - Line 281
rend-halo-bright - Line 282
rend-halo-fade-far - Line 286
rend-halo-fade-near - Line 287
rend-halo-occlusion - Line 283
rend-halo-secondary-limit - Line 285
rend-halo-size - Line 284
rend-hud-offset-scale - Line 327
rend-light - Line 268
rend-light-ambient - Line 267
rend-light-blend - Line 269
rend-light-bright - Line 271
rend-light-clip - Line 270
rend-max-distance - Does Not Exist
rend-mobj-smooth-move - Line 330
rend-mobj-smooth-turn - Line 331
rend-model - Line 317
rend-model-aspect - Line 320
rend-model-distance - Line 321
rend-model-inter - Line 319
rend-model-lights - Line 318
rend-model-lod - Line 325
rend-model-shiny-far - Line 324
rend-model-shiny-near - Line 323
rend-particle-diffuse - Line 336
rend-particle-max - Line 334
rend-particle-rate - Line 335
rend-particle-visible-near - Line 337
rend-shadow - Line 339
rend-shadow-darkness - Line 340
rend-shadow-far - Line 341
rend-shadow-radius-max - Line 342
rend-shadow-stealth - Does Not Exist
rend-sky-detail - Line 304
rend-sky-distance - Line 306
rend-sky-full - Line 307
rend-sky-rows - Line 305
rend-sprite-align - Line 313
rend-sprite-align-angle - Line 310
rend-sprite-blend - Line 314
rend-sprite-lit - Line 315
rend-sprite-noz - Line 311
rend-tex-detail - Line 299
rend-tex-detail-far - Line 302
rend-tex-detail-scale - Line 300
rend-tex-detail-strength - Line 301
rend-tex-filter-sprite - Line 297
rend-tex-gamma - Line 293
rend-tex-maskmipmap - Does Not Exist
rend-tex-mipmap - Line 294

Doomsday 1.7.7 http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/deng/tags/release-1-7-7/doomsday/Src/rend_halo.c?revision=33&view=markup

Deng svn
rend-halo-dim-far - Line 95
rend-halo-dim-near - Line 94
rend-halo-radius-min - Line 93
rend-halo-zmag-div - Line 92

Need I go on ?

Please note - those files doe not actually contain either the Raven Licese or the Original Doom License. Legally - there is no grant of use for it's contents at that stage - hence even if say Deep were to claim it's not licensed validly, he still can't use it - as it does not grant any rights at all. No license grant is All Rights Reserved.

One last thing - If you do run strings over Risen3D yourself (and I suggest you do), this will also be seen:

strings
Risen3D is based on Doomsday V1.7.8

I really don't see that any more proof is needed.

[andrewj]

Yagisan said:

I really don't see that any more proof is needed.

I thought the fact that it's based on Doomsday (1.7.7 or 1.7.8) was not disputed, only whether the Doomsday code was GPL at the time of the fork. Is that the issue, or what?

Explain how jHeretic and jHexen are not plugins

(Seeing you brought it up) I think one could argue that jHexen is the main application and Doomsday is the library, seeing that Doomsday cannot do anything without a plugin. Since jHeretic and jHexen are completely dependent on Doomsday, they can not "be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves" (to quote the GPL).

[Yagisan]

[QUOTE]Ajapted said:

I thought the fact that it's based on Doomsday (1.7.7 or 1.7.8) was not disputed, only whether the Doomsday code was GPL at the time of the fork. Is that the issue, or what?We have some people in denial still, and there was a non-specific request for line numbers. So I supplied them after a very quick look.

Ajapted said:

(Seeing you brought it up) I think one could argue that jHexen is the main application and Doomsday is the library, seeing that Doomsday cannot do anything without a plugin. Since jHeretic and jHexen are completely dependent on Doomsday, they can not "be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves" (to quote the GPL).

You make for an interesting argument - but one that's based on not being familar with the code.

Doomsday works as an engine - all the engine mechanics are in the main executable. Game specfic mechanics are in the indiviual plugins. When you change the plugin, you change the game, yet the engine remains the same. Now, a plugin is dependent on being loaded into a compatible framework (such as the Doomsday Engine). On their own, plugins are useless - eg, both xmms and winamp use a plugin system. Would you argue that xmms or winamp should be governed by the licenses of their plugins ? Why/Why Not ?

It is entirely possible to write new plugins for Doomsday to create other games if wished (indeed it has been done).

We are the "borderline" case here http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case."

We, and others believe that that is GPL compliant. Not ideal - but compliant (pathces tha tre-implement jHexen would be nice - jHeretic can be done from jDoom and playing heretic in dosbox - or watching your ports ;) ).

Oh - and by the way - I didn't bring it up - it was a reply to the locked thread.

Now - I'm well and truely sure I've proved my case, so I'll wait for the Risen3D team to respond. Good Luck getting the modified glbsp released - I'll look forward to my copy that I'm entitled too.

[myk]

Yagisan said:
Please note - those files doe not actually contain either the Raven Licese or the Original Doom License.

Well, the Raven license is in the package, and then both are appended in SrcNotes.txt. As far as I know licenses don't have to be on each actual source file. It sure is clearer that way, but not mandatory.

Legally - there is no grant of use for it's contents at that stage - hence even if say Deep were to claim it's not licensed validly, he still can't use it - as it does not grant any rights at all. No license grant is All Rights Reserved.

You mean, since the GPL applied this way is invalid, the distribution and modification of that source is not allowed. Maybe that's a way to handle it, and perhaps it's legally sustainable, but now, that you did distribute such a version and it was modified (even by yourself)? All in all, what the Risen3D team did is something that would have been potentially possible with said source set under the Raven and DOOM licenses (had they been enforced). On the other hand, the GPL was used, but was arguably conflictive when applied to the any of the Raven based sources (or at least it appeared so without a clarification not explicited in the distribution), as the inclusive wording seems to imply:

The Doomsday Engine source code is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see LICENSE in the root directory).

A wording that excluded the Raven stuff could have been cleaner, such as:

The Doomsday Engine source code is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see LICENSE in the root directory). This excludes the JHeretic and JHexen extensions, which are additional plugins governed by the Heretic/Hexen Source Code license.

I noted a difference between v1.7.7 and v1.7.8, where "source code" becomes "Doomsday Engine source code". Not sure if that was meant to say the GPL applied specifically to the core engine, or what... in such a case JDoom being under the DOOM license? I doubt you meant that, but there was a curious name change there that could be read thus. But it seems more like you were not distinguishing the three plugins and instead just using the name for all the programs.

All in all I think all the Risen3D matter is pretty dodgy and because of that the best result could well be to concentrate on refining the organization of Doomsday in order to avoid further confusion or abuse, leaving the Risen3D team to their fate, based on the fact that their project started in a confusing licensing situation, regardless of whether they have been ethically motivated in their response to the inadequate condition of the release they based their offshoot on.

They could well have said "hey, this is fucked up; I wanna start work on a Doomsday offshoot, but how can I if the licenses appear to be conflictive?" Instead, aware of that, they ignored how the author released the source and took to their hands to apply the previous license without consulting with the releasing author (as far as I know; I could have missed something). That could well be considered lame, but doesn't looking back to the mess and cleaning it up for certain seem too complicated?

[Yagisan]

myk said:

Well, the Raven license is in the package, and then both are appended in SrcNotes.txt. As far as I know licenses don't have to be on each actual source file. It sure is clearer that way, but not mandatory.

yes it is not mandatory - I have been making sure later releases are clear. If something is not - let me know and I'll make sure it is fixed.

myk said:

You mean, since the GPL applied this way is invalid, the distribution and modification of that source is not allowed. Maybe that's a way to handle it, and perhaps it's legally sustainable, but now, that you did distribute such a version and it was modified (even by yourself)?

I picked that particular file because it was created from scratch for Doomsday, and intended to be a GPL component. It does not exists in either the any of the Doom, Heretic, or Hexen sources, and is part if the engine.It contains no Id or Raven/Activision copyright and was not under their license. The only license we give for it is GPL - so you can take your pick it is stolen GPL code, or it is stolen unlicensed code. If you wish to use it - the terms of the GNU GPLv2(or later) apply.

myk said:

All in all, what the Risen3D team did is something that would have been potentially possible with said source set under the Raven and DOOM licenses (had they been enforced). On the other hand, the GPL was used, but was arguably conflictive when applied to the any of the Raven based sources (or at least it appeared so without a clarification not explicited in the distribution), as the inclusive wording seems to imply:

The Doomsday Engine source code is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see LICENSE in the root directory).

A wording that excluded the Raven stuff could have been cleaner, such as:

The Doomsday Engine source code is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see LICENSE in the root directory). This excludes the JHeretic and JHexen extensions, which are additional plugins governed by the Heretic/Hexen Source Code license.

You are right - it would have been clearer. It is something that has been addressed since then. We have done our best to ensure that people are aware that the engine is GPL, but the plugins are not nessicarily (jDoom IS GPL. jHerertic has been mostly created from jDoom, but needs more work. jHexen - doesn't look like a simple job)

myk said:

I noted a difference between v1.7.7 and v1.7.8, where "source code" becomes "Doomsday Engine source code". Not sure if that was meant to say the GPL applied specifically to the core engine, or what... in such a case JDoom being under the DOOM license? I doubt you meant that, but there was a curious name change there that could be read thus. But it seems more like you were not distinguishing the three plugins and instead just using the name for all the programs.

Earlier versions sadly did not specfically state the distinctions, but the name change was indcative that it was felt that it needed to be done.

myk said:

All in all I think all the Risen3D matter is pretty dodgy and because of that the best result could well be to concentrate on refining the organization of Doomsday in order to avoid further confusion or abuse, leaving the Risen3D team to their fate, based on the fact that their project started in a confusing licensing situation, regardless of whether they have been ethically motivated in their response to the inadequate condition of the release they based their offshoot on.

They could well have said "hey, this is fucked up; I wanna start work on a Doomsday offshoot, but how can I if the licenses appear to be conflictive?" Instead, aware of that, they ignored how the author released the source and took to their hands to apply the previous license without consulting with the releasing author (as far as I know; I could have missed something). That could well be considered lame, but doesn't looking back to the mess and cleaning it up for certain seem too complicated?

All our independent code is GPL. The jDoom was developed from the original doom source release - but under the new GPL license. Unfortantly not all the jdoom files had the old boilerplate removed, and the new GPL boilerplate attached. Now - the Risen3D could have actually joined the Doomsday team at the time they were preparing their modifications, but they did turn skyjake down. As it is Doomsday has moved into different directions to where Risen3D went.

I look forward to helping improve the state of opensource and source-avaliable doom engines with other like minded authors. Leaches such as the Risen3D project that prey on others - well I hope they see sense and come clean, or become extinct.

[sitters]

Yagisan said:

Leaches such as the Risen3D project that prey on others - well I hope they see sense and come clean, or become extinct.

It don't prey on others.
It don't become extinct. :)

[iori]

It will once it loses the last it's already stagnant community support, it will. Eventually.

[sitters]

iori said:

It will once it loses the last it's already stagnant community support, it will. Eventually.

So long we have much players, you don't see in the community, it is no problem. :))

[Neil]

myk said:
Thus we can consider JDoom to be fine under the GPL, as long as the JHeretic and JHexen (if we consider them borderline libraries) parts aren't distributed with the main package or in Free channels (such as Sourceforge or in other Free distribution packages, like Linux distros).

My understanding of the GNU GPL is that does nothing to prevent "mere aggregation" of covered code with incompatible code.

So distributing GPL-incompatible JHeretic and JHexen in the same archive as GPL-covered JDoom is absolutely fine. As long as they're not distributed linked to each other, and the incompatible libs aren't including code (such as inline functions) from GPL-covered headers and whatnot, that is.

The only borderline issue here would be Sourceforge hosting, if you read the licenses (and I have many times, over many licensing wars over in KDE land).

[RTC_Marine]

sitters said:

So long we have much players, you don't see in the community, it is no problem. :))

I can't believe I had risen3d on my hd *deletes*

[Phil1984]

Yeah i've deleted it too, I do think it stinks that Risen3d won't release it's source code. Every other major port seems to manage to do this, what do they have to hide?