[HN Gopher] Doom Released Under GPLv2
___________________________________________________________________
Doom Released Under GPLv2
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 179 points
Date : 2024-01-17 19:38 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| imbusy111 wrote:
| Thanks, but I'd rather take the one without the GPLv2 license one
| commit earlier.
| gostsamo wrote:
| doesn't it make it a copyrighted material then?
| tremon wrote:
| GPL'ed material is still copyrighted. You mean only
| proprietary licensed, I presume?
| umpalumpaaa wrote:
| Without a license the default copyright law kicks in which
| means:
|
| "The default copyright laws applies meaning that the autor
| retains all rights to the source code and no one may reproduce,
| distribute, or create derivative works from the work."
|
| Good luck
| arsome wrote:
| Doom code has been opened for a while under the Doom Source
| License originally.
|
| https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License
| ViktorRay wrote:
| This is wrong in this case. Doom source code has previously
| been released under other licenses. In such situations in the
| open source world we can choose which of the licenses we want
| to follow.
| mort96 wrote:
| The source code was released first under some custom non-
| profit license in 1997, then under the GPL in 1999. From
| what I can tell, those are the only licenses which the DOOM
| source code has been released under, and I can't even find
| any info on that non-profit license from 1997 release.
|
| Are you referring to the license from 1997 here..? Or have
| there been other source code licenses which pages like
| Wikipedia and the DOOM wiki don't mention?
|
| EDIT: someone else in this thread linked this:
| https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License. And:
|
| > The DSL is significantly more restrictive than the GNU
| GPL, and as such is incompatible with it. For example, any
| form of commercial exploitation is forbidden. Heavy
| restrictions apply to the distribution of copies of the
| source code; the license grants permission only for the
| distribution of portions of the code for "educational use".
| The DSL is not an Open Source license (under the Open
| Source Definition) or a Free Software license.
|
| Surely that's not a very attractive alternative to the GPL?
| ViktorRay wrote:
| I agree with you that it doesn't really make much sense
| for someone to choose to use the DSL license instead of
| the GPL license. I was just pointing out the general
| principle that in cases like this one can choose which
| license one uses.
| tkw01536 wrote:
| Wouldn't the grant given through section 5 of GitHub TOS [1]
| apply here?
|
| That says "you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive,
| worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content
| through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content
| solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's
| functionality".
|
| In other words, without an explicit license you can do
| whatever you like with publically viewable content as long as
| it runs via GitHub.
|
| [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-
| terms/github-t...
| Zambyte wrote:
| > as long as it runs via GitHub.
|
| That is extremely limiting...
| chilmers wrote:
| Sure, but then you get the original Doom source release
| license, which is for non-commercial educational use only:
|
| https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/blob/77735c3ff0772609e9c...
| slacka wrote:
| So you prefer, the DSL or GPL over GPLv2? The Doom Source
| License (or DSL) is the original source code license under
| which the Doom source code was released in late 1997.[1] I'll
| take this over the years and years the past licensing has
| caused any day.[2]
|
| [1]https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License#:~:text=The
| ....
|
| [2] https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/44358-doom-license-
| amp...
| mrighele wrote:
| AFAIK before the commit Doom was under a more restrictive
| license [1]
|
| " For educational purposes only, you, the end-user, may use
| portions of the Source Code, such as particular routines, to
| develop your own software, but may not duplicate the Source
| Code, except as noted in paragraph" [...]
|
| " Under no circumstances shall you, the end-user, be permitted,
| allowed or authorized to commercially exploit the Software.
| Neither you nor anyone at your direction shall do any of the
| following acts with regard to the Software, or any portion
| thereof: Rent; Sell;
| Lease; Offer on a pay-per-play basis;
| Distribute for money or any other consideration; or
| In any other manner and through any medium whatsoever
|
| commercially exploit or use for any commercial purpose."
|
| [1] https://github.com/id-
| Software/DOOM/commit/4eb368a960647c8cc...
| 533474 wrote:
| lol is that a bad joke? GPLv2 is better
| imbusy111 wrote:
| Yeah, missed this one badly.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| What benefits does this confer, in practice, over the license it
| already had? The source code has been up there for years. The
| assets are still proprietary, right?
| vdaea wrote:
| For example you couldn't rent or sell your fork.
| rightbyte wrote:
| You can though? But so can any buyer ...
| Zambyte wrote:
| Nope, that was explicitly under the "Prohibited Uses"
| section
|
| https://github.com/id-
| Software/DOOM/blob/77735c3ff0772609e9c...
| doesnt_know wrote:
| One is that the previous note said for non-profit use which
| could be interpreted as part of the license terms I suppose?
| While now it's specifically under the GPL you can sell the
| source and any modifications.
|
| But as you say the assets are still not covered and there are
| already more modern engines to play doom under other licenses
| anyway so...
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Wait, I'm confused. I thought the source release from iD was
| always GPLv2? Did they just forget to put a copy of the GPL in
| the repo?
| notarget137 wrote:
| Nope. Historically Doom was released by ID software under Doom
| Source License. Quite different from GPL in general.
| ndiddy wrote:
| id changed Doom's license to GPL in 1999. Scroll down to
| October 3 on this page: https://web.archive.org/web/200008180
| 41410/http://www.doomwo.... I believe the confusion comes
| from when id uploaded the Doom source to Github, they
| uploaded an older version with the original license headers
| rather than the newer GPL version.
| deng wrote:
| Nothing to see here. The Linux Doom version was re-licensed to
| GPLv2 in 1999.
| nottorp wrote:
| When I saw the title I thought they released the source for
| Doom 3...
| pushedx wrote:
| Doom 3 source was released more than 10 years ago
|
| https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3
|
| As an example of something built with that, you can play Doom
| 3 in your browser:
|
| https://wasm.continuation-labs.com/d3demo/
| nottorp wrote:
| Oh thanks! That somehow went past me.
|
| I'll be downloading a native port though.
| metadat wrote:
| Incredible this can run in the browser on my freaking
| phone! I remember playing Doom 3 when it came out, and my
| overclocked, water-cooled beast-mode computer at the time
| in the early 2000s could just barely do it.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Dooms lighting was just next level. I remember realizing
| I'd need to upgrade from my Radeon 9600 Pro.
| sotillan wrote:
| Not entirely. As I understand it, that re-licensing occurred
| when a member of the Doom community emailed John Carmack asking
| him if he would be willing to release the source under the GPL.
| He said no problem, but there was never an official source drop
| with the updated license from Id Software. Carmack's email is
| all there is, and there's some ambiguity over whether he had
| the legal right to unilaterally re-license it. This official
| release puts its GPL status on more solid ground.
| jitl wrote:
| (1999)
| barge_glider wrote:
| This Github repo was previously released with this license:
|
| https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/blob/77735c3ff0772609e9c...
| csdreamer7 wrote:
| When I first saw this I thought they released Doom 2016. I doubt
| anyone from Id will be able to comment on if 2016 will see the
| GPL, but there is no harm in asking. :-)
| ibobev wrote:
| For a moment I hoped that the source of Doom (2016) is released.
| :(
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-17 23:01 UTC)