Freedoom not Free?

Apparently not

ahahaaha

These guys have their information SO wrong...the second screenshot refers to a revolver, when the weapon is quite clearly a shotgun. Not to mention that they use the original Doom 2 box art, and make no references whatsoever to Freedoom or its team.

Yeah, Linspire do that with almost all Free software. I'm not very surprised.

Linspire sucks.

Yea, read this in PCWorld, they say it's more like "Collect New Revenue" then "Click-N-Run". They are charging for the "Click-N-Run" service then the actual program. But to use Id logo is cutting it to close in my opinion, maybe someone should contact them a let them know.

However the freedoom license is clear and let's be happy that's it's being notice.

tony said:

However the freedoom license is clear and let's be happy that's it's being notice.

Isn't this illegal though? Making money off FreeDoom when its spoused to be free?

Making money off of FreeDoom isn't illegal. "Free" refers to freedom, not price.
You should read on Selling free softwarep from the Free Software Foundation.

However, there's clear copyright issues with the Doom 2 art and idSoftware logo.

Honestly, I smell a lawsuit.

No thanks, I apt-get install.

well...its a little better than that guy who tried to sell jDoom + models on ebay.

MikeRS said:

Making money off of FreeDoom isn't illegal. "Free" refers to freedom, not price.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd be pretty ticked if someone made money off MY copyrighted turd demons.

As I see it you're not paying for the game, but for the download service.

Keep your wits about you!

Scuba Steve said:

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd be pretty ticked if someone made money off MY copyrighted turd demons.

I should clarify at this point: ALL material in Freedoom is supposed to be Free for commercial and non-commercial use. That means that it can be sold. The reasoning behind this is:

• Linux CDs (which are sold) cannot include Freedoom if this is not the case.
  
• If this is not the case, it is not Open Source.
  
• Hosting requirements on Sourceforge require the projects to be Open Source.
  

If you genuinely have a problem with this requirement, let me know and I will remove your material from the project.

The Submission guidelines have information about all of this stuff which should be read by all contributors.

Nah keep em, I already knew that :P

fraggle said:
Hosting requirements on Sourceforge require the projects to be Open Source.

plus,.. its hard to make a wad file closed source,... impossible.

Just because the source for something is available, doesn't automatically make it open source. There all sorts of other requirements, f.ex the copyright holder has to grant permission for anyone to modify it, and for it to be distributed by anyone wherever they like.

robindegen said:

plus,.. its hard to make a wad file closed source,... impossible.

The issue isn't one of source here, it's about the freedom to copy and redistribute software. Freedoom is free for anyone to copy, download, reuse in their own projects etc.

It's really the same with software as well. The ability to see the source code isn't as important as what you're actually allowed to do with it. It's all very well being able to download the Linux source code for example, but if that source code was available under a restriction that said "you may not modify, redistribute, resell or do anything except look at this", it would lose almost all its usefulness.

In this respect, I'm almost more swayed by the Free Software Foundation's use of the name "Free Software" instead of "Open Source". The key thing here is not the ability to see the source code, but the freedoms you get from using a Free Software license.

Some companies even release source code (you can even get the Windows CE source code for download!), but if it is under a restrictive license, it may not be Free Software or Open Source.