Risen3D v2.1.0 finally released

[hawkwind]

The new scripting version of Risen3D is now out.

Get it here

[entryway]

sources? or still illegal?

[myk]

entryway said:
still illegal?

Was it ever? I thought JDoom wasn't under the GLP till more or less recently, and that this was based on the older source. Producing engines under the '97 source isn't illegal, as long as it doesn't contain anything not allowed (such as GPLed code). The issue, if any, is that the source of such releases can't be verified unless made available.

Unless the Boom code is based off of Boom v2.02, instead of Boom v2.01 (is that available?).

[DaniJ]

No, Doomsday has always been GPL.

In my book that means Risen3D's source should be made public.

[sitters]

DaniJ said:

No, Doomsday has always been GPL.

In my book that means Risen3D's source should be made public.

In time it is going to be public. :)

[DaniJ]

I'll make a note in my diary for the 4th of "when hell freezes over" :P

A suspicious person might think that they are biding time while they rewrite Doomsday in it's entirety, piece by piece so that a non GPL license can be slapped on it.

Why exactly can't the source be released now?

[entryway]

sitters said:

In time it is going to be public. :)

Are you hoping that someone waits for Risen's sources? You are mistaken. It's only notes.

[Jon]

GPL doesn't mean release the source when you feel like it.

I mailed asking for the source years ago and got a nasty reply in return.

You sir, are a leech. I suggest simply boycotting Risen3D.

[Grazza]

DaniJ said:

No, Doomsday has always been GPL.

This is really the central question here, or specifically if it was GPL at the time Risen3D branched off. I've just taken a quick look at an old version (deng-1.7.8), and couldn't immediately see anything stating that it was released under the GPL. What am I missing?

Don't get me wrong; I think the Risen3D team should release their source immediately, and that it would be greatly in their own interest to do so, regardless of whether they are required to by licensing considerations. But "illegal" is a strong claim, and needs to be backed up precisely. So which version of Doomsday is the one from which it branched, and where is the unambiguous statement that it was GPL?

myk: According to this page, Boom 2.02 was initially released under the old license, and then reissued in 1999 under the GPL, but otherwise unmodified.

[DaniJ]

Have a look around the source of the 1.7.7 release and you will find a file called LICENSE in the root folder. This indicates that Doomsday as being licensed under the GPL.
http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/deng/tags/release-1-7-7/doomsday/

Risen3D split from Doomsday as of the 1.7.8 release however it had been under development in earlier incarnations as Boomsday.

Unfortunetly skyjake had not seen reason to explicitly stamp each and every Doomsday source file with the GPL license header (obviously those based on Heretic/Hexen are not applicable as their license is incompatible). However the intention is clear.

These days we make sure to explicitly mark ALL source files with an appropriate license header.

[myk]

DaniJ said:
No, Doomsday has always been GPL.

I don't know what version Risen3D is based off of (probably a later one, possibly one clearly under the GPL), but to me JDoom v1.0 does not seem to have been released under the GPL:

From the v1.0 TXT:
JDoom and the Doomsday Engine are based on the source code of various games released by id Software and Raven Software. You are free to distribute the installation archives of JDoom but you cannot charge money for them.

You can't stop people from making money off a GPLed program. That is how the "DOOM license" works, though.

[sitters]

entryway said:

Are you hoping that someone waits for Risen's sources? You are mistaken. It's only notes.

Thanks for the note.

Jon said:

GPL doesn't mean release the source when you feel like it.

I mailed asking for the source years ago and got a nasty reply in return.

You sir, are a leech. I suggest simply boycotting Risen3D.

People must do what they like to do.

[DaniJ]

I don't know what version Risen3D is based off of (probably a later one, possibly one clearly under the GPL), but to me JDoom v1.0 does not seem to have been released under the GPL

OK, "Always" was not entirely accurate however you are talking about v1.0 which is ancient history compared to the 1.7.x series (itself three years old), which is in question.

In the 1.7.x series the intention of Doomsday to be licensed under the GPL is clear.

[sitters]

Dint anybody realize that, if Risen3D was illegal.
It was shutdown all an long time ago ?

So an lot of talk, but nobody knows exact how things are working.

[Graf Zahl]

Hard to say without any released source. But in this case the only people to blame are the copyright holders of the supposedly GPL'ed code that is being used. As long as they don't take action nothing will happen.

[Yagisan]

Graf Zahl said:

Hard to say without any released source. But in this case the only people to blame are the copyright holders of the supposedly GPL'ed code that is being used. As long as they don't take action nothing will happen.

I'm rather sure that Hawkwind == Abbs == Graham Jackson. The fact that he makes so little information about himself available indicates that he knows he is doing something wrong.

Now I've already sent emails to "Abbs" requesting the source to be released (Taking action - but nicely at first). So far I've not received a reply. He's got 2 more days left in which to reply, after which I no longer ask for the release of the source, but instead I go after the hoster and the hosters ISP to remove the copyright infringing work.

To make it clear to Hawkwind/Abbs/Graham Jackson - No one cares about your "super secret" algorithims. We are trying to enforce the principle - you have used GPL code in both the engine and your opengl renderer. Put the source up, and everyone is happy - don't put the source up, then we will find a way to shut it down.

[deep]

Yagisan said:

I'm rather sure that Hawkwind == Abbs == Graham Jackson. The fact that he makes so little information about himself available indicates that he knows he is doing something wrong.

Now I've already sent emails to "Abbs" requesting the source to be released (Taking action - but nicely at first). So far I've not received a reply. He's got 2 more days left in which to reply, after which I no longer ask for the release of the source, but instead I go after the hoster and the hosters ISP to remove the copyright infringing work.

To make it clear to Hawkwind/Abbs/Graham Jackson - No one cares about your "super secret" algorithims. We are trying to enforce the principle - you have used GPL code in both the engine and your opengl renderer. Put the source up, and everyone is happy - don't put the source up, then we will find a way to shut it down.

Give it a REST for god's sake. This has been gone over a billion times. Both DaniJ and Graf know EXACTLY what was said (shame on both of you for deliberately not "remembering"). And so do you.

First off, JDOOM is NOT legal GPL and that's a simple FACT. You CAN NOT mix DOOM, HERETIC and HEXEN sources and claim to have a GPL project.

This is amply demonstrated by ZDOOM where this very issue prevents it from being GPL (not to mention BUILD code too).

Besides that (not that it actually makes the JDOOM conflicts any different), if you "forget" to put the GPL license in the sources, you've just released it under the licenses included. And that's also what happened back then and even much later in later versions. You can't go back in time and undo what was done.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with copyright. Only shows how confused you are about the differences between licensing and copyrights.

So go ahead and make trouble and then JDOOM is also in trouble. And that's a LOT easier to prove - since the licences clearly are contradictory. It technically can not be GPL period!

So be nice and quit trying to cause trouble for no good reason, other then to pretend to know something that you know nothing about.

Abbs, Hawkwind and Graham are ALL different people. And that I'm "sure" about. Just drop it and get something better to post about vs making up imaginary arguments.

[deep]

DaniJ said:

No, Doomsday has always been GPL.

In my book that means Risen3D's source should be made public.

That's absolutely NOT true. There are NOT GPL licenses as required in earlier distributions. Haven't check latest.

You know all this Dani since this has been gone over at least TWO times over on NEWDOOM.

And you and Graf and others ALL conceded that this was true.

Not understanding the issue of not including the license (which is part of the problem here) only means you need to learn the issue here. Go look at the ZDOOM forum and see what RH posted. She clearly understands the problem of mixing licenses. JDOOM just chose to ignore the problem, that doesn't mean it's not a problem. If you recall, JDOOM technically could be banned from where the source is posted since it's not valid GPL source.

[deep]

Graf Zahl said:

Hard to say without any released source. But in this case the only people to blame are the copyright holders of the supposedly GPL'ed code that is being used. As long as they don't take action nothing will happen.

Interestingly, you said that GZDOOM started with PRBOOM GL code, hence GZDOOM has to be GPL. Yet it can't be because of license conflicts I pointed out above.

So technically GZDOOM is in clear violation of GPL principles.

Or do we pick and chose what we rant and rave about?

Think about it.

[entryway]

There is no line in GZDoom similar to PrBoom because it was totally rewritten. Nobody forbids to use a GPL code for the educational purposes. Does I incorrectly understand the GPL license?

Someone tries to do one's utmost, but someone does not try to do even that.

[Jon]

deep said:

First off, JDOOM is NOT legal GPL and that's a simple FACT. You CAN NOT mix DOOM, HERETIC and HEXEN sources and claim to have a GPL project.

This is amply demonstrated by ZDOOM where this very issue prevents it from being GPL (not to mention BUILD code too).

Zdoom mixes the two licences in the same executable. Jdoom makes an effort to isolate the code into seperate entities, which are only linked at runtime. It is not a clear-cut simple fact that this is in violation of the GPL.

[Julian]

All right. Licensing is a mess in the source port world anyway. That's not a reason to turn a release annoucement into a flamewar.

Cool down people.