risen3d licencing discussion

[Yagisan]

Lüt said:

Wheee, legalism kills yet another project.

No one asked them to kill themselves. It certainly does not make me happy. Everyone loses because they are too proud to make right what they have done wrong.

Lüt said:

I really should've banned this topic when it came up :\

That would be a shame. Does that mean you support the Risen3D teams actions ? or in general, do you support what amounts to wholesale theft of others work ?
Banning this topic, or similar topics would be a disservice to the community. They are created because the community feel they need to talk about these issues.

[Neil]

RTC_Marine said:

well, if you guys want to take it a step further, you could always report them to the free software foundation or a similiar organization that deals with these people.

The FSF is only worth talking to if it's their copyright that is infringed upon.

[RjY]

For those of you lamenting the apparent demise of Risen3d: What about Vavoom ? I've never used it (never used Risen3d either, not really a fan of the whole GL Doom thing) but it seems like an ideal replacement, has source code, hardware rendering, supports Boom features, etc.

[CodeImp]

RTC_Marine said:

someone will have to remove the download link in the sourceports section of the site sooner or later

Unless the Risen3D team personally asks for it to be removed, lets wait with that until the topic ends and they haven't changed their minds about it.

[entryway]

RjY said:

Vavoom

Not able to draw a sky and very slow and buggy.

[Aliotroph?]

Vavoom is a strange port. It doesn't have enough DooM left in it to feel like DooM when you play it. Feels more like some kind of rejiggered Quake.

Yagisan and RTC are right; banning discussion of something like this will help nobody. Sometimes arguments are nasty and the world just has to be that way for things to get done, even though it sucks.

[myk]

Yagisan said:
Banning this topic, or similar topics would be a disservice to the community. They are created because the community feel they need to talk about these issues.

Indeed, and if there was any doubt, it was shown here that various people who have considerable weight in contributing to the community have discussed the matter, that would exist anyhow even if it were censured.

CodeImp said:
Unless the Risen3D team personally asks for it to be removed, lets wait with that until the topic ends and they haven't changed their minds about it.

I suppose that's reasonable for the time being. Later if the situation doesn't change (that change would be a source release), it might be worth removing because without the source it can't be distributed.

[Quasar]

Lut: you can't blame this thread on the project being canceled, because that action is ridiculous. If they truly believed in what they were doing, they wouldn't care about some people on a thread griping.

[fraggle]

Ajapted said:

I'm a bit surprised you are recommending these ports, seeing that they are not legally redistributable due to their license situation.

Possibly GZDoom is a bit shaky if it's using Prboom code, but is there any issue with ZDoomGL?

[Csonicgo]

The result of these licensing discussions is ridiculous. I can't believe the Risen3d dev team wimped out and now will DESTROY 3 YEARS OF WORK because of a little request to be able to see the work.

[Aliotroph?]

Yeah, it is ridiculous. It's the sort of thing you usually see from two-bit companies that steal GPL software and try to sell it as if they invented it. The difference here is we know what Risen3D is based on, unless they had something else interesting in there to hide.

[CODOR]

Graf Zahl said:
And if I had been more aware of the issue when I added my DECORATE code to ZDoom I would have slapped a clause onto it that mandates full source release of any program that uses the code.

For future use I'm wondering how useful (and legal) it would be to license code under the GPL, with an additional clause explicitly allowing the code to be distributed and linked with Doom and Heretic/Hexen-licensed code.

Because (I think) the additional clause does not take away any of the rights granted by the GPL, code licensed this way should remain compatible with the GPL (and inherit most of its properties), while simultaneously being able to be legally linked with the rest of the code in ZDoom-like engines, provided the source code of this particular module is made available.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if adding this additional bit might implicitly invalidate other parts of the GPL. In fact, I'm still somewhat inebriated at this point so this may be totally bogus...

[RTC_Marine]

well, it looks like the end of an era for risen, similar (but not really) thing happened to csdoom.

which port will be next on the chopping block?

[Quasar]

The GPL cannot be modified either to add or remove legal terms of the license without the consent of all stakeholders. This means, for example, if I were to relicense Eternity as BSD in order to make direct use of Raven's code (which is still in serious legal gray area territory due to some of the language used in that EULA...), I'd have to obtain the permission of almost two dozen people, including John Carmack himself.

And actually, adding a clause to the GPL to allow linking with Raven's code wouldn't help. The Raven license would still be incompatible with the GPL because of its own language, which includes absolute restriction from commercial exploitation and clauses apparently limiting distribution rights.

[andrewj]

fraggle said:

Possibly GZDoom is a bit shaky if it's using Prboom code, but is there any issue with ZDoomGL?

I was referring to the licenses themselves. Having read the Raven and original DOOM licenses, I cannot see any grant of permission to distribute modified copies, on the contrary they forbid it.

Some examples:

DOOMLIC.txt (section 2)
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

DOOMLIC.txt (section 4)
You must treat the Software like any other copyrighted material. You may not otherwise reproduce, copy or disclose to others, in whole or in any part, the Software. You may not copy the written materials accompanying the Software.

RAVENLIC.txt
You shall not
...
* Make copies of this Program or any part thereof, or make copies of the materials accompanying this Program.

[Quasar]

Ajapted: I brought this point up many years ago and I was dismissed as a quack. "Nobody would release the source if they didn't want it distributed," the people said. And while that seems to be true (id certainly never discouraged distribution of hundreds of DOOM ports...), if you think purely like a lawyer you see that due to those license clauses, it is actually impossible to make any meaningful use of the code under them.

[LexiMax]

Quasar said:

Ajapted: I brought this point up many years ago and I was dismissed as a quack. "Nobody would release the source if they didn't want it distributed," the people said. And while that seems to be true (id certainly never discouraged distribution of hundreds of DOOM ports...), if you think purely like a lawyer you see that due to those license clauses, it is actually impossible to make any meaningful use of the code under them.

So what you are implying is that technically, every single Doom source port that does not stem from the GPL source is technically illegal, because the very licence it uses forbids using the code as a base? And even if you decided to 'relicence' it, that meant that you had to GPL the rest of your source?










...










* AlexMax laughs uncontrolably

[leileilol]

I find this funny actually, since Doomsday originally began on the Hexen source code as a base and not Doom's and worked its way down to supporting that, to have ACS, jumping, looking, etc. Hexen sources isn't GPL so I can't see the logic in GPLing that. Teeth are also for chewing.

Also the fmod usage and distribution.

[Graf Zahl]

fraggle said:

Possibly GZDoom is a bit shaky if it's using Prboom code, but is there any issue with ZDoomGL?

Actually, yes. ZDoomGL uses the hq2x/3x/4x routines which are GPL. This was one of the reasons I never used them in GZDoom. Of course the quality issues alone would have kept me from using it.

[Graf Zahl]

AlexMax said:

So what you are implying is that technically, every single Doom source port that does not stem from the GPL source is technically illegal, because the very licence it uses forbids using the code as a base? And even if you decided to 'relicence' it, that meant that you had to GPL the rest of your source?

If you take the licenses literally one might interpret them as such. On the other hand, I don't know how much success anyone trying to enforce them now would have. After all they have been tolerating distribution for years now without ever interfering. And then there's some statements from Raven floating around that say that distribution of modified versions is ok. In the end it's just one big mess that is pretty much unresolvable.

[Yagisan]

leileilol said:

I find this funny actually, since Doomsday originally began on the Hexen source code as a base and not Doom's and worked its way down to supporting that, to have ACS, jumping, looking, etc. Hexen sources isn't GPL so I can't see the logic in GPLing that. Teeth are also for chewing.

Also the fmod usage and distribution.

Some corrections. What is now the Doomsday Engine, began life as three serperate projects. They were jHexen, jHeretic, and jDoom. jHexen and jHeretic were built on the Raven code release, with all new code being created under the GPL (yes - it is a messy situation). jDoom was built on the iD software Doom release. Originally the Doom Source license, which was later relicensed to the GPL after iD relicensed there code. Because the games are so similar, it was decided that they would be better as an engine with seperate plugins, rather then three seperate games. Thus the Doomsday Engine was born.

FMOD (which I've been campaining to have removed) is also in a plugin. It's never been in any Ubuntu release I've made, and once the poll here closes http://forums.newdoom.com/showthread.php?t=31200 it will be ripped out, as I have the patches to do that in my svn copy (they been there for several months now). Why the poll ? I want to know if I need to put a replacement in, or if I can just erase it.

[Bastet Furry]

We could put it simple and end this argument:
Doom sourcecode based => Release the fucking code or pay your fee to id soft.
Selfmade code that is doom compatible => Stick your code into your piehole, if you want.

[myk]

Ajapted said:
Some examples:

You didn't quote:

The DOOM license states:
Permitted Uses. 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 4. The limited right referenced in the preceding sentence is hereinafter referred to as "Educational Use." By so exercising the Educational Use right you shall not obtain any ownership, copyright, proprietary or other interest in or to the Source Code, or any portion of the Source Code. You may dispose of your own software in your sole discretion. With the exception of the Educational Use right, you may not otherwise use the Software, or an portion of the Software, which includes the Source Code, for commercial gain.

While id Software could perhaps argue that only they could distribute the source "as is" (something mostly respected by the fact that we usually get the source under that license from /idstuff), it is saying that you can mix portions of the software with your code.

Additionally, while perhaps the wording in the license may seem like it could be used by id Software to shut down projects by making extreme literal excuses, history shows that was not the case (nor apparently the intention, especially Carmack's.) Though in the long run it might be wise for people to stick to the GPL whenever possible, as it does indeed more or less guarantee distributability.

Note that even but may not duplicate the Source Code, except as noted in paragraph 4 is referencing You may not otherwise reproduce, copy or disclose to others, in whole or in any part, the Software. Meaning that if you do distribute it, you are fully agreeing that it is property of id Software. You can't copy anything verbatim without acknowledging that it is their exclusive property, and it is saying that any code copied from them is their property, but is giving you the right to use parts of the code for educational purposes (generally personal or community based noncommercial activity).

The You may not copy the written materials accompanying the Software is curious, but might well be saying that the license does not grant any rights to copy anything but code. It doesn't mean the company would take action against anyone copying anything else included (the license itself or any notes); it means it isn't any different from copying any text the company publishes (like some description on their site or in a manual, for example), and is goverened by its own rules as usual.

[andrewj]

OK, I accept that the original DOOMLIC.TXT is "flexible" enough to not give any grief to the source ports still using it.

However, I'm convinced that the RAVEN license gives absolutely no permission to distribute modified copies.

Modifying the code on your own computer and not distributing it, that is OK (fair use I guess).

Distributing the original, unmodified code is probably OK too. (The license seems to disallow it, but nobody would care).

But I think distributing modified copies is not permitted. It is what is missing from the license that is important, and there is nothing in there that mentions "modification" or "development" or "alterations".

Since a license merely grants you additional rights to bare copyright, and bare copyright grants no rights at all to non-copyright holders, it follows that the RAVEN license does not permit distributing modified copies.

Perhaps the point is moot, as Raven/Activision don't seem to care, or may have said distributing modifications was OK, but I think all the Heretic/Hexen ports are in a vulnerable position nevertheless.

[fraggle]

Bastet Furry said:

We could put it simple and end this argument:
Doom sourcecode based => Release the fucking code or pay your fee to id soft.
Selfmade code that is doom compatible => Stick your code into your piehole, if you want.

It's not that simple because the Doom source is available under two different licenses:

GPL => Free to do anything (even to sell the program), but you must release the source.
Doom Source License => You are not obliged to release the source, but you are forbidden from selling the program and even basic things such as distributing modified versions are a bit questionable (it barely allows you to do anything with it if you read the license carefully).

[CODOR]

Quasar said:
The GPL cannot be modified either to add or remove legal terms of the license without the consent of all stakeholders.

Ah, to clarify, I meant to use a modified GPL for new code, not existing code.

But after further thought, this seems to be pretty much equivalent to using the LGPL; non-free programs can still use it, but one is only obligated to release the source to the LGPLed parts (because we can't change the terms of the rest of the code to ensure that people will release the source for the whole thing).

And if Raven's license (which I haven't actually read) doesn't have any redistribution rights, then it doesn't really matter what license is used for new code, one will still end up with a null license (i.e. no rights above what are already given by copyright law)... :-P

[Yagisan]

Ah ha. A new development.

http://risen3d.newdoom.com/
For the record ....

* Graham's early efforts were rejected by the Doomsday team as not relevant, hence Risen3D.

No - He never considered heretic or hexen support. That is inconsitant with our aims for the port.

http://risen3d.newdoom.com/
* The Doomsday team has NEVER officially approached us for help with their port.

We didn't ask for help with our port - we asked for you the source as is our right under the license you used our code under. In fact this is the last time I asked.

The full damm email - headers and all
Subject: Missing Risen3D source code ?
From: Jamie Jones <jamie_jones_au@yahoo.com.au>
To: Abbs <abbs@bigpond.net.au>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7Xsf4V8g815h8AfiwFpT"
Message-Id: <1157299473.7690.15.camel@doomguy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1
Bcc: "Dani J (Deng)" <danij@dengine.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 02:04:37 +1000
X-Evolution-Format: text/plain
X-Evolution-Account: 1128156748.16008.16@doomguy
X-Evolution-Transport:
smtp://jamie_jones_au;auth=PLAIN@smtp.mail.yahoo.com/;use_ssl=never
X-Evolution-Fcc: mbox:/home/jamie/.evolution/mail/local#Sent


--=-7Xsf4V8g815h8AfiwFpT
Content-Type: text/plain?
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable?
?
G'day Abbs.?
?
I've downloaded Risen3D 2.1.0?
( http://abbs.jbserver.com/downloads/risen3d/r3dv2.1-setup.exe )?
?
The package contains binaries, but no source.?
?
On this page http://risen3d.newdoom.com/dd&r3d.htm it states that?
Risen3D was based off Doomsday 1.7.8?
?
Doomsday 1.7.7 contained a lot of GPL code from before the Risen3D split?
( http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/deng/tags/release-1-7-7/doomsday/LICENS=?
E?revision=3D33&view=3Dmarkup ) so I'd like to know where I can download th=?
e source to go with the Risen3D binary I have downloaded.?
?
Thanks in advance for your help.?
?
Regards,?
Jamie?
--=20?
GPG/PGP signed mail preferred. No HTML mail. No MS Word attachments?
PGP Key ID 0x4B6E7209?
Fingerprint E1FD 9D7E 6BB4 1BD4 AEB9 3091 0027 CEFA 4B6E 7209?

--=-7Xsf4V8g815h8AfiwFpT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBE+v0RACfO+ktucgkRAqKqAJwOQxz717EKS9Nb9/69yjDaAnzg0wCeL0Nc
VdtoLuaYK5Y3BV8aOEHKQi0=
=/0no
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-7Xsf4V8g815h8AfiwFpT--

Still no reply people.

http://risen3d.newdoom.com/
* The Risen3D source WOULD have eventually been released.

I suppose we should belive in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy too right ?? You had three years.

http://risen3d.newdoom.com/
* The biggest losers are those that did not obtain the source through their bully-boy tactics.

Bully-boy tactics is where we arrange for you to recieve a court summons at your workplace, so everyone knows you are being done for copyright infringment.

Asking you repeatly in public to comply with your obligations is not a bully boy tactic. It is being courtious to people that fail to reply to private communications.

http://risen3d.newdoom.com/
* The Risen3D team are not shattered, just a little disappointed in the outcome.

So you expected to get away with it for longer ? Do any of you understand the concept of ethics ?

[Csonicgo]

So, techically, every Risen3D binary is illegal?

All those 4+ maps made for this port will surely be missed.

*deletes DeepSea and other Deep projects*

ah, there, no illegal software on my system.

[DaniJ]

Interesting.

* The Doomsday team has NEVER officially approached us for help with their port.

No we haven't and there are very good reasons why.

Namely;
1) We disagree with the direction you decided to take Risen3D in.

2) Your approach to implementing new features did not fit well into our plans for Doomsday (sector-over-sector, slopes and now model scripting (from what I can deduce from the editing docs included in your distributions at least)). Each of which are implemented in a manner which I personally believe does not fit well into the Doomsday engine's design.

For example, your method of BOOM support (basically just updating jDoom by merging in the code of PrBoom) does not fit in with our plans as it limits the BOOM featureset to use in jDoom. It is this reason why BOOM support has taken so long to develop in Doomsday as we plan to fully intergrate BOOM's feature-set into the core engine in a way which benefits all supported games transparently.

3) We do not "need help" as you put it. We have firm plans on the direction we want to take Doomsday in and we know what we need to do to achieve them.

4) Our plans do not correlate well with yours for Risen3D so naturally we would not approach them to work with us on Doomsday as you have previously demonstrated unwillingness to make compromises. At the time of the split skyjake was more than willing to make compromises in order to share a common codebase. His offer was rejected by the Risen3D team.

* The biggest losers are those that did not obtain the source through their bully-boy tactics.

I fail to see how we have lost anything. Since we would not have implemented 99% of Risen3D's features in the manner which you have; we have little to gain from obtaining the source.

You seem to be under the impression that we were motivated to do this because we wanted to implement Risen3D's code into Doomsday. I can assure you that is definetly not the case (for reasons detailed above).

Our only motivation was to see Risen3D comply with it's obligations.

Risen3D's author's arrogance, childish behaviour and sheer contempt for us, the Doomsday team, I find completely overwhelming. It is never good to see a promising DOOM related project bite the dust but I cannot say I feel sorry about Risen3D's demise given the way you have treated us.

[myk]

Ajapted said:
Perhaps the point is moot, as Raven/Activision don't seem to care, or may have said distributing modifications was OK, but I think all the Heretic/Hexen ports are in a vulnerable position nevertheless.

While it's continually talking about "New Materials" that can be made if they require the commercial games and aren't offered for money or other such considerations, it does say [You shall not] Make copies of this Program or any part thereof, or make copies of the materials accompanying this Program, unconditionally. Which, while not enforced actively (the many source based ports and modifications show this), is potentially dangerous to anyone releasing said modifications, since at a whim Activision could terminate them. But legally terminating one under these conditions would probably mean terminating them all, which is kind of pointless in relation to releasing the code in the first place, unless they meant to provide the source only as a reference so that people could more easily make wads that don't touch the source directly. But if they were following id's example with DOOM, they should have clarified that (because in DOOM's case this was certainly not so), and they haven't, even after all the engine offshoot releases.

Since this license is even more restrictive than the DOOM license, Heretic/Hexen mod or port authors have an even stronger reason to attempt to convince Activision and Raven to release the source under the GPL: it would give the community an assurance that they can contribute full-fledged Heretic and Hexen mod contributions without being concerned that their efforts may be be at stake sometime in the future.

I think that the recommendation to relicense the Heretic and Hexen sources should be presented that way; to free up mod development so that it can be put at the level of the DOOM community's, which has demonstrated to be pretty successful and decently well organized without stepping on id Software's interests.