risen3d licencing discussion

[fraggle]

Quasar said:

If you totally independently develop your own code to totally replace the GPLed portions of a program, then you can relicense it since you and you alone hold the COPYRIGHT. This is no different than how GPL utilities were independently and systematically developed to replace all of AT&T's code in UNIX so that it could become a completely GPL system.

ITYM BSDL system

[fraggle]

deep said:

The problem with this WHOLE discussion is that people like you posture a lot but have no clue. COPYRIGHT has absolutely NOTHING to do with a LICENSE. Let me hammer this home so people will realize you are making it up as you go along. Listen up:

The way you enforce a LICENSE is via the LICENSE agreement - NOT Copyright law. And we are talking about LICENSE issue here!

IOW, a LICENSE is a standalone legal document (AGREEMENT) all by itself. It does not require Copyright anything for enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license

A software license is a license that grants permission to do things with computer software that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law. For example, a software license might give permission to make copies of the software. A copyright holder may offer a software license unilaterally, or as part of a software license agreement with another party.

The license may include terms and conditions. If one does not follow the terms of the license, then he or she is subject to the normal restrictions of copyright law.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

[Mordeth]

Brad_tilf said:
Believe me when I say that there is not profit motive involved in offering people a bonus for donations.

Getting a bit off-topic here but seeing you, of all people, posting in this thread before... it was too much to resist a comment :)

The previous discussion still stands, as far as I'm concerned.

A "bonus for donations" is when you offer people a free CD/DVD if they make a donation that exceeds X amount of money, while making sure you have the permission of the authors. And if you can't reach them, put up a list people can check against so they can contact you if they want their files removed.

[entryway]

I think one of the most important reasons of the closed source of Risen3d could be DeePsea. DeePsea is on sale. Graham could receive some percent from these sales (R3DEdit). IMO, this quite reasonable assumption. Graham could become hostage of his previous actions. Interestingly, how many people from DoomWorld forums have bought DeePsea?

[Brad_tilf]

entryway said:

I think one of the most important reasons of the closed source of Risen3d could be DeePsea. DeePsea is on sale. Graham could receive some percent from these sales (R3DEdit). IMO, this quite reasonable assumption. Graham could become hostage of his previous actions. Interestingly, how many people from DoomWorld forums have bought DeePsea?

I did. Best editor in my opinion and the guy definitely put the work into it.

[Brad_tilf]

Mordeth said:

Getting a bit off-topic here but seeing you, of all people, posting in this thread before... it was too much to resist a comment :)

The previous discussion still stands, as far as I'm concerned.

A "bonus for donations" is when you offer people a free CD/DVD if they make a donation that exceeds X amount of money, while making sure you have the permission of the authors. And if you can't reach them, put up a list people can check against so they can contact you if they want their files removed.

Since the entire point is obviously NOT for profit, and the material on all those cds/dvds are public domain, I don't believe there is an issue there. Now, if I was game informer and I was putting the cd's into my magazine to maximize sales (and profits) then I could see where you have a point. Unfortunately for many people but fortunately for Doom Wad Station, there are alot of people still on dialup who appreciate the ability to get all the wads in a neat little package for a small donation. Now, if you can prove that I am making a profit through these cds/dvds then you might have a point but since I can guarantee you and anyone who cares to inquire that the few cds/dvds that get sold come no where close to covering the cost of a dedicated server, there is no point to the discussion. Unlike many other doom related sites *doomworld* *cough*, I don't clutter up my site with advertising to pay my bills. People can download 30 gigs of stuff without the hassles of fileplanet or the other advertising whores so all that is asked is a donation occasionally and in return you get something. Everybody who runs a reasonably large site or does a fair job on something in this community needs to pay for it. This site does it with advertising. I do it mostly out of pocket and through infrequent and small donations in which the donator can choose to get a compilation of his choice. Who anyone thinks they are to question that is beyond me.

[myk]

Brad_tilf said:
and the material on all those cds/dvds are public domain,

A wad is not "public domain" unless the author has full copyrights over it and chooses to release it thus.

id Software specifically forbids offering addons for their games for a fee of any sort, regardless of whether you end up making or losing money out of their sale or monied offering. This might be questioned to a degree (by the authors only) if the wads take nothing from id and are 100% original (no modified graphics or lumps taken from the IWADs are included whatsoever), though you'd still be in a "gray area" (unfriendly terms) due to id's claims. You said above none of it would exist if it weren't for id Software allowing it and I am not so high on my stuff as to believe that I hold a right to something that isn't technically mine to begin with, so unless you're a blatant hypocrite, you should at the very least be respecting what they ask for as a condition under which we release wads for their games (never for a fee of any sort).

From the EULA of the DOOM games:

You shall not rent, sell, lease, lend, offer on a pay-per-play basis or otherwise commercially exploit or commercially distribute the New Creations. You are only permitted to distribute, without any cost or charge, the New Creations to other end-users so long as such distribution is not infringing against any third party right and is not otherwise illegal or unlawful.

[DooMAD]

Brad_tilf said:

Very nice but nobody sells anything for "profit" in the doom community. For instance, since you alluded to it, I STILL take hundreds of dollars a year out of my own pocket to keep Doom Wad Station online. Hell, I just pulled $200 out of my own checking account in August, alone. Believe me when I say that there is not profit motive involved in offering people a bonus for donations.

I can't think of anyone in the community who charges money for their own work to fund their website, so that's hardly a good excuse. Regardless of whether or not the proceeds go towards keeping your site online, you're still acquiring money from someone else's work.

[Csonicgo]

So, this is what my instincts are telling me.

Risen3d sources waere closed and shared betwixt Graham and Deep for r3dedit, BUT IF ONLY Graham gets some of the money. The result? The source waes closed due to this agreement, Deep had a one-up on the editing and scripting, thus more people turning to Deep's editor for R3d editing, which means more $.

I hope this is false.

[david_a]

myk said:

From the EULA of the DOOM games:

You shall not rent, sell, lease, lend, offer on a pay-per-play basis or otherwise commercially exploit or commercially distribute the New Creations. You are only permitted to distribute, without any cost or charge, the New Creations to other end-users so long as such distribution is not infringing against any third party right and is not otherwise illegal or unlawful.

Huh. Where all those old shovelware CDs full of maps illegal?

Csonicgo:
That's a pretty good conspiracy theory. Hopefully the truth is far more boring then that.

[Quasar]

Technically yes, they were, and IIRC, id wasted a bit of money going after one of them once. I don't think anything came of it though, and the various D!ZONE-style discs were being sold in Wal-Mart right up until Final DOOM itself leaked its last few copies from the shelves.

I think these were something of a service, however, rather than a necessarily bad thing. I got into DOOM before I even had internet access, and then when I did have it, it was with 19.2 modem through AOL. There's no way I could have downloaded an eighth of what was on those discs, so they were well worth the $9.95 to me, and I don't think they were overly disrespectful to the authors, as the original text files were included and all. This is not to mention the D! frontend, which was excellent and had to have cost a good chunk of the amount of money made on those discs to develop :)

[Brad_tilf]

myk said:

A wad is not "public domain" unless the author has full copyrights over it and chooses to release it thus.

id Software specifically forbids offering addons for their games for a fee of any sort, regardless of whether you end up making or losing money out of their sale or monied offering. This might be questioned to a degree (by the authors only) if the wads take nothing from id and are 100% original (no modified graphics or lumps taken from the IWADs are included whatsoever), though you'd still be in a "gray area" (unfriendly terms) due to id's claims. You said above none of it would exist if it weren't for id Software allowing it and I am not so high on my stuff as to believe that I hold a right to something that isn't technically mine to begin with, so unless you're a blatant hypocrite, you should at the very least be respecting what they ask for as a condition under which we release wads for their games (never for a fee of any sort).

From the EULA of the DOOM games:

You shall not rent, sell, lease, lend, offer on a pay-per-play basis or otherwise commercially exploit or commercially distribute the New Creations. You are only permitted to distribute, without any cost or charge, the New Creations to other end-users so long as such distribution is not infringing against any third party right and is not otherwise illegal or unlawful.

I do not sell wads. I offer a service. The service being that I can save people download time. Every one of those wads is freely available on my website. If I put them on the cds or dvds without offering them on my site then you would have a point.

[RjY]

Brad_tilf said:

I do not sell wads. I offer a service. The service being that I can save people download time. Every one of those wads is freely available on my website. If I put them on the cds or dvds without offering them on my site then you would have a point.

Try reading your own marketing blurb once in a while

[myk]

Brad_tilf said:
I do not sell wads. I offer a service. The service being that I can save people download time. Every one of those wads is freely available on my website.

The EULA specifically forbids what you are doing. It literally asks you not to do it. You just quoted it.

How can you quote something and answer it in such a failing way?

If I put them on the cds or dvds without offering them on my site then you would have a point.

No, there is no mention of being able to offer addons for a fee if you offer them for free by other means (that would be kind of like the GPL that allows you to sell the software as long as the source is offer the source).

Don't try half-assed and inadequate justifications and don't talk about not having a right to mess with what's not yours if you're going to ignore what id claims and what authors may have requested or not allowed.

It doesn't matter what you think is good for whoever when you disrespect others you're involved with.

[Quasar]

Heh. So many contradictions. Anyways, let's please not turn Doomworld into a BSA police force. They have one of those already and it doesn't need any help >_<

Yes, some people are doing some things that aren't perfectly legal. OK, how many of you have commercial MP3s on your hard drive right now? How many of you use only licensed software? Hmmmm... This guy named Jesus that I don't happen to worship once said something that does make sense no matter what religion you are -- Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. There are sure a lot of stones flying around here right now.

I say if you don't have a vested personal interest in a license violation that's ongoing, you'd do better to stay out of it and let the involved parties sort it out. That's what I've endevoured to do -- I've simply explained and clarified issues, such as what the GPL actually states.

[myk]

Quasar said:
I say if you don't have a vested personal interest in a license violation that's ongoing, you'd do better to stay out of it and let the involved parties sort it out. That's what I've endevoured to do -- I've simply explained and clarified issues, such as what the GPL actually states.

I'm a wad author and I am interested in how wads are treated (distributed or modified) in the community. I respect what id and other wad authors have to say about their work and will speak up to mention some issue regarding that, especially in a case like this one where the person being criticised started opining about the current issue of licenses and software usage, when he has this contradictory and interested baggage on his back.

I defend the proper distribution of wads just like I defend the GPL of the engines I use (and I have produced no GPL code myself). And before you start judging how much "vested personal interest" people have, think of all the people who offer support and are not initially apparently tied to the initiatives you pursue (or others pursue). Or do you wish to be alone in an ignored thread with two other coders when you consider the relicensing of the Raven games?

Quasar said:
OK, how many of you have commercial MP3s on your hard drive right now? How many of you use only licensed software? Hmmmm...

Does Doomworld host these MP3s or unlicensed programs? No. Neither do I host any on my site.

What people do privately appart from the community is not part of the community, and there is a big difference between the existence of an underground gray area and graying out a public area where that grayish activity is not allowed.

This is where the wads are made, and these things touch the authors directly, and we deal with id directly (using their stuff).

[Quasar]

Fair enough. Though I think everyone does stand to benefit from having the Activision EULA lifted, I get your point ;)

Also, I was not in any way aware that this was on a Doomworld-hosted site. If so, that understandably changes things. Unless you are referring to the use of the forums to promote it, which is also questionable.

[myk]

Quasar said:
Also, I was not in any way aware that this was on a Doomworld-hosted site. If so, that understandably changes things. Unless you are referring to the use of the forums to promote it, which is also questionable.

It's not. I mentioned Doomworld mostly as a part of the community where these things are respected to a reasonable degree, in comparison, plus hinting that I think this type of activity shouldn't be welcomed with open arms here, if at all (through links, etc).

[RTC_Marine]

if brad has made any money off those cd's, then he must owe some of the authors ;)

[Mordeth]

Quasar said:
Also, I was not in any way aware that this was on a Doomworld-hosted site.

It better not be, since it's strictly forbidden.

[Mordeth]

Brad_tilf, you just don't get it, do you? You better not ever give me reason to take a vested personal interest in this, as Quasar puts it.

As a matter of fact, my stuff did appear once on an Italian PC magazine cover disc, as part of a special about Doom add-ons. And you know what? They asked my permission first, just like they were supposed to do according to the text notice. Got a complimentary issue in return.

Accountability is not something you pick and choose.

But apologies for derailing this thread! As I said, seeing him commenting in this thread was just too tempting to not make a comparison.

[Brad_tilf]

RTC_Marine said:

if brad has made any money off those cd's, then he must owe some of the authors ;)

Brad has not made a dime. So you can have 0% of nothing.

[Brad_tilf]

Mordeth said:

Brad_tilf, you just don't get it, do you? You better not ever give me reason to take a vested personal interest in this, as Quasar puts it.

As a matter of fact, my stuff did appear once on an Italian PC magazine cover disc, as part of a special about Doom add-ons. And you know what? They asked my permission first, just like they were supposed to do according to the text notice. Got a complimentary issue in return.

Accountability is not something you pick and choose.

But apologies for derailing this thread! As I said, seeing him commenting in this thread was just too tempting to not make a comparison.

You know, to be perfectly honest, it isn't worth the trouble anyway. So, pfft, gone. No more cd's or dvd's. As I said, they really didn't help much anyway. I guess I'll have to become an advertising whore like everyone else.

[Yagisan]

deep said:

Been gone


The problem with this WHOLE discussion is that people like you posture a lot but have no clue. COPYRIGHT has absolutely NOTHING to do with a LICENSE. Let me hammer this home so people will realize you are making it up as you go along. Listen up:

The way you enforce a LICENSE is via the LICENSE agreement - NOT Copyright law. And we are talking about LICENSE issue here!

IOW, a LICENSE is a standalone legal document (AGREEMENT) all by itself. It does not require Copyright anything for enforcement.

Thank you. We now understand that not only do you not understand licensing at all, but that all your claims have been falsehoods.

deep said:

Not understanding something this simple is your problem. Unfortunately, your kind of post is confusing the hell out of everyone and continuing a debate based on imagination, not law.

The only one that is confused is you. Sit down, read about licenses and copyright law.

deep said:

As noted correctly by someone, you CAN NOT just throw a bunch of licenses in a heap and expect anyone to make sense of this. That's what JDOOM/etc has done - create a nonsense licensing state. This was pointed out by me a LONG TIME AGO yet you refuse to understand this. Not my problem, but your problem.

There is no nonsense licensing state. non-gpl object files link together to produce non-gpl plugins. GPL object files link together to produce the GPL engine and GPL plugins. The engine and plugins do not link to each other, so there is no invalid licensing state created. Distributing GPL source and non-GPL source in the same .zip or tar.gz file is mere agregation, which again is not an invalid licensing state.

deep said:

You and others wish to confuse and I find that interesting since some of you are actually in trouble by the very things you say. GZDOOM in particular falls 100% into the arguments presented :)

As does R3Dedit. The key difference is, that GZDOOM and others try to comply with their licenses obligations as best they can by releasing the source. You do not. What you have done is take other peoples work, ignored the licenses conditions on it, and are promoting it for your personal benefit.

I ask again, where is the source to the following binaries I have downloaded from your website: R3Dedit.zip (md5sum 00dbbf88c00d4f19233baf6d72599292 ) downloaded on September 9, 2006 from sbsoftware.com/files/R3Dedit.zip

where is the source to R3Dglbsp.exe contained withing that R3Dedit.zip file.

deep said:

As I already said (and somebody else noted), you've created a SINGLE project with all these pieces - I give a rats whether you link it dynamically or not or any other gambit. You clearly don't realize this is more a style issue vs deeper stuff. ZDOOM is an obvious example of how to do it differently.

You can not now claim these are all different licenses when there is NO PLACE where that is clearly stated and delineated (what parts and pieces please).

Even if you choose not to believe it, the fact that the gpl code of the engine does not link to the plugins, is rather importand. It demonstrates that there IS NO license contamination between the engine and it's plugins. jHeretic is (at the supposed time of the fork 1.7.8 offically) non-gpl. jHexen has Raven licenses all other it. jDoom is in the process of changing from Doom Source to GPL, as evidenced by the Doom Source headers still around. The ENGINE was always GPL as listed in the LICENSE file that you have removed from R3Dedit.

Lets play spot the links:

 ldd ./bin/doomsday
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
        libSDL-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib32/libSDL-1.2.so.0 (0x5557f000)
        libpthread.so.0 => /lib32/libpthread.so.0 (0x55607000)
        libSDL_net-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib32/libSDL_net-1.2.so.0 (0x5561a000)
        libz.so.1 => /usr/lib32/libz.so.1 (0x5561e000)
        libncurses.so.5 => /lib32/libncurses.so.5 (0x55632000)
        libform.so.5 => /usr/lib32/libform.so.5 (0x55674000)
        libpng12.so.0 => /usr/lib32/libpng12.so.0 (0x55680000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib32/libdl.so.2 (0x556a3000)
        libSM.so.6 => /usr/lib32/libSM.so.6 (0x556a7000)
        libICE.so.6 => /usr/lib32/libICE.so.6 (0x556af000)
        libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib32/libX11.so.6 (0x556c7000)
        libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib32/libXext.so.6 (0x557ad000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib32/libc.so.6 (0x557ba000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib32/libm.so.6 (0x558e9000)
        libasound.so.2 => /usr/lib32/libasound.so.2 (0x5590c000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x55555000)
        libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib32/libXau.so.6 (0x559c8000)

ldd ./lib/libjdoom.so
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib32/libc.so.6 (0x558b8000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x56555000)

Look, no links. why am I not surprised.

deep said:

My interest is actually only to set the record straight. No matter how much you wish to bully and make stuff up, the simple fact is that JDOOM currently is improperly licensed (and in violation of GPL and Raven). Furthermore, the original RISEN3D (as BOOMSDAY) predates 1.7.x. and that's where I start.

No, your code most certainly does not come from Boomsday, as if it did, you would only have a plugin, not the engine too. As it is, you clearly have gpl engine code in there. Try to be more creative next time you lie.

Now, explain this:

Risen3D_lic.txt
******* RISEN3D CONDITIONS OF USE (2001/2003/2004)

The software is based on the original DOOM software released by id Software and is Copyright (C) 1993-1996 by id Software, Inc.



The original DOOM source is available for distribution and/or modification only under the terms of the DOOM Source Code License as published by id Software. All rights reserved. See Doomlic.txt.



THE RISEN3D SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.



The author has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that the RISEN3D software and all previous variants is suitable for running with the Windows operating system V9x or XP. It has not been tested with Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows NT (any version).


This software, although based on DOOMSDAY, has been modified independently and the author of DOOMSDAY, Jaakko Keränen, cannot accept or respond to any problems that may arise out of the use of this software.


This software is FREEWARE. No charge can be made for this software.



If you are not willing to accept the above conditions in their entirety then do not install the software or, if already installed, then please delete the software and any copies of the software from your system.



Trade marks; Windows(TM) Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.

How the hell can you relicense our work ?

deep said:

IOW, I was not about to change all my source just to keep up with RISEN3D. I never had any interest in "port" code per se, merely more flexible support for various editing specific stuff that is port independent. That's easy to verify since my code won't run RISEN3D code and I'm missing "features".

You are still based on Doomsdays code and subject to GPL claims. Again, where is the source ?

deep said:

I really have spent a LOT of money on legal advice. Primarily for LICENSE AGREEMENTS that the other party violated. One party was Activision no less :) That's because Copyright and Licensing are just not the same thing.

Again. I find it hard to believe you have spent this money. If indeed you have, find a better lawyer that understands the law.

deep said:

The problem you have here is that everyone wants to jump on a bandwagon not realizing the bandwagon is more a problem for them then it is for me. Copying "keywords" is hardly a basis for an argument.

So you have no problem releasing the source then.

deep said:

Easy - patch expansion, actually supplied by Graham from ZDOOM (and technically created by me). For others just look for "ZDOOM" comment. IIRC JK removed some comments so some are not so easy to decipher. It only take ONE example to prove my point :)

It's already been proven GMJ has no respect for copyright and licenses. If any such code exists it will be ripped out so fast your head will spin. We do keep source histories to track this.

deep said:

So what? Explain how it makes a DIFFERENCE. The source PROJECT is what counts. That they are not required for DOOM is not relevant. You look at leaves and fail to see the tree.

mere aggregation does not trigger a license incompatiblity. You see the trees, but can not tell them apart, as you fail to see their leaves.

deep said:

I do, but your level of expertise is lacking, so you don't understand and repeat the same nonsense over and over.

Deep, surely you would know better then stoop to personal attacks now - It makes you far less credible.

deep said:

Last but not least, BOOM additions came from BOOM, not PRBOOM.

Doubtful. Risen3D is supposedly from Doomsday 1.7.8, yet it looks very much like features and fixes from Doomsday 1.8.x are in it.

deep said:

So you see, all that has been accomplished is you've made an author quit (something that will become more relevant as time goes on) and you've ignored facts as presented that JDOOM is not a legal GPL project, not to mention GZDOOM which wants to claim "rewrite" makes it exempt for GPL even though the basis was GPL.

What I see is a so called port author, that never actually became part of the community, took some code, failed to comply with it's license for over 3 years, and was finally told by the community, this is unacceptable. Said port author then decided he didn't want to play anymore.

deep said:

Clearly this is mostly a personal vendetta where nobody gained anything and everyone actually lost a lot.

Deep, this isn't personal. You are not important enough for it to be personal. You are just another guy that thinks he can ignore license conditions to suit himself. In a nutshell, your behaviour is that od a parasite on the lifeblood of this community. You take others work, and pass it off as your own, all the while demoralising others by doing this. It's time for people like you to either comply with the license conditions, or go home.

[Csonicgo]

Even I know that licences and copyright law are related, and I'm a lowly college student.

[deep]

You can repeat nonsense till hell freezes over. A LICENSE and COPYRIGHT are NOT the same thing.

Here's why all of you are so confused. A LICENSE can talk about COPYRIGHT as part of it's wording (not required though), however, that doesn't mean Copyright and License are the same thing. "Related" doesn't mean "same".

Example: I have licensed programs and game data to various companies. They have nothing about source code copyright, just definitions and restrictions on what can be done with the work. Read just about any program license to see this. Now do you see why I keep insisting this is about LICENSE only.

Technically anything created by anyone is automatically "copyright" (no need to even say this any longer). That technically presents a problem for anyone to use or distribute a software program. The solution to this is a LICENSE, aka "Software Licence" aka "EULA" http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/EULA.html

Wiki link actually does NOT support any argument presented. Rather than interpreting to suit your taste, realize that all it says is that a software license grants permission for someone to use the work and degrees beyond that. IOW, since copyright is automatic, there needs to be explicit permission to use the work. Look at levels to see how they too require a LICENSE to distribute and use according to the rules the author has chosen.

-------------

JDOOM by virtue of having a mass assortment of licenses is a mess that you'll never convince any court as being enforceable since it's the job of the author to clearly define the rules. That was clearly not done.

And for the last time, JDOOM had NO GPL license in anything I worked on. You can turn blue and say that was the intent but there was absolutely nothing like that in the zipped sources. I'm not a mind reader and only go by what was officially included.

This whole thing reminds me of the DEU guy that got pissed (never contacted me though) when I took his word that I could do anything with the source I wanted. I fixed most of the bugs and made DeeP - changing it to drawing mode at the same time. (Interestingly, everybody said DEU dot-to-dot was the way to go - like now justt because everyone wanted to be on a band wagon - yet not understanding the differences. Yet today, guess how it's done:) )

So he started some backyard bitching session (that I only found out years later) and then changed the license. But the cat was out of the bag.

And that's exactly the same problem now. I suppose I should contact sourceforge and get JDOOM's Heretic and Hexen stuff removed. Is that what you want me to do?

-----------

LICENSING by itself is the instrument under discussion, NOT Copyright. As such, the LICENSES are not legitimate. Indeed with the mess presented the most restrictive license rules.

GZDOOM is in conflict with the very GPL issues raised. If GZDOOM can "rewrite" the admitted GPL code of PRBOOM then by God so can anyone.

What you don't realize is that GZDOOM CAN NOT include GPL code (has nothing to do with releasing source). RH clearly understands this and has openly stated why he won't use any GPL code because of the LICENSING problem. Note that it's NOT a copyright problem.

This is all pretty simple once you realize that LICENSING is an entity all to itself.

[Bastet Furry]

And i still claim that even DeepSea has GPL code in it. Would suit deep very well.

And by deeps reply over me he even says that he uses DEU code.
Nice.... using others works in a close source project and making money of it.
You are "da man"!
You are the worst person inside this community!
Please die! Thanks!

[Neil]

deep said:

You can repeat nonsense till hell freezes over. A LICENSE and COPYRIGHT are NOT the same thing.

No, but if you do not accept and abide by the terms of the license offered to you, any redistribution of the copyrighted work, or any works derived from that copyrighted work, constitutes copyright infringement.

Excluding exceptions like fair use, of course, but let's see you make the case for that, heh.

[deep]

Neil said:

No, but if you do not accept and abide by the terms of the license offered to you, any redistribution of the copyrighted work, or any works derived from that copyrighted work, constitutes copyright infringement.

Excluding exceptions like fair use, of course, but let's see you make the case for that, heh.

LOL. You forget that the DOOM LICENSE I used overrides the copyright thingy. That's the only license applicable in my case. Don't forget it's FREE, just like SKULLTAG is FREE using the exact same license. Yet they don't release the source. Are we both wrong?

[TheDarkArchon]

Here we go again with DeeP refusing to give up when he has already lost. Again.