Is the Wolf3D source GPL or not?

[printz]

I'd really like to be sure, and with proof: has the Wolfenstein 3D source code for PC been officially relicensed to GPL (or another open source license) by its creators?

There has been a thread here asking why it's NOT GPL. It hasn't advanced anywhere.

Then I see the SVN versions of Wolf4SDL and Blzut3's ECWolf sporting "license-gpl.txt" files in their repositories. When did they appear? Did Id ever announce the relicensing or were they tacked on?

And I'm not talking about iPhone. I'm talking about Wolfenstein for DOS.

I want to know the correct license, so that I know how I am allowed to distribute AutoWolf.

[Gez]

There has been no official statement. Just Carmack basically going "yeah, you can use it under the terms of the GPL and no I don't feel like bothering with an official packaging, I have rockets to fly".

You're not talking about the iPhone, but I will anyway: it's based on a modern port of old DOS Wolf that was placed under the terms of the GPL (and mixed in some Quake II code, but that's beside the point). Carmack used it as a base to make the iPhone port and obeyed its licensing...

Carmack wrote in Carmack_iPhone_development.doc:
There was a little thought given to the fact that if I had reverted to the virgin source, the project wouldn't be required to be under the GPL.

I think this is the best proof you can have that Id Software is okay with GPL Wolf. It's beyond tacit tolerance at this point, it's active acknowledgment. Carmack knowingly used a codebase that had been placed under the GPL, and the alternative for him was working from the original, unmodified source code, redoing all the porting code. He didn't consider "sue that guy's ass" as a possible alternative, nor did he consider "ignore the licensing stuff since it's our code anyway and it was GPLed without authorization". Ask yourself, why didn't he think about such alternatives?

If it's not enough for you, nothing will ever be.

[printz]

Thank you a lot, this made it all clear.

Gez said:

Ask yourself, why didn't he think about such alternatives?

Maybe because he was ashamed of Wolf3d source? :P

[Blzut3]

Gez said:

it's based on a modern port of old DOS Wolf that was placed under the terms of the GPL (and mixed in some Quake II code, but that's beside the point).

I haven't looked at the code in depth, but my impression is that the Wolf Redux is a from scratch effort.

Wolf4SDL and ECWolf are licensed under the GPL based on this statement from readme_iWolf_v1x.txt.

I released the original source for Wolfenstein 3D many years ago, originally under a not-for-commercial purposes license, then later under the GPL.

One thing to note is that the Doom source code was released under the GPL based on a similar statement. This is why the github code doesn't have the gpl license. ;)

[andrewj]

There is no official GPL release of the original Wolf3d code, and I don't think what Carmack has said about the code would hold much weight if the current owners of the code (assuming it's not Carmack) were sueing you.

I suggest not perpetuating the fiction that the original Wolf3d code is GPL (or can be placed under the GPL).

[Blzut3]

That statement was made on March 20th, 2009 and id Software was acquired by ZeniMax in June, so at the time Carmack was the owner of the code.

[Technician]

Blzut3 said:

That statement was made on March 20th, 2009 and id Software was acquired by ZeniMax in June, so at the time Carmack was the owner of the code.

Oh fuck, you're right. Is there any possibility a company could eliminate Doom's GPL license?

[Blzut3]

Technician said:

Oh fuck, you're right. Is there any possibility a company could eliminate Doom's GPL license?

Honestly by andrewj's logic I think ZeniMax would have a stronger case against the Doom source since from a search I can't find any evidence that id granted permission to use the Doom source under the GPL besides the fact that they followed the licensing terms of prboom for Doom Classic.

[Aliotroph?]

Technician said:

Oh fuck, you're right. Is there any possibility a company could eliminate Doom's GPL license?

That seems like it would be difficult. The iOS version is on id's Github account with its GPL license intact. I don't think the GPL provides a method to revoke a license given away. That's why when a company decides to close their source the previous GPL versions don't go away.

[Technician]

Aliotroph? said:

That seems like it would be difficult. The iOS version is on id's Github account with its GPL license intact. I don't think the GPL provides a method to revoke a license given away. That's why when a company decides to close their source the previous GPL versions don't go away.

So these versions of the source code are bastardized versions?

[printz]

Blzut3 said:

That statement was made on March 20th, 2009 and id Software was acquired by ZeniMax in June, so at the time Carmack was the owner of the code.

And does that help or not in sustaining that said game engine is free and open source?

[Blzut3]

printz said:

And does that help or not in sustaining that said game engine is free and open source?

John Carmack, who at the time was presumably able to make such decisions since id was independent, stated that he released the code under the GPL. My interpretation of the quote is that he believes he GPL'd Wolf presumably at the same time as the Doom source, but take it however you will. As I previously stated the GPL Doom source was not packaged by id software themselves, so this situation is no different from that.

If you're really concerned then be my guest and try to get Carmack to clarify his statement. He'd probably respond to a question on twitter.