Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Classic Doom in Doom 3: BFG Edition

Recommended Posts

Quasar said:

Actually the code is not GPLv3 at all.

Good catch; thanks for pointing this out. Here are the additions, for reference.

Graf Zahl said:

Which part of the added clauses are incompatible?

I don't want to speculate too much because it would be better to let someone more knowledgeable comment on these matters. But from a brief skim reading this part looks like it might be dubious:

You must reproduce faithfully
all trademark, copyright and other proprietary and legal notices on any copies
of the Program or any other required author attributions.

Looks like it probably conflicts with Section 10:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License.

Share this post

Link to post

Gez said:
They've fixed that map's name so it is no longer something on which to put your coat when you're not using it.

Considering all the monster closets in the map, you can't say they fixed it!

Hanger is also the name in the graphics and there's no reason they'd just use the same name as E1M1. I always thought it would have sounded better if they had used some of those hanging corpse sprites in the level, but I don't think there are any in there.

printz said:
If Ultimate Doom were 1.09, then yeah, 1.10 would have been good.

The Ultimate DOOM should have been v1.10, if anything, since it changed things in respect to the already existing v1.9. DOOM v1.9 is indeed the same as v1.09 (with "1" and "09" marking the version in the engine), just assume they didn't want to type the 0 in, like then you type -warp 1 instead of -warp 01, which both work.

Share this post

Link to post
fraggle said:

I've fired off a message to licensing@fsf.org to ask whether this is considered a free license and/or is compatible with the normal GPLv3.

Awesome, I'm interested in knowing what they'll say. Perhaps the OSI and Debian (with the DFSG) would provide their own insights, but I'm not sure about bothering Debian unless you plan on packaging it and figuring out if it'll go in contrib or non-free (actually considering the precedent with Mozilla software being rebranded, Debian might not mind so much).

FWIW, I don't view the changed terms as being much of a problem, except maybe for integrating with other GPLv3 projects. I imagine, as well, that if the FSF and OSI call it non-free or non-open source, that John Carmack may be able to pull his weight around and get the terms changed. His intention is clearly not to inhibit anyone.

Share this post

Link to post

The same license term changes were made when the iPhone Doom Classic source was re-released with the newest modifications. I'm a bit surprised nobody noticed it then.

Especially considering the fact that port contains some of our code. I don't really see where id/Zenimax derive the right to take any of our code and add these extra terms to it. I have roughly 700 lines of code in that codebase and I certainly never agreed to the addition of those terms to it. Nor did fraggle, cph, fschulze, entryway, or the dozen other odd contributors to PrBoom.

Share this post

Link to post

I'm interested in the fsf response as well, but I will say from what I can tell the extra terms is just extra disclaimers and trademark protection. Really the only extra term I see in there is that you can't call the derivative work "Doom Classic." The rest of the restrictions look no different than if something like BSD code is mixed.

Share this post

Link to post
chungy said:

FWIW, I don't view the changed terms as being much of a problem, except maybe for integrating with other GPLv3 projects.

Yeah well, that is a big part.

Share this post

Link to post

If it's indeed incompatible; as Blzut3 said, it's not really out of the spirit of the original license in the first place. If it is compatible with standard GPLv3, then it's no big deal and you just have to put up with the altered conditions.

Share this post

Link to post

Here's the response from licensing@fsf.org:

The GPLv3 permits certain supplemental terms as outlined in Sec. 7. Looking over the added terms on DOOM, they each seem to correspond to one of the outlined additional terms permitted by Sec. 7. They shouldn't cause any particular problem, they are meant to address issues outside the scope of copyright (such as liability and use of names for publicity purposes). Thank you for your time, and I hope this helps.

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now