Blasphemer discussion

[ETTiNGRiNDER]

12 minutes ago, MrFlibble said:

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

The "non-commercial" version is considered non-FOSS by both OSI and FSF standards, AFAIK.

[dasho]

13 minutes ago, MrFlibble said:

 

It is true that REKKR assets are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, while the Blasphemer license allows commercial use among other things, but it's still FOSS in both cases, is it not?

REKKR is still less permissive in that case; you would effectively have to undo this story work if wanting to make a commercial product.

[MrFlibble]

1 minute ago, ETTiNGRiNDER said:

The "non-commercial" version is considered non-FOSS by both OSI and FSF standards, AFAIK.

Oh? So how is it conceived of then, free source-available software? Non-free software?

[ETTiNGRiNDER]

14 minutes ago, MrFlibble said:

Oh? So how is it conceived of then, free source-available software? Non-free software?

I suppose non-free somewhere in the realm of gratis-but-not-libre.  I am once again appalled at the current state of search engines, I could swear both these organizations once put out somewhat larger articles on why they rejected CC-NC, but these should still serve for the official standpoints:

 

OSI:

Item #3 https://opensource.org/licenses/common-reasons-for-rejection-of-licenses

FSF:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeDocumentationLicenses

[MrFlibble]

Thanks!

[Catoptromancy]

CC0 is not entirely compatible with BSD. I dont think there should be any CC or public domain material. I only added CC0 because some is already there. Getting all BSD resources is probably first priority. 

[MrFlibble]

Since we touched on the subject of licenses, what is the advantage of BSD over GPL? I gather they're not really compatible, are they?

[ETTiNGRiNDER]

7 hours ago, Catoptromancy said:

CC0 is not entirely compatible with BSD. I dont think there should be any CC or public domain material. I only added CC0 because some is already there. Getting all BSD resources is probably first priority. 

That probably includes the maps I contributed, so, I give you permission to offer them as BSD-licensed material as needed, I just use CC0 for stuff like that because I was under the impression it was the safest way to express an "anything goes" offering.

[Ferk]

12 hours ago, Catoptromancy said:

CC0 is not entirely compatible with BSD. I dont think there should be any CC or public domain material. I only added CC0 because some is already there. Getting all BSD resources is probably first priority. 

Can you elaborate on that?
What makes the CC0 not compatible with the BSD? My impression was that the CC0 was actually less restrictive than the BSD, not even requiring attribution. My understanding is that you can use CC0 content in a fully BSD work (or even proprietary) without problem. Is this not the case?

 

I believe that what you aren't able to do is distribute BSD content as if it were CC0-licensed work (the opposite) because the BSD does require the 3-clause notice to carry on.

 

Also, the subject of "compatibility" is always very unclear to me. The definition of what it means being "compatible with" seems to change depending on what license we are talking about. For the GPL it means "you can combine code released under the other license with code released under the GNU GPL" (and according to the FSF, both the CC0 and the 3-clause BSD are "compatible with" the GPL.. even if the FSF does not recommend CC0 for code: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html); for the CC Share-Alike licenses "compatible" has nothing to do with combining multiple licenses in the same work, but about releasing the whole work under a different license "when you make adaptations of material under BY-SA or BY-NC-SA and share the adaptation"; but as far as I understand, the CC0 has no restrictions on what license you can use for adaptations.

Edited March 25 by Ferk

[AntonR]

11 hours ago, ETTiNGRiNDER said:

That probably includes the maps I contributed, so, I give you permission to offer them as BSD-licensed material as needed, I just use CC0 for stuff like that because I was under the impression it was the safest way to express an "anything goes" offering.

 

This is the exact same for me, fwiw.

Any sounds or sprite edits I have provided here are offered to you under whichever license you want.

[Catoptromancy]

I guess license doesnt matter. Still community made resources submitted to project are preferred.  

[AntonR]

You have my assurance as well that mine are my own work.

[camper]

On 3/23/2024 at 3:52 PM, ETTiNGRiNDER said:

Free game multiverse

The multiverse is always interesting and allows you to go beyond generally accepted boundaries, for example, combining elves, demons and high technology.

(The picture to attract attention was taken from the bandcamp)

[MrFlibble]

On 3/26/2024 at 6:49 PM, Catoptromancy said:

I guess license doesnt matter.

Suppose you (or anyone) wanted to make a Blasphemer tribute level to Kaos, an obscure Italian Doom clone that was never completed and released under the GPL (code and all assets), and take some of the textures to be used in that level, or possibly a monster sprite or two as placeholders as well? How simple would that be, considering the different licenses?

 

I'm asking because I peeked into a few recent conversations in the Git repo of LibreQuake (which also uses the BSD license, chosen specifically for potential compatibility/sharing art with Freed∞M), and got the impression that different licensing might be an issue, and the developers feel it would be undesirable to mix GPL assets with BSD ones (at least, this is my interpretation of what I read). There are, of course, other libre projects that incorporate assets with various licenses as their regular modus operandi.

[ETTiNGRiNDER]

In my non-expert perspective, it seems that this type of issue and its different handling in different projects comes down to whether a particular project's heads regard the game WAD / PAK / whatever data file to be a single unified "thing" that needs to conform to a single set of terms, or a bundle of discrete "things" that can be separately licensed.  Ultimately that can probably only be definitively answered by legal experts, who are in short supply for this sort of project that's usually contributed to by hobbyist game programmers / modders and don't have any funding to hire a legal team.  (There's also the matter of whether a particular game engine actually needs all resources to be "compiled" into a single file like a WAD, vs. ones that are designed to read from a bunch of different files in a more freeform manner.)

 

I guess the source code equivalent would be something like code being compiled into a single unified EXE versus calling external DLL files for some of the functions.

[Catoptromancy]

The resources are already 98% BSD. All maps, music, and graphics are BSD. Just a couple sounds so at least something was audible were added at some point from non-BSD sources. Eventually all sounds will be community made and submitted as BSD.

[MrFlibble]

I've just successfully run the latest build with Heretic128 in DOSBox. Everything seems to work fine.

 

However, in non-limit-removing ports E1M1 just freezes when I try to go into the open area.

[Catoptromancy]

Thats a solid seg overflow. Need limit removing. 

[AntonR]

I don't mind it since the maps are very nice looking, but that makes me think a de-mastered type of thing would actually be cool to see though!

[Catoptromancy]

Almost all maps are already vanilla, or very close.

[MrFlibble]

I'd like to point out that tier 1 monsters tend to blend in with dark textures, and E1M1 is basically made entirely of dark textures and dark rooms. I'm not sure if this can be fixed -- I assume that the Undead Knight replacement, when it's done, will stand out more by the merit of not being entirely black. The harpy and the ghoul (or whatever the robed dude is supposed to be) are fine as they are though.

 

E1M1 generally feels pretty dark. Heretic levels are somehow more colourful, don't you think?

[june gloom]

In fairness, Blasphemer seems to be going for a very different vibe. I don't know if that really gels with the mission of providing a free resource IWAD for Heretic maps, but the fact is Blasphemer seems to be a much more gothic outing.

[AntonR]

in my dunceness and ambition to edit them I forgot to link the raws for the rendered out vampire, oops! I am occupied with other projects since a while so here they are for anyone wishing to either edit or just use them as is:

vampire.zip

 

the 1a folder is edited versions I was making of the player facing sprites, but then only afterwards I saw I accidentally saved them with black becoming transparent, god damn you PNG, may still be salvageable though.

I edit using the Heretic palette because it is compatible and still looks good with blasphemer and existing heretic wads, while vice versa is not.

[MrFlibble]

@AntonR, the vampire looks really good! Thanks! I guess there will still be opportunity to touch up the sprites later if you have the time, for now they seem quite nice as they are. Should stand out more in dark areas too.

[Catoptromancy]

Looks awesome! 

 

Ill put them under blasphemer's license since they are submitted to blasphemer and the licenses are almost identical.