3 ms·

It'd be against the terms of the Descent source code license, but not the GPL.

• pavlov 8y ago
  GPL states that a derivative work must remain under the same license. IANAL, but I don’t see why an asset pack distributed together with the original game would automatically evade that.
  • yorwba 8y ago
    The original game would remain under the same license, but you can distribute any separate additions (i.e. no modifications of the source code) without "infecting" them with GPL. It's equivalent to selling an Android phone with proprietary apps preinstalled.
    • jordigh 8y ago
      I don't think so. I think selling the game together with non-free assets without which the game would be unplayable is a tighter combination than "mere aggregation". It seems to me like that would be derived work.
• Jach 8y ago
  Maybe there's a big list I'm ignorant of but it's somewhat interesting that it doesn't happen more often. e.g. my favorite PC arena FPS as a teen was Tremulous; it was originally a mod but after Quake 3's engine was released under the GPL they turned the mod into a standalone game with it. Totally free, too, but I bet it could have had some financial success if the store model was as popular and accessible back then. Natural Selection is a similar game that did enjoy commercial success... But for better or worse the GPL seems to increase the likelihood of free as in beer releases, too. Maybe any potential revenue sharing model is just too hard for a lot of projects to set up (or was back then) since the GPL also can attract a wide set of contributors.