4 ms·

I can play Doom on a modern, underpowered machine for today standards, with many improvements to graphics, sound and gameplay thanks to the need that all these

I can play Doom on a modern, underpowered machine for today standards, with many improvements to graphics, sound and gameplay thanks to the need that all these improvements had to be contributed back. I can even pay for original assets of the game. It is not easy to conclude that that would be the case if Doom's source code was not released under the GPL. Actually, GPL has been working exactly as intended and exactly as I expected it to work.

johnklos 5y ago
Perhaps you weren't paying attention when you read what Carmack wrote. Or perhaps you didn't even read it, because you're suggesting something that has absolutely nothing to do with the tweet. Carmack said he wishes the source had been released under the BSD license instead of the GPL. You're saying that it's not easy to conclude that new versions of Doom would exist if the sources had never been released at all. If you're trying to troll and suggest that it's not easy to conclude variants and updates would exist if the sources had been releases under the BSD license instead of the GPL, then we all know that's completely ridiculous, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting you either didn't read or understand the tweet. If you want to suggest there'd be less variants and versions? That'd be reasonable, but you're not saying that.
efficax 5y ago
basically everything you're talking about was contributed by hobbyists passionate about Doom (I know, I was one of them). A BSD license wouldn't have stopped them, or encouraged any of them to take their modifications closed-source. Doom and then Quake had an active and enthusiastic community of modders who generally released everything back to the community, for the love it. I can't imagine the GPL vs BSD or MIT or Apache would have made any difference here.

4 ms·

I can play Doom on a modern, underpowered machine for today standards, with many improvements to graphics, sound and gameplay thanks to the need that all these

by marcodiego 5y ago

johnklos 5y ago
Perhaps you weren't paying attention when you read what Carmack wrote. Or perhaps you didn't even read it, because you're suggesting something that has absolutely nothing to do with the tweet. Carmack said he wishes the source had been released under the BSD license instead of the GPL. You're saying that it's not easy to conclude that new versions of Doom would exist if the sources had never been released at all. If you're trying to troll and suggest that it's not easy to conclude variants and updates would exist if the sources had been releases under the BSD license instead of the GPL, then we all know that's completely ridiculous, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting you either didn't read or understand the tweet. If you want to suggest there'd be less variants and versions? That'd be reasonable, but you're not saying that.
efficax 5y ago
basically everything you're talking about was contributed by hobbyists passionate about Doom (I know, I was one of them). A BSD license wouldn't have stopped them, or encouraged any of them to take their modifications closed-source. Doom and then Quake had an active and enthusiastic community of modders who generally released everything back to the community, for the love it. I can't imagine the GPL vs BSD or MIT or Apache would have made any difference here.