4 ms·

Thanks, but I'd rather take the one without the GPLv2 license one commit earlier.

by imbusy111 3y ago

gostsamo 3y ago
doesn't it make it a copyrighted material then?
- tremon 3y ago
  GPL'ed material is still copyrighted. You mean only proprietary licensed, I presume?
umpalumpaaa 3y ago
Without a license the default copyright law kicks in which means: "The default copyright laws applies meaning that the autor retains all rights to the source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from the work." Good luck
- arsome 3y ago
  Doom code has been opened for a while under the Doom Source License originally. https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ViktorRay 3y ago
  This is wrong in this case. Doom source code has previously been released under other licenses. In such situations in the open source world we can choose which of the licenses we want to follow.
  - mort96 3y ago
    The source code was released first under some custom non-profit license in 1997, then under the GPL in 1999. From what I can tell, those are the only licenses which the DOOM source code has been released under, and I can't even find any info on that non-profit license from 1997 release. Are you referring to the license from 1997 here..? Or have there been other source code licenses which pages like Wikipedia and the DOOM wiki don't mention? EDIT: someone else in this thread linked this: https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License. And: > The DSL is significantly more restrictive than the GNU GPL, and as such is incompatible with it. For example, any form of commercial exploitation is forbidden. Heavy restrictions apply to the distribution of copies of the source code; the license grants permission only for the distribution of portions of the code for "educational use". The DSL is not an Open Source license (under the Open Source Definition) or a Free Software license. Surely that's not a very attractive alternative to the GPL?
    - ViktorRay 3y ago
      I agree with you that it doesn’t really make much sense for someone to choose to use the DSL license instead of the GPL license. I was just pointing out the general principle that in cases like this one can choose which license one uses.
- tkw01536 3y ago
  Wouldn't the grant given through section 5 of GitHub TOS [1] apply here? That says "you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality". In other words, without an explicit license you can do whatever you like with publically viewable content as long as it runs via GitHub. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    > as long as it runs via GitHub. That is extremely limiting...
chilmers 3y ago
Sure, but then you get the original Doom source release license, which is for non-commercial educational use only: https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/blob/77735c3ff0772609e9c8d29e3ce2ab42ff54d20b/linuxdoom-1.10/DOOMLIC.TXT https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/blob/77735c3ff0772609e9c...
slacka 3y ago
So you prefer, the DSL or GPL over GPLv2? The Doom Source License (or DSL) is the original source code license under which the Doom source code was released in late 1997.[1] I'll take this over the years and years the past licensing has caused any day.[2] [1]https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License#:~:text=The%20Doom%20Source%20License%20(or,the%20DSL%20and%20the%20GPL https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License#:~:text=The.... [2] https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/44358-doom-license-amp-gpl-confusing-amp-loopholes/ https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/44358-doom-license-amp...
mrighele 3y ago
AFAIK before the commit Doom was under a more restrictive license [1] " For educational purposes only, you, the end-user, may use portions of the Source Code, such as particular routines, to develop your own software, but may not duplicate the Source Code, except as noted in paragraph" [...] " Under no circumstances shall you, the end-user, be permitted, allowed or authorized to commercially exploit the Software. Neither you nor anyone at your direction shall do any of the following acts with regard to the Software, or any portion thereof: Rent; Sell; Lease; Offer on a pay-per-play basis; Distribute for money or any other consideration; or In any other manner and through any medium whatsoever commercially exploit or use for any commercial purpose." [1] https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/commit/4eb368a960647c8cc82d721d0183629ae10759d1#diff-98e28397eee0776e9a0f411bb47739aefaa24f04f8008ac58c0a6549dde1775c https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/commit/4eb368a960647c8cc...
533474 3y ago
lol is that a bad joke? GPLv2 is better
- imbusy111 3y ago
  Yeah, missed this one badly.
- nuc1e0n 3y ago
  This commit now lists ZeniMax Media Inc. as the copyright holder. This is new compared to any other release of this code. The initial commit message was "The DOOM sources as originally released on December 23, 1997". This is now no longer the code as it was released in 1997. This code with a GPLv2 licence exists mirrored elsewhere on the internet.

Thanks, but I'd rather take the one without the GPLv2 license one commit earlier.

gostsamo 3y ago

doesn't it make it a copyrighted material then?

tremon 3y ago
GPL'ed material is still copyrighted. You mean only proprietary licensed, I presume?

umpalumpaaa 3y ago

Without a license the default copyright law kicks in which means: "The default copyright laws applies meaning that the autor retains all rights to the source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from the work." Good luck

arsome 3y ago
Doom code has been opened for a while under the Doom Source License originally. https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ViktorRay 3y ago
This is wrong in this case. Doom source code has previously been released under other licenses. In such situations in the open source world we can choose which of the licenses we want to follow.
- mort96 3y ago
  The source code was released first under some custom non-profit license in 1997, then under the GPL in 1999. From what I can tell, those are the only licenses which the DOOM source code has been released under, and I can't even find any info on that non-profit license from 1997 release. Are you referring to the license from 1997 here..? Or have there been other source code licenses which pages like Wikipedia and the DOOM wiki don't mention? EDIT: someone else in this thread linked this: https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License. And: > The DSL is significantly more restrictive than the GNU GPL, and as such is incompatible with it. For example, any form of commercial exploitation is forbidden. Heavy restrictions apply to the distribution of copies of the source code; the license grants permission only for the distribution of portions of the code for "educational use". The DSL is not an Open Source license (under the Open Source Definition) or a Free Software license. Surely that's not a very attractive alternative to the GPL?
  - ViktorRay 3y ago
    I agree with you that it doesn’t really make much sense for someone to choose to use the DSL license instead of the GPL license. I was just pointing out the general principle that in cases like this one can choose which license one uses.
tkw01536 3y ago
Wouldn't the grant given through section 5 of GitHub TOS [1] apply here? That says "you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality". In other words, without an explicit license you can do whatever you like with publically viewable content as long as it runs via GitHub. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > as long as it runs via GitHub. That is extremely limiting...

chilmers 3y ago

Sure, but then you get the original Doom source release license, which is for non-commercial educational use only: https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/blob/77735c3ff0772609e9c8d29e3ce2ab42ff54d20b/linuxdoom-1.10/DOOMLIC.TXT https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/blob/77735c3ff0772609e9c...

slacka 3y ago

So you prefer, the DSL or GPL over GPLv2? The Doom Source License (or DSL) is the original source code license under which the Doom source code was released in late 1997.[1] I'll take this over the years and years the past licensing has caused any day.[2] [1]https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License#:~:text=The%20Doom%20Source%20License%20(or,the%20DSL%20and%20the%20GPL https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Doom_Source_License#:~:text=The.... [2] https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/44358-doom-license-amp-gpl-confusing-amp-loopholes/ https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/44358-doom-license-amp...

mrighele 3y ago

AFAIK before the commit Doom was under a more restrictive license [1] " For educational purposes only, you, the end-user, may use portions of the Source Code, such as particular routines, to develop your own software, but may not duplicate the Source Code, except as noted in paragraph" [...] " Under no circumstances shall you, the end-user, be permitted, allowed or authorized to commercially exploit the Software. Neither you nor anyone at your direction shall do any of the following acts with regard to the Software, or any portion thereof: Rent; Sell; Lease; Offer on a pay-per-play basis; Distribute for money or any other consideration; or In any other manner and through any medium whatsoever commercially exploit or use for any commercial purpose." [1] https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/commit/4eb368a960647c8cc82d721d0183629ae10759d1#diff-98e28397eee0776e9a0f411bb47739aefaa24f04f8008ac58c0a6549dde1775c https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/commit/4eb368a960647c8cc...

533474 3y ago

lol is that a bad joke? GPLv2 is better

imbusy111 3y ago
Yeah, missed this one badly.
nuc1e0n 3y ago
This commit now lists ZeniMax Media Inc. as the copyright holder. This is new compared to any other release of this code. The initial commit message was "The DOOM sources as originally released on December 23, 1997". This is now no longer the code as it was released in 1997. This code with a GPLv2 licence exists mirrored elsewhere on the internet.