4 ms·

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 c

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...

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...