3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.