| This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. |
You know what this means... (Score:2, Funny)
by jawad (jawad@nycap.rr.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:17PM EST (#1)
(User Info) http://jawad.org/
|
A new and better way to kill processes in your system!
I'm glad that id open sources their games when they have no "value" (read: ability to be sold) anymore.
Go id!
First Post of 2000 (EST) |
| |
Re:You know what this means... (Score:0, Redundant)
by CaptainCarrot (carrot@watch.ankh-morpork.gov) on Tuesday December 21, @09:32PM EST (#32)
(User Info) |
I'd be happier if they'd GPL their level maps, too.
|
Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:32PM EST (#114)
|
I'd be happier if they'd GPL their level maps, too. They *have* GPL'd their level maps. It's part of the game. The GPL is designed to extend not only to everything it touches, but also to everything that it touches, touches. We may have to bring suit against them for it, but it's quite obvious that they have to turn everything over to us. Read the GPL.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:2, Informative)
by spinkham on Tuesday December 21, @10:44PM EST (#132)
(User Info) |
Ye gods..
Data files are NOT code.
The GPL is also only enforced on the licensee, the licenser is free to GPL or not parts of the original code, if they do not themselves distribute them togeather.
For example, I could write a program that says, "Hello, world!" and also says "How are you?".
It would be my perogative to release only the "Hello, world!" function under GPL, and a version under a completely different license with both functions. I am the copyright holder for all the code, and can license it in all ways that I want..
Whatever codebase I merge other peoples GPL'd code into must all be opened, however, because I am not the copyright holder and cannot relicense the code.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:53PM EST (#141)
|
I think you're wrong. Ask Richard. Consider Bison.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by spinkham on Tuesday December 21, @11:13PM EST (#177)
(User Info) |
The bison thing was about code. This is about data.
Check out the whole thread started by post 146.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:26PM EST (#193)
|
| Turing has shown that code and data are one. And Richard, being the Lisp uberhacker, knows this. Well, all we can do is wait and see. Free software will win. I promise you that.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @12:03AM EST (#218)
|
| Oh, Christ. Here come the GPL Nazis. You people remind me of religious fanatics, only not so warm and fuzzy. It's real simple, folks. The source released under the GPL is for the Quake executable. Said executable loads the maps into memory and generates the displays, models, and so forth based on that data. The data is NOT the code, no matter what Turing postulated. Turing was speaking in a general sense, in that all data is stored in memory in the same manner as executable code. Well, I can store a banana in a fruit basket, and put an orange in there too, and say they're both fruit. It's true, they are both fruit. That doesn't mean an orange is a banana. GPL my word processor. Go ahead and do it. But don't you DARE try to claim that you own my documents, simply because the word processor was GPL'd. Free software will win. I promise you that. Go play with your Taco Bell cup, the one with Natalie Portman on it. Free software will "win" if it's better, cheaper, and easier than the alternatives. People don't use Word because Microsoft has brainwashed them into it. They use Word because they can have it running in 10 minutes. This, of course, assumes there is actually a war between Open and Closed Source software. Which is a wrong assumption. People use either one, or both, based on a lot of different factors. None of which are being applied in your own little Barbie world.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @01:26AM EST (#261)
|
I strongly suspect the original poster is not in favor of the GPL, but is trying to FUD against it by pretenting to be a fanatic and stating things that aren't true.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @07:37PM EST (#459)
|
And I have to question your motives. Carmack released the Quake 1 _FULL SOURCE_ for crying out loud! And instead of being incredibly grateful like your sorry self should, you say, "What, no maps? That's lame." The only lame thing here is _you_.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by Dwonis (dlitz[IBoycottSpam]@cheerful[spamsucks].com) on Wednesday December 22, @07:29AM EST (#325)
(User Info) http://www.redrival.com/dlitz/
|
Have you ever considered that the engine and the maps are totally separate entities? They're not even made by the same people!
And you're an idiot if you think Carmack is not for us. Just because he released *his* work under the GPL does not make him able to speak for the rest of the id guys.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
-- Laura Winslow, "Family Matters" |
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:4, Informative)
by John Carmack on Tuesday December 21, @11:07PM EST (#164)
(User Info) |
Nope. We are the copyright holder of all works, and we can release any part of it under any license we choose.
Completely aside from that, I think it is still unclear exactly where the GPL wants the separation of code and content.
Few would argue that every document read by a GPL word processor would be covered by the GPL, and most would place maps entered by quake into that catagory, but things can quickly get murky.
Quake game mods are written in QC, but turned into data to be processed by the main code. I think the spirit of the GPL would want that code to be released, but it is only a small step from there to saying that every program loaded by a GPL operating system must be GPL, which is clearly not the case.
John Carmack
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:09PM EST (#170)
|
You cannot modify the GPL to suit your own tastes, you know. Not even Linus can do that. That's why he lost the GPL argument with Richard.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:15PM EST (#180)
|
Actually, you can.
Linus, for example, made an exception in the Linux kernel license to allow binary-only modules.
|
Linus' GPL modification not valid (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:24PM EST (#192)
|
Linus, for example, made an exception in the Linux kernel license to allow binary-only modules. No. Read the GPL. You cannot modify it. The only reason Richard doesn't rip Linus a new asshole about this is because Linus has more karma than Richard does. In other words, it would be bad publicity. Richard believes Linus is wrong here, and that Linus fails to understand or sufficiently respect the GPL. I was at a talk that Richard gave this year, and afterwards in the hall, this is what he said. Ask him. It's true.
|
You're both stupid and wrong (Score:1)
by Russ Nelson on Tuesday December 21, @11:34PM EST (#201)
(User Info) http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
|
Linus isn't modifying the GPL. The GPL has always relied on copyright law. Copyright only affects derived works. If a kernel module doesn't include any GPL'ed kernel code, then it's not a derived work and is not subject to the GPL.
Now, this is Linus's interpretation of the GPL. But given that he's copyright holder #1, it's likely that his interpretation would hold in any court case. So whether Linus is right or not is really a moot point.
More to the point here, Linus isn't modifying the GPL, nor does he fail to understand or respect it.
-russ
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @12:12AM EST (#223)
|
| In a word - BULLSHIT. I can take the GPL, add a clause that states you may only compile the code if you're standing on your head, facing North, with a banana shoved up your ass. Then release my code under this license, and as long as I state the license to be "modified GPL" or "Banana License" or "Green Fuzzy Choo-Choo License" it's legal.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by Sesse (remove.this.please.sgunderson@bigfoot.com) on Wednesday December 22, @06:45AM EST (#309)
(User Info) http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/
|
At least that couldn't go `seamlessly' into the GPL -- you'd have to clearly state somewhere your additional clauses (ie. don't hide them in the GPL clauses somewhere). The GPL states explicitly that "changing is not permitted" :-) So, you'd have to have a CHANGES.2 file or something.
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.) |
modified GPL (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @06:55AM EST (#313)
|
| I can take the GPL, add a clause that states you may only compile the code if you're standing on your head, facing North, with a banana shoved up your ass. Then release my code under this license, and as long as I state the license to be "modified GPL" or "Banana License" or "Green Fuzzy Choo-Choo License" it's legal. No you can not. The copy of the GPL that I have is "Copyright (c)1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
|
Re:modified GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
by Dwonis (dlitz[IBoycottSpam]@cheerful[spamsucks].com) on Wednesday December 22, @07:26AM EST (#323)
(User Info) http://www.redrival.com/dlitz/
|
But you're not changing the GPL, just the terms of your license.
Your actual software license is not the text of the GPL, but:
Copyright (C)
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
This point is moot, however, because the quake map and pseudocode compiler (the Quake engine) and the data it works on (the precompiled quake-c and the maps) are separate entities.
A Quote from the GPL:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
-- Laura Winslow, "Family Matters" |
Re:modified GPL (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @08:21AM EST (#344)
|
If I had the last moderator point I used yesterday, you'd have it, for pointing out this rather important distinction.
|
Somebody should've moderated this guys comment up! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @01:50PM EST (#429)
|
No text.
|
Re:modified GPL (Score:1)
by SpaceCadet (Space_Cadet35@NO_HORMEL_PRODUCTS.hotmail.com) on Wednesday December 22, @07:34AM EST (#326)
(User Info) |
| Irrelevant. If I change the terms of the license, it's legal, so long as I don't claim it to be the GPL. So that copyright doesn't apply. If I, or our anonymous poster, rewrite the license to include extra clauses, and change the Copyright statement as well to name the license the "Green Fuzzy Choo-Choo" license, by someone other than the Free Software Foundation, then it is legal. How many modified versions of the GPL have we seen? Do you really think they're all illegal?
-- Fecal matter will always hit the propulsive air turbine. It's a law of nature. |
Re:modified GPL (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @08:11AM EST (#337)
|
| No, you can't do this. It doesn't matter what you call it. The result of what your modifications would be a work derived from the GPL. The GPL is copyrighted. If you make a work derived from a copyrighted work, than its term apply. This is the meat and the muscle that the GPL uses to enforce its terms on others: copyright law and the notion of a derevid work. Either the GPL works, and what you are trying to do is illegal, or else the GPL does not work, and what you are trying to do is irrelevant.
|
Re:modified GPL (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @10:45AM EST (#391)
|
IANAL and I'm probably wrong, but i thought there were some restrictions on what you could copyright. One of the things I thought you couldn't copyright are legal contracts. Since the GPL is, in effect, a contract between the licensor and licensee, the GPL itself should not be copyrightable.
|
ENOGPL (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @10:57AM EST (#398)
|
i thought there were some restrictions on what you could copyright. One of the things I thought you couldn't copyright are legal contracts. Since the GPL is, in effect, a contract between the licensor and licensee, the GPL itself should not be copyrightable. Holy wildebeest poop, Batman, you're right!
|
Re:modified GPL (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @10:11PM EST (#462)
|
The GPL is copyrighted. Therefore, you can't necessarily modify the GPL itself. What says you have to? Why wouldn't it be perfectly legal to state that your code is distributed under the terms of the GPL, with the *exception* or addition that [your change here]?
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by Eccles (abell@mindspringdotcom) on Wednesday December 22, @08:36AM EST (#352)
(User Info) |
I can take the GPL, add a clause[...]
Actually, that would qualify as a "derivative work" under copyright law, and you could be prohibited from distributing your license. On the other hand, you could write "This code is licensed under the GPL, with the following exception: you may only compile the code if you're standing on your head, [yadda yadda yadda]"
I also think the banana clause would be rather hard to enforce -- particularly given trade disputes over bananas -- so I think you would have to allow for any local fruit to be an acceptable substitute.
|
thanks, John (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:39PM EST (#204)
|
John Carmack, if you're reading this: Thanks.
|
Re:thanks, John (Score:1)
by slimharpo99 on Tuesday December 21, @11:50PM EST (#210)
(User Info) |
Ditto!
(And please ignore the many Slashdot hair-splitters
and quibblers. These ijits, loud as they may be,
in no way represent the great majority of Linux
users who really appreciate gestures like yours.)
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by Saint Stephen on Wednesday December 22, @12:19AM EST (#226)
(User Info) http://grateful.tzo.com
|
Well, John: how's this grab you? I never owned a copy of Quake1 (just Q2 and Q3), so i've just compiled all the binaries but i don't have any of the wad's!. So now I'm gonna go to the $10 rack at CompUSA and pick up a copy. So, by releasing the source code, you just *sold* another copy of Quake 1...........
[Saint Stephen] |
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by m8919 (mikael.moreira@nospam.centrumntr.se) on Wednesday December 22, @08:14AM EST (#339)
(User Info) http://bomben.nu
|
No one is forcing you to compile quake.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by Grahf666 on Wednesday December 22, @02:45PM EST (#433)
(User Info) |
I think you're misconstruing what he said. For on thing, why should buying quake, for 10 bucks no less, be a burden? It would probably be possible to get the .PAK files separately. I think...
|
Thats Great But... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @02:50PM EST (#435)
|
...you can use the wads from the shareware version too...
|
What about Linux? (Score:1)
by Sesse (remove.this.please.sgunderson@bigfoot.com) on Wednesday December 22, @06:48AM EST (#310)
(User Info) http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/
|
Are there any plans for making the Linux (squake and glquake) versions available as well?
The main reason I've been waiting for the Q1 source code, is the ability to compile a glibc2/libc6 version of q1 :-)
Oh, while we're at it, I'm struggling to make the Q3A-demo work with masq here... but I guess I'll sort it out :-)
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.) |
Re:What about Linux? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @06:20PM EST (#455)
|
The same source package for Windows will compile under Linux. A linux makefile is included.
|
Re: Q3A Demo and IP-Masq (Score:1)
by julest on Thursday December 23, @02:59AM EST (#467)
(User Info) http://www.netsitepro.co.uk
|
Interestingly, I couldn't get it to work with IP Masquerading, either. Or rather, I could only connect one client through it, while subsequent ones failed to handshake (it appears the first client got all the handshake replies instead).
The full version of the game appears not to suffer from it, however, so I'm happy again ;)
- Jules
|
Re: Q3A Demo and IP-Masq (Score:1)
by Ateran (ateran6@hotmail.com) on Friday December 24, @01:34AM EST (#485)
(User Info) http://www.ateran.com
|
From Graeme Devine's .plan file:
So far I've seen issues with the servers being able to see the auth server and clients using
IP forwarding not having the correct setup on the IP forwarding server. If it's a Linux IP
forwarding machine use something like:
modprobe ip_masq_quake ports=26000,27000,27910,27960,27950,27951,27952
Modulating characters within a key sequence will not work. It appears to work because when
you've validated your IP with an authentic CD key you've "leased" that IP address for a period
of time. Even if you enter a junk string, that will work because your IP address is still valid.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by Andrew Cady (afcady at home.net) on Wednesday December 22, @08:39AM EST (#354)
(User Info) |
The GPL goes as far as copyright law lets it go. Writing QuakeC is NOT a derivation of the source code to the internal QuakeC compiler. (Imagine that, because GCC is GPLd, all C code must be GPL'd too). The GPL doesn't place any restrictions on use either, so it wouldn't disallow using GCC to compile commercial proprietary programs.
If the original QuakeC source was released under the GPL, all derivations of that would have to be GPL'd. But the original QuakeC code was released under a non-copyleft license (either non-profit use or Xfree-style, probably). You can't just take that back by releasing it again under another license. That would be like me taking a Xfree, which allows me to release it myself under new licenses, and release it under the GPL, and then try to stop other people from using Xfree in proprietary programs. Makes even less sense than real copyright law.
Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song? |
Thank you (Score:1)
by Kierkan on Wednesday December 22, @08:56AM EST (#360)
(User Info) |
Nothing else to say...
|
Re:Thank you - for killing off QW community (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @11:10AM EST (#400)
|
Yes, thank you very much. We did have our problems, we wanted solutions. Now we don't have to worry about aimbots anymore: anyone can do ANYTHING with their client now. Thanks for ruining the only well working online game totally and permanently.
I hated Q2 a lot, and Q3 almost as much, mario bros on the run. Well, kids should love it. And you probably managed to force QW people to move to UT or Q3. Thanks, and merry Christmas and let's hope world ends 1.1.2000 so I won't have to put up with any more Q3 crap.
|
Re:Thank you - for killing off QW community (Score:1)
by MagicMike on Wednesday December 22, @12:33PM EST (#413)
(User Info) http://www.mikehardy.net
|
| You know, now that you have the source, maybe you could come up with a really good remote-client verification system? Something secure, etc, that let you run a server that only worked with a distribution of the client you prepared. There's probably a way to do it, so if you want it so badly that you'd like the world to end you probably wouldn't mind spending a couple of months figuring it out. If the system was good enough, you might even be able to convince id to use it in the future so you have your precious gaming purity back.
|
Thanks ID, Secure QW - now possible (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @01:32PM EST (#425)
|
Actually I've seen project which is about just that: to make QW more secure and add lot more cheat protections. May be next year, we'll have a new "standard-a-like" QW, and team which will keep it updated.
It might be quite hard thing to do, since GPL requires that if you make modifications and distribute binaries, you have to make source code availabe. And making client and server networking protocol secure when everyone has access to source sure presents huge challenge...
(actually in QW 2.30, when it came out, protection took only about an hour to debug and crack, after that, magic bytes and whole protection was useless, so giving away source code isn't that big deal :-)
Quakeworld community has been dying off slowly anyway, since there are lot of aimbots, speed cheats, hacked .mdls...
|
Re:Thanks ID, Secure QW - now possible (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, @07:34AM EST (#470)
|
| And making client and server networking protocol secure when everyone has access to source sure presents huge challenge... On the contrary, this will make it more secure. Protocols available to peer review undergo a lot more scrutinisation. Weaker ones tend to be exposed quickly, and stronger ones made stronger. "Security through obscurity," has never been a good practice. Jon McIlwaine
|
Re:Thank you - for killing off QW community (Score:1)
by Tekai on Wednesday December 22, @12:46PM EST (#416)
(User Info) http://tekai.home.pages.de/
|
u idiot! I´m a qw and i´m pretty happy about it! It still take a lot of coding knowledge to create cheats and via proxys u were able to cheat a lot already so this aint new! I am sure that some clever coders will find a way to make a better cheat protection maybe via a external proggie, next time don´t give it such a short thought, i´m sure this helping the qw scene more than it damages it!
|
Show some respect (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @11:19AM EST (#402)
|
SHow some respect to John Carmack, you ungrateful twat! If it wasn't for him, you would have never had your QuakeWorld to begin with.
|
Re:Show some respect (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, @07:44PM EST (#482)
|
And he wouldnt have my $50 that I paid him - so can I have my $50 back now ?
|
To John Carmack: (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @04:31PM EST (#443)
|
How about this idea?
All the game code is GPL'd upon release, but the data/content - the levels, music, models, etc., are not.
So you release a version of (say) Quake 4 in precompiled and source code format, and then sell the game for the content. I mean sure, people can make their own content if they have your code, but how they gonna play online if they don't buy the standard content?
Of course some people will just make their own stuff and have nonstandard deathmatches on their own private servers, so that's a risk, too.
Does that sound too revolutionary a move? :)
|
Re:To John Carmack: (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, @12:43AM EST (#464)
|
Checkout Abuse, they did this. -- Eric Windisch windisch@nni.com please cc me any replies to this message..
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:2)
by roystgnr (roystgnr@iname.com) on Wednesday December 22, @04:41PM EST (#444)
(User Info) |
Quake game mods are written in QC, but turned into data to be processed by the main code. I think the spirit of the GPL would want that code to be released, but it is only a small step from there to saying that every program loaded by a GPL operating system must be GPL, which is clearly not the case.
No, Quake game mods are not required to be under the GPL, at least not if my understanding of the way they work is correct. It's either an interpreter or a JIT compiler, correct? Well, just because an interpreter (like bash) is under the GPL doesn't mean that all the scripts it interprets have to be under the same license. Just because the GCC compiler suite is GPL'ed doesn't mean that the code you compile with it has to be.
The GPL does apply to both statically and dynamically linked binaries, however, so Quake 2 game modifications would have to be GPL'ed if Quake 2 itself was released under only the GPL. If you released Quake 2 in the future under the LGPL then binary-only modules would be fine.
The Quake 2 case is interesting, though, since it's already released under a license that (if not explicitly, than by years of practice) allows binary-only DLLs to be released; and rereleasing it under the GPL wouldn't take away that right for people who purchased the original license. So would people who *hadn't* purchased the original game be allowed to write binary-only modules for a GPL'ed Quake 2? I haven't a clue. Ask RMS.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by engin_matt on Wednesday December 22, @05:16PM EST (#447)
(User Info) http://users.penn.com/~snydermt/index.html
|
What about the companies that lease the quake1 engine? This is what is now GPL, isn't it? If someone modifies the q1 engine and makes original content for their game, would they still have to lease the engine from ID?
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people who ask questions. |
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, @01:23PM EST (#474)
|
There stuff is not gpl'd because they had before it was GPL'd lotsa programs have no real license then change to another license in further versions.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 24, @01:00PM EST (#490)
|
Two words: Intellectual property.
|
Re:Level maps are *NOT* GPL'd (Score:1)
by Russ Nelson on Tuesday December 21, @11:27PM EST (#195)
(User Info) http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
|
Are the level maps required to build a quake executable? No? Then they're not covered by the GPL.
-russ
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @12:36AM EST (#233)
|
You're completely wrong. If I'm the original copyright holder, I don't have to release anything I write regardless of what GPL says. You only need to release in GPL any work derived from a work you obtained through GPL. Since ID clearly did not obtain any of their own source code through GPL, this clause doesn't apply. This is both legally clear and common sense.
|
Re:Level maps *are* GPL'd (Score:1)
by juhtolv on Wednesday December 22, @12:17PM EST (#412)
(User Info) http://www.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/
|
According to readme.txt that comes w/ those sources:
All of the Quake data files remain
copyrighted and licensed under the
original terms, so you cannot redistribute
data from the original game, but if
you do a true total conversion, you can
create a standalone game based on this
code.
I will see about having the license
changed on the shareware episode of quake
to allow it to be duplicated more freely
(for linux distributions, for example),
but I can't give a timeframe for it.
You can still download one of the original
quake demos and use that data with the
code, but there are restrictions on the
redistribution of the demo data.
BTW when I tried to see http://www.fsf.org/, this happened:
ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.fsf.org/
The following error was encountered:
Read Timeout
The system returned:
[No Error]
A Timeout occurred while waiting to read data from the network. The network or server may be down or congested. Please retry your request.
It seems that RMS and Co. has downloaded that source code and some free total conversion, compiled them and started playing with in FSF's server. :-)
Juhapekka Tolvanen - http://www.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/ |
Re:You know what this means... (Score:1)
by LRJ on Tuesday December 21, @11:04PM EST (#159)
(User Info) http://www.pcguys.com
|
Couldn't you just include the pak file from the shareware version of Quake1? The shareware license gives you the ability to distribute everything in it as long as it all stays together. You may not have all the levels (and new levels can always be made) but you would have most of the textures and models.
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:1)
by CaptainCarrot (carrot@watch.ankh-morpork.gov) on Tuesday December 21, @09:32PM EST (#36)
(User Info) |
I'd be happier if they'd GPL their level maps, too. They're not really giving away the store...
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:33PM EST (#115)
|
I'd be happier if they'd GPL their level maps, too. They're not really giving away the store... Too late. The horses are out. They didn't LGPL the game. The GPL applies. WHERE ARE OUR LEVELS?
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:3, Informative)
by spinkham on Tuesday December 21, @10:56PM EST (#146)
(User Info) |
1st, the GPL applies to Code.
The levels are data files, and not code.
Saying ID must open source them is like saying anyone who open sources a text editor has to give you all their text files.
2nd, id software is the copyright holder, and is free to give away or not give away whatever they want. They can license their property under any license they want. They couldn't link their GPL'd code with non-GPL'd code (but we already established all their code is already GPL'd) but they could issue another version under another license, as long as it is all their copyright. In this version, no GPL'd code at all could be used, however.
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:00PM EST (#153)
|
Your analogy is flawed. It is not like a GPL editor and a bunch of text files. It's like a GPL'd compiler and the per-chip data tables that drive code generator. Those tables are essential to the compiler; without them, you do not have a complete application. Therefore, they are free, also. It's the same case as here. Ask Richard. Freedom shall overcome.
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:1)
by spinkham on Tuesday December 21, @11:08PM EST (#168)
(User Info) |
Ok, maybe that wasn't the best example..
/'text editor'/less
less requires text files to work, therefore since less is GPL'd, all of the author's text files are GPL'd.
The above is the same situation as the quake situation, as running less without text files only gives you errors. You are free to create your own text files or maps for less or quake1 respectively.
Also, none of this changes the fact that id is the copyright holder, and can release portions of source to whomever under whatever license they choose..
|
What is WRONG with you people? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:09PM EST (#169)
|
Come on now! This is a GIFT. Don't go around saying "you have to give us more". That's BS, and will discourage them from giving more. Say "Thank you". Id doesn't have to give us the level files as GPL if they don't want to, and I, for one, think we ought to respect that.
|
Re:What is WRONG with you people? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:18PM EST (#185)
|
A GPL'd gift comes with very important conditions. Don't forget that.
|
Re:What is WRONG with you people? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @01:16AM EST (#254)
|
> A GPL'd gift comes with very important conditions. Don't forget that.
Yes, but the conditions apply to the receiver not the giver!!
(Copyright law 101)
|
Re:What is WRONG with you people? (Score:1)
by Ares (ares0-AT-geocities-DOT-com) on Wednesday December 22, @08:43AM EST (#357)
(User Info) http://www.tc.umn.edu/~mich0101
|
Yeah, especially the condition that its not warranted to work in any particular way (read: Quake I GPL is not guaranteed to be playable). There's no reason to not be able to download the shareware version and use its WADs, as a previous poster had said.
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:1)
by *borktheork* on Tuesday December 21, @11:10PM EST (#172)
(User Info) |
No, the analogy is not flawed. The level maps are *not* essential to the game. The game-engine, anyway. 'Quake the Game' is something there are many opinions about. I bet lots of Quake I fanatics played custom levels for *much* longer than the included ones.
Anyway, there are thousands of levels available. Even if they don't give away the level maps *WHO CARES?* Make your own or use the maps other people have made publicly available. This whining sounds like you've been given a recipe by someone and subsequently become angry because they don't give you a cake to go with it.
And another thing. Have you actually thought about who you're saying this about? id software. The people who just keep on giving us cool stuff. Opening old sources, opening the interface to current games so people can do their own cool stuff with it. People who are very much behind the whole Free Software thing and also invest time and money in it.
Nevermind, enough from me..
*borkborkbork* |
A new god for a new millenium (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:17PM EST (#182)
|
There is no license but the GPL, and Richard is its prophet. You shall have no licenses before it. Nor afterwards. :-)
|
Re:A new god for a new millenium (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @07:06AM EST (#318)
|
Richard Built My Hotrod
|
LOL (n/t) (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @08:00AM EST (#333)
|
.
|
Viral by Intent, not Accident (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:20PM EST (#188)
|
Have you actually thought about who you're saying this about? The GPL doesn't care, and neither does Richard. If they hadn't wanted a viral license, they should have chosen the LGPL or something.
|
Re:Viral by Intent, not Accident (Score:1)
by *borktheork* on Tuesday December 21, @11:30PM EST (#198)
(User Info) |
| The GPL doesn't care, and neither does Richard. If they hadn't wanted a viral license, they should have chosen the LGPL or something. I think you'de better read the GPL again. And this time have a dictionary handy. You've abviously completely misunderstood the viral qualities of the GPL.
*borkborkbork* |
Re:Viral by Intent, not Accident (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @12:39AM EST (#236)
|
If you don't understand GPL, you perhaps ought to keep your mouth shut and do the rest of us a favor.
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:1)
by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Tuesday December 21, @10:09PM EST (#100)
(User Info) |
Plus the opportunity to see just how many ways Id invaded the privacy of their loyal Quake customers, other than the ways which have already been discovered. Well, provided that they didn't rip those sections of code out before releasing it. Not that I meant to make you paranoid or anything. ;-) Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
|
What is up with this "security" stuff on Quake? (Score:1)
by Mr. Flibble (Chumkil@SPAM!hotmail.com) on Tuesday December 21, @10:46PM EST (#135)
(User Info) |
I for one think that John Carmack is a good guy. So are the rest of the people at id.
If you are reffering to the Message of the day that appeared in Q3A - It was documented true, it did not appear in the documentation in one of the releases, and this was due to an oversight. John gratefully posted his error here on slashdot. It was a mistake.
It was id's intent that the message of the day be documented. This is why it was documented when it was first released. With the next release it did not make it into the documentation. Just an oversight, no need to be paranoid.
I mean, jeez, are we going to come down on Torvalds or Cox now if there is a BUG in their code? Sure their stuff is open sourced, and from what we can see here, id's is too (after some time of being closed). So there was a mistake. Yippe. It was both a miscommunication from id (on the documentaion) and ourselves, for not paying attention to the (I believe) 1.08 readme.
So can we please get over this "id is out to root us all! They are TR0j4|\| |-|4X0rz!!!" crap.
"...That would be bad... anything that made it so that when people buy Windows they don't know what is in it." Bill Gates on open source |
Re:You know what this means... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @04:13AM EST (#292)
|
Zico why don't you go back to
doing what you love. Taunting the Mac people with your microsoftian ways in
comp.sys.mac.advocacy
god I hate an asskisser that has one helluva chip on his shoulder.
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:1, Troll)
by slimharpo99 on Tuesday December 21, @11:41PM EST (#205)
(User Info) |
It's unbelievable how so many Slashdot readers
are bitter, dried-up, prissy, worthless, pricks.
Carmack gives you something cool, and your first
impulse is to spit on him? Yesterday you didn't
have quake, today you do. If you don't want it,
then go on your way, and shut the fuck up, asswipe.
It's certainly not ID's fault that you are incapable
of seeing anything in all but the most negative of lights.
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:52PM EST (#211)
|
It's unbelievable how so many Slashdot readers are bitter, dried-up, prissy, worthless, pricks. Like, no duh. It took you this long to realize?
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:1)
by Synic (synic@linuxfreak.com) on Wednesday December 22, @06:52AM EST (#311)
(User Info) http://www.lanparty.com
|
Welcome to planet earth.
It's not just slashdot you're describing....
|
Re:You know what this means... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @08:04AM EST (#336)
|
True. From what I got reading the article, this is Quake the CODE v.s. Quake the GAME. Big difference there. It looks like this is going to be a great thing, and we'll probably see a lot of other cool games released because of it. The whingers out there probably already have their very own copy of Quake, the gold edition (read kodak CDR), so I don't understand why the fuss.
|
releasing source code isn't always a GOOD THING (Score:1)
by jlehrbaum on Wednesday December 22, @12:28AM EST (#232)
(User Info) http://linuxdevices.com
|
know why seti@home and distributed.net don't release their source code? It is because the chance of people hacking the code and wrecking the system outway the benefits of letting people have access to the code. If people had the source code to a game currently played such as Q3, they could hack server source and allow hacked clients to connect. you would never know whether the server is legit or hacked. This could allow any number of cheats such as hacked maps, increased health, free powerups, etc. Lots of people LOVE to cheat at quake, and this would increase their ability to do so. The same issues hold true with the Q1 sourcecode, but at least the amount of people still playing that is lower, but do not fool yourself, there are still many people playing quake1, and this will adversely affect them. so like chill n' stuff ;)
Jacob Lehrbaum jacob@linuxdevices.com |
Re:releasing source code isn't always a GOOD THING (Score:2, Interesting)
by spinkham on Wednesday December 22, @12:41AM EST (#237)
(User Info) |
Here's my question/solution from another post I made:
OK, now that the whole source code is released, I can forsee quite a few more bot problems. Would it be a good idea to implement another master server list that uses the "blessed binaries" system much like netrek does?
For those not familiar, anyone can get source and mess with their own code, but to play on most servers, you must use one of the binaries that are certified to be cheat free and contain an encrypted key. There would have to be a team that would spend time checking modified code for cheats.. Is this worthwhile, or should I get used to playing with more
bot-enhanced lamerz?
|
Re:releasing source code isn't always a GOOD THING (Score:1)
by mcrandello (mcrandello@my-deja.com) on Wednesday December 22, @08:11AM EST (#338)
(User Info) http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=mcrandello
|
Most of the (cheat)bots that are out there operate as a proxy on hte clients machine. The client connects to the bot, the bot connects to the server. Most initial releases have a spoiler (e.g. ratbot, if you message trhe word ratbot it says :please help me, what is a bot?). The real problem is the bots are often open source themselves in a manner of speaking, someone get ahold of the source, fixes the spoiler, and whammo, undetectable bot.
The only thing I couls see blessed binaries doing for the server is being another thorn in the side of mod authors.
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
|
One commercial issue that needs addressing. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, @08:20PM EST (#483)
|
Let's say I make a game with a modified quake engine. I wish to sell this game. I must make the source freely available. But I can still sell the maps. But say I don't want my data getting ripped. If I put it in a .pak file, it can be ripped, modified, and exploited. I could try and sue, but it would be difficult to prove anything... So I encrypt the file, and put decryption code into the engine. Problem is, anyone can grab the source, get the decryption code, and decrypt the file! Even if the decryptor was an external library, it would still be trivial to make a version which incercepted the data before it got to the screen and after the decryption.
|
Thanks! (Score:1)
by raskolnik (raskolnik@ihateclowns.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:17PM EST (#3)
(User Info) |
This is sweet. I'm just starting to get the whole "programming" thing into gear, and id gives me everything I need! Thanks tons for the early Christmas gift, Id!
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
out to fight for freedom and truth." -Henrik Ibsen |
| |
Re:Thanks! (Score:2)
by Foogle (foogle@adelphia.net) on Tuesday December 21, @09:27PM EST (#25)
(User Info) |
Man, if you're *just* getting into programming, Quake's source code is probably a little in the deep end. You might try something a little simpler... like "Hello World". Just kidding, but seriously, Quake's source code is not going to be something you can just jump into.
----------- "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
- They Might Be Giants |
Beginning Game Programming (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @09:41PM EST (#53)
|
If you're just getting into game programming, grab a copy of Andre LaMothe's "Windows Game Programming for Dummies", a truly excellent book.
|
Re:Beginning Game Programming (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:22PM EST (#108)
|
for me to poop on!!
|
Re:Beginning Game Programming (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:07PM EST (#162)
|
Get Adrian Perez's upcoming book. Having met the dude, he is one sharp cookie, especially for an undergrad. LaMothe's books (and articles) never impressed me very much.
Check on his progress at www.cubonics.com
incidentally, he needs someone to port the win32/Direct3D examples to linux/opengl. Anyone with some spare time and experience with both 3D APIs, this would be very worthwhile. His book, while it will never replace references like CG: P&P, it will most likely become THE tutorial style book on game programming.
|
Re:Thanks! (Score:1)
by raskolnik (raskolnik@ihateclowns.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:42PM EST (#55)
(User Info) |
yeas, well, i'm obviously not gonna jump right into it. But it gives me somewhere to go after i mess around with wolf and doom :)
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
out to fight for freedom and truth." -Henrik Ibsen |
Re:Thanks! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:02PM EST (#156)
|
| Don't listen to these fools. If your standards are low, you will never get anywhere. Grab the code, and grep away... you may get a headache, but you will learn a ton. --ac
|
Um... (Score:2)
by Millennium (rbg6038@spamspameggsbaconandspam.rit.edu) on Tuesday December 21, @09:42PM EST (#54)
(User Info) |
If you're just starting to get the whole "programming" thing into gear, then the Quake engine is not the place to start.
Don't get me wrong, the Quake engine being GPL'd is a great thing, and I applaud Id for it. However, 3D-engines are not a good thing to cut your teeth on. Start small. Code a few 2-D games first (my guess is that you're into game programming). Tetris clones and platformers are always popular (heck, my first game was a taste-challenged Barney-killing simulator back in my high schools Pascal class). Then move on to grander things. You can't build a tool shed in the backyard and then move on to a castle right away. It's the same with coding.
-Millennium |
You know what would be neat? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @01:45AM EST (#265)
|
| If you're just starting to get the whole 'programming' thing into gear, then the Quake engine is not the place to start. I'd dearly love to see the Q1 source code laid out in book form; heavily annotated along with a few paranthetical examples of key concepts tossed in for good measure (somewhat taking Scott Maxwell's approach in his "Linux Core Kernel Commentary"). Granted, one would still need a solid groundling in basic coding and gaming concepts, but there are already books covering these. What is sorely missing on the bookshelf is a solid, pragmatic and (dare I say it) fun book aimed that the intermediate/advanced level.
|
Re:You know what would be neat? (Score:1)
by Sibelius on Wednesday December 22, @03:12PM EST (#437)
(User Info) |
This is a hella cool idea. In comparison to my droning comp sci textbooks (read: depressants), understanding the plumbing of a still impressive 3D engine - thereby learning efficiency in coding and design - is a very intriguing idea.
Hey John C., pitch this to the biz guys: we can make a book about this, books make money.
|
Id has made all the difference for me. (Score:1)
by Analogue Kid on Tuesday December 21, @09:49PM EST (#67)
(User Info) http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~wilburmb
|
Actually, if it weren't for Id, I probably wouldn't be a game programmer at all. I've always had several programming geek buddies, and thought that games were cool. However all I ever worked on before Id released Doom's source, was lame space invaders clones. I've gotta say that Doom was a great thing to cut my teeth on. If you haven't already, you might want to look at that before you dive into Quake.
Currently I'm toying with the idea of rewriting the graphics code for Decent II, which was also recently released (albeit, not GPL). Unfortunately, only having experience with Id stuff, I don't know much Direct3D. Do any of you know of a good online reference?
Some men look at what is and ask, "why?" ... I dream of things that never were and ask, "why not?" |
Re:Id has made all the difference for me. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:10PM EST (#171)
|
You're better off ripping out the D3D code and rewriting it for OpenGL. Learning D3D is a waste of time, and will leave you a worse programmer. D3D is so incomprehensibly bad, it will actually reduce your IQ.
And if you think its bad now, you should have seen it back when they were using Execute Buffers, before it became a lame bastardized ripoff of opengl.
|
Hack us a GlibC Quake! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @06:57AM EST (#314)
|
Here's your first mission - create a GlibC 2.1 version of Quake.
Bet you can't do it before Xmas! Prove me wrong!
|
Re:Hack us a GlibC Quake! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @05:08PM EST (#446)
|
GlibC(2.0) quake here you go: http://www.sudac.org/~napolium/other/quake_glibc/ at own risk! :)
|
Re:Hack us a GlibC Quake! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, @03:39AM EST (#468)
|
No GL version? I wanna try Quake on my Voodoo3!
|
Re:Hack us a GlibC Quake! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, @04:05AM EST (#469)
|
I don´t have a 3DFX card! :)
|
Rock ON (Score:1)
by sPaKr on Tuesday December 21, @09:17PM EST (#4)
(User Info) |
I think Ill buy a copy of QuakeIII just cause they opened up Quake1. Good of ID to see that they arent going to make any real money from selling quake1 and the best thing to do was to open it and make the world a better place. I wonder what new games will come from the engine.
|
| |
Re:Rock ON (Score:1, Insightful)
by gatzke (gatzke at udel dot edu) on Tuesday December 21, @09:26PM EST (#21)
(User Info) http://udel.edu/~gatzke
|
I was thinking the same thing! I have bough a few ID products, but now I feel like I need to get more.
What does Q2/Q3 have that Q1 doesn't? Q1 was real 3D and had GL support- Quakeworld had decent network support for online gaming. There are a ton of mods and tournament play games out there.
Plus, being GPL, RedHat (Debian, etc...) can drop it in their distros...
Ed
|
included in distros (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @09:32PM EST (#33)
|
that actually brings up an interesting question...did they GPL the entire game including the pak files or just the engine? if the pak files are still non-free, how would people go about including the game in a distro?
--Siva
|
Re:included in distros (Score:2)
by Wah (t h e w a h @ uswest . net) on Tuesday December 21, @09:36PM EST (#44)
(User Info) http://wahcentral.net
|
include any of the many TCs (and the ones to follow, id kicks ass)
This code was worth, what, $10 million 4 years ago? An interesting point in the discussion of determining the "value" of software.
information wants to be free, and, yes, that does include all your personal info. |
Re:included in distros (Score:1)
by seaportcasino on Tuesday December 21, @10:19PM EST (#106)
(User Info) http://www.GreatWorldCasino.com
|
This code was worth, what, $10 million 4 years ago?
But now this code is priceless. And it is no longer stagnant; It may grow into what? The greatest game engine of all in the end, just as Linux grew from something simple to something incredible.
****** Play a few hands of blackjack over at www.GreatWorldCasino.com and let me know what you think of my Java Servlets! ****** |
Re:included in distros (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:39PM EST (#123)
|
did they GPL the entire game including the pak files or just the engine? if the pak files are still non-free, how would people go about including the game in a distro? They screwed up -- they used the GPL instead of the LGPL. As you point out, it's completely obvious that without the pak files, the games is useless. If they pretend that that's all you get, they lose big. It's just like the Microsoft contempt issue, back when that judge made them release Win95 sans MSIE, so they put out something that didn't work and got their asses righteously whupped for it. This is the same issue. Read what Richard says about "partial/non-functional GPL distributions". He says they're a sleight-of-hand trick that don't stand up to the test. You can't do a user-does-the-link. The GPL pierces that veil. This is exactly the same thing as user-does-the-link. Half free isn't good enough. It's ours -- all ours!
|
NO (was Re:included in distros) (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:05PM EST (#160)
|
The GPL does not apply to the original creator (as long as he doesn't try to link it with other GPL code that was not also created by him).
Furthermore, the way the GPL works in cases where something is combined with non-GPL code is that if you can't distribute so as to fit both the GPL and the license of the other code, you can't distribute it at all.
So assuming that this interpretation is correct, that doesn't mean that the level files are under the GPL; it means that since non-GPLed level files are required you're not allowed to distribute it at all. And it applies only to you, not to ID, who as the original creator is not required to abide by any restrictions they put on their own code, and who can thus still distribute it.
|
Illegal distributions (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:07PM EST (#165)
|
So what you're saying is that they're already in violation of the license and are distributing it illegally. That sucks.
|
Re:Illegal distributions (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @02:49AM EST (#276)
|
No, what he is saying is that anyone other than ID wouldn't be able to distribute it. If the claim that the files explicitly excepted from the GPL would have to be covered is true, which I doubt. Remember that the files that ID owns (and reserves) are not necessary to use the game because you can use data files created by other people in their place.
|
Re:included in distros (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:11PM EST (#173)
|
Yeah, keep trolling, idiot. Anyone who even for a second believed this troll should go read the GPL.
|
Re:Rock ON (Score:2, Insightful)
by Corrinne Yu (corrinney@3drealms.com) on Tuesday December 21, @10:18PM EST (#105)
(User Info) http://www.3drealms.com
|
Kudos for id and Carmack for setting an example of Open Sourcing game and engine source.
Because of this example, we also have source from many other developers.
A fine Open HW and SW engine from Genesis :
http://www.wildtangent.com/genesis/download.php3
Outrage and Toschlog also opened their Desecent 2 source :
http://descent2.com/ddn/sources/descent2/legal.html
Do support Outrage and Descent 3. It is a fine product.
Corrinne Yu
3D Game Engine Programmer
3D Realms/Apogee
Corrinne Yu
3D Game Engine Programmer
3D Realms/Apogee |
Genesis3D (Score:1)
by Miskatonic on Wednesday December 22, @01:09AM EST (#250)
(User Info) http://lovecraft.net/
|
FWIW, the Genesis3D SDK is in violation of the Open Source definition. While it does indeed make its source code available, the licensing terms are fairly restrictive, so it is not free software.
A much cooler project is Crystal Space, the LGPL'd cross-platform multi-API 3D game engine. It's nowhere nearly as complete as Genesis, but shows a lot of promise. I suspect today's announcement will be a boon to CS, since any of the code in Quake can now go into CS.
|
Re:Rock ON (Score:1)
by Cebert (h a c 4 7 @ i g n m a i l . c o m) on Wednesday December 22, @03:16AM EST (#280)
(User Info) http://bleh.n3.net
|
Soooo....where's the source to Build? ;)
-- A pure waste of time: bleh.n3.net |
Re:Rock ON (Score:1)
by Corrinne Yu (corrinney@3drealms.com) on Wednesday December 22, @09:42AM EST (#374)
(User Info) http://www.3drealms.com
|
The 3D Realms biz guys have the final official word on this.
This particular programmer who is not representing 3D Realms on this matter at this moment is informally saying :
We'd be lucky if we knew where it all went by this point! I couldn't find it!
Once we find all of it, we will see.
P.S. Don't get me in trouble by reporting this as fact or news.
Corrinne Yu
3D Game Engine Programmer
3D Realms/Apogee |
Re:Rock ON (Score:1)
by Cebert (h a c 4 7 @ i g n m a i l . c o m) on Wednesday December 22, @12:55PM EST (#420)
(User Info) http://bleh.n3.net
|
Understood. I fear source lost to the sands of time. Kinda tragic.
Nice to know even decades from now, we'll still have code for
Quake, Descent1/2, Wolf3D, etc. (however antiquated by then). :)
I've spent all night and morning curled up around the Quake
source...I'm about to pass out. Oof. :o
Thanks for asking about it. I emailed Joe Siegler about
it a couple months ago, but I think it got lost somewhere
along the way. ;)
-- A pure waste of time: bleh.n3.net |
Re:Rock ON (Score:1)
by Shadowlion (shadowlion@netscape.net) on Wednesday December 22, @08:17AM EST (#341)
(User Info) |
Correction.
id and Carmack did NOT have any influence over the decision to open the source for Descent II. In fact, Descent II is largely Descent I with a few additions/changes and different maps, and the Descent I source code has been available for at least two years.
When it was released, Parallax/Interplay stated that they would try to continue releasing the source for their games once the game was no longer viable as a serious product. The release of Descent II source is another step along that road, I expect that in a few years, when Descent III is no longer at the top of the heap and Descent IV has replaced it, Outrage will release the Descent III code.
-- "We can't send him back there. They fry bananas, for God's sake." - Wesley Pierce |
Re:Rock ON (Score:1)
by Corrinne Yu (corrinney@3drealms.com) on Wednesday December 22, @09:37AM EST (#370)
(User Info) http://www.3drealms.com
|
id did not have any influence over the decision to open Descent either.
That is motivated by Toschlog and Kulas's attempt to publicly put in as many swear words in code as possible. :) (Sorry, Matt.)
I know Toschlog a lot longer than I have known Carmack, and I know Toschlog has been devoted to both the cause of free exchange of knowledge, as well as 3D graphics, way before Doom, et al.
Despite popular belief/publicity spin, Descent was never developed to be Doom killer. It was their idea to do an "inside flying game."
It was many people like Toschlog and Chris Green who believe in free exchange of information, willing to talk to punks like me, that allow a lot of us to be able to do what we do nowadays.
This is going off topic. I want to clarify that neither Genesis3D nor Toschlog/Kulas was "controlled" by id and Carmack to release their source.
I am merely saying it is nice influential developers like them set good examples, and precedence, for more open source of older commercial products.
Hey, Matt, you should come in here and talk about this yourself! (And thanks for explaining BSP schemes to me ages ago. Matt open source his brain too!)
Corrinne Yu
3D Game Engine Programmer
3D Realms/Apogee
Corrinne Yu
3D Game Engine Programmer
3D Realms/Apogee |
too bad they chose GPL (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @01:54AM EST (#268)
|
It's a shame they didn't use a more moral license, like MPL.
|
Re:too bad they chose GPL (Score:1)
by Lonesmurf (lonesmurf@HAHA.altecmm.com) on Wednesday December 22, @06:05AM EST (#304)
(User Info) http://w3.to/rjames/
|
I don't seem to understand what problem people have with the GPL.
I'm not trying to start some holy war here or open any wounds, I'm just curios about a couple of things:
1) What is so terribly wrong with the GPL?
2) What is the MPL?
3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
4) What is 'immoral' about the GPL?(that just cracks me up, has it been molesting little children and puppies again?? Bad GPL! Down GPL!)
--
"I want somebody that's not afraid of me, and I want somebody that's not afraid of anyone else; in other words, I want somebody that's not afraid of themselves. |
Re:too bad they chose GPL (Score:1)
by Ded Bob on Wednesday December 22, @12:12PM EST (#410)
(User Info) |
1) What is so terribly wrong with the GPL?
a) Quite a long license. :)
b) Doesn't share well with anyone but GPL.
c) Zealots (I know everyone has these, but I see more GPL zealots than even Windows)
d) More as an answer to number 4.
2) What is the MPL?
Mozilla Public License
3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
I can't compare the GPL and MPL since I have not read the MPL. I prefer the BSD license over the GPL.
4) What is 'immoral' about the GPL?(that just cracks me up, has it been molesting little children and puppies again?? Bad GPL! Down GPL!)
GPL is called the viral license or the hoarding license. Any software development based off of GPL code must be GPL'd. It makes all source it touches GPL'd. This feature is not bad in itself. What is morally bad is claiming that one is sharing the code with everyone by putting code under the GPL license. Unfortunately, this "sharing" is only within the GNU community.
One of the main reasons for the formation of the FSF (Free Software Foundation) was due to the proprietarization of UNIX. I now see that it is happening again with the GPL. I can view GPL code, but I am unable to freely use it in any other licensed code (i.e., BSD). To me, this looks and acts a lot like proprietary code, but it is claimed to be "free".
One last thought: the U.S. Government is always asking us to give up our rights to better protect us. The GPL is similar, but not exactly, to this. Do you want freedom or "freedom"?
Here is a good license to consider for truly sharing code with others: Freedom.
P.S. I used to be a big fan of the GPL until I really saw the truth behind it.
|
Re:too bad they chose GPL (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @05:21PM EST (#448)
|
> I can't compare the GPL and MPL since I have not read the MPL. I prefer the BSD license over the GPL.
The MPL is simliar to the LGPL, it requires redistribution of source code of the 'original component' (as defined in terms of files and lines of changes), but also allows combining (linking) with code under other licenses.
> Any software development based off of GPL code must be GPL'd.
No, the GPL terms apply only when you distribute GPLed code. You can do whatever the hell you want with it otherwise, or at home. You can use gcc to compile Windows if you want. You can use cvs to manage a non GPL source base.
Also keep in mind that you can use GPLed code as a basis for development in more than one way. For instance you can use Linux as a kernel in a proprietary system; you will have to distribute the code to the kernel but not to your software. You can write non GPL-ed front ends to GPL software.
> Unfortunately, this "sharing" is only within the GNU community.
It's still sharing, unlike the way most software out there is licensed.
> I can view GPL code, but I am unable to freely use it in any other licensed code (i.e., BSD).
The GPL is mainly concerned with freedom of use. Most users do not care about adding other code to the programs they use and then sending copies to other people.
And of course you can use GPL code with BSD licensed code (providing it does not have the 'advertising clause'), the end result will just be under the GPL.
> One last thought: the U.S. Government is always asking us to give up our rights to better protect us.
What rights are you giving up? Do you think you have the inherent 'right' to use other people's code in any way you choose? If so, I suggest you stop thinking about the GPL, and set yourself to the task of getting copyright law overturned.
> Here is a good license to consider for truly sharing code with others: Freedom.
Don't forget that FreeBSD includes stuff like Soft Updates and Vinum, which is under licenses as strict or more strict than the GPL. (forbidding commercial use or giving out binaries without source code). They obviously feel that it's better to give up a little bit of freedom sometimes for a few extra features :)
|
Re:too bad they chose GPL (Score:1)
by Ded Bob on Wednesday December 22, @06:00PM EST (#454)
(User Info) |
No, the GPL terms apply only when you distribute GPLed code. You can do whatever the hell you want with it otherwise, or at home. You can use gcc to compile Windows if you want. You can use cvs to manage a non GPL source base.
Also keep in mind that you can use GPLed code as a basis for development in more than one way. For instance you can use Linux as a kernel in a proprietary system; you will have to distribute the code to the kernel but not to your software.
You can write non GPL-ed front ends to GPL software
I realize all of this. I was speaking of actually writing code which includes GPL code.
It's still sharing, unlike the way most software out there is licensed.
Sharing specific to a group sounds more like hoarding. It rings of being proprietary which the FSF is against. This is almost hypocritical.
The GPL is mainly concerned with freedom of use.
No. It is not. That would be free beer which is why you hear RMS always saying, "think free speech, not free beer."
Most users do not care about adding other code to the programs they use and then sending copies to other people. And of course you can use GPL code with BSD licensed code (providing it does not have the 'advertising clause'), the end result will just be under the GPL.
Which is why the GPL is always being pointed out to be viral in nature.
What rights are you giving up? Do you think you have the inherent 'right' to use other people's code in any way you choose? If so, I suggest you stop thinking about the GPL, and set yourself to the task of getting copyright law overturned.
Are you arguing for me or against me? The GPL's intent is to give people the 'freedom' to use code under the GPL, but they have to submit to the GPL for this benefit. Also, if I recall correctly, RMS would like to see copyright law overturned.
Don't forget that FreeBSD includes stuff like Soft Updates and Vinum, which is under licenses as strict or more strict than the GPL.
I use FreeBSD without these. They are not the default.
I believe that someone should share without strings (GPL license usage) when they claim to be "free"-ly sharing. This is one of my complaints against the GPL. If they were claiming to be sharing within a select group, I would have no grief against it.
|
Comp.Sci Students.. (Score:2, Insightful)
by DJStealth (djstealth@no.spammers-xyz.mindless.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:21PM EST (#9)
(User Info) |
As a student in Computer Science, it's nice to know that we can begin to learn from some well-known games.
I'm sure there are many other students who are beginning to develop games and would like some form of hint in where to start. Well.. now they have a place.
Thanks ID.
Personally I'm not a games person, and I don't have much interest in programming games (I'm more of an OS and server person), but that won't stop me from taking a look at the source to see what I can find.
|
| |
Re:Comp.Sci Students.. (Score:1)
by TeddyR (syousif@iname.com) on Tuesday December 21, @10:51PM EST (#138)
(User Info) https://www.mav.net/teddyr/syousif/
|
I would not be surprised if some .edu somewhere decides to have a class built around the code...
even something like "here is the quake1 source code, make it better"...
http://www.alug.org/ |
Re:Comp.Sci Students.. (Score:1)
by deefer (deefer@[Spam:_Just_Say_No]dial.pipex.com) on Wednesday December 22, @04:29AM EST (#293)
(User Info) http://www.deefer.dial.pipex.com
|
Hehehe!!! Boy, I wish I was in that class!!!
I can picture me in the labs at 4am, playing Q1 and about to get kicked out by the sysadmin.... "But I'm still testing!!!"
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds. |
Good news for admins... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @09:22PM EST (#10)
|
Now we'll be able to kill processes in 3d :)
|
Expecting some interesting projects (Score:0, Redundant)
by CrusadeR (crusader@linuxgames.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:22PM EST (#11)
(User Info) http://www.linuxgames.com
|
Considering the myriad of efforts that started when the Doom source was released (which was around 4 years old when it was made available), I'm excited at what development teams will do with a 3D-accelerated commercial grade engine with a robust network engine...
:wq |
The obligatory mirrors (Score:5, Informative)
by captaineo (dmaas@dcine.DIESPAMDIE.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:23PM EST (#13)
(User Info) http://www.dcine.com
|
| Here's a start: ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/sou rce/q1source.zip ftp.cdrom.com/pub/idgam es/idstuff/source/q1source.zip ftp.3 dgamers.com/pub/3daction/00archives/quake/unsupported/q1source.zip ftp2 .3dgamers.com/pub/3daction/00archives/quake/unsupported/q1source.zip
|
| |
Re:The obligatory mirrors (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @09:49PM EST (#69)
|
Now if only we can get CmdrTaco to release the source code. Will we have to wait 5 years?
|
Re:The obligatory mirrors (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:37PM EST (#120)
|
good comment -- wrong forum for it.
Use PHPslash, it is better anyways.
-davidu
|
Re:The obligatory mirrors (Score:1)
by malice95 (malice@NoSpAm.exit109.com) on Wednesday December 22, @12:12AM EST (#224)
(User Info) |
PHPslash? Where can I find this?
Thanks.. Mike (totally offtopic btw:)
|
Re:The obligatory mirrors (Score:1)
by LetterJ (jwynia@earthlink.net) on Wednesday December 22, @07:57AM EST (#332)
(User Info) http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
|
PHPslash distribution.
LetterJ
"If you can't explain it to an 8-year-old, you don't understand it"--Albert Einstein |
Again? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @09:23PM EST (#14)
|
Someone leaked it on an FTP site back in 96 but that lasted all of one day. id came down on them like a ton of bricks.
|
| |
Re:Again? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @09:38PM EST (#48)
|
.. ya and that was source for beta code
|
Re:Again? (Score:1, Interesting)
by SyniK (synik@garbage.com) on Tuesday December 21, @10:13PM EST (#103)
(User Info) http://dilweed.myip.org
|
crack dot com, www.crack.com, was cracked and the Quake 1 source was stolen. I have it on Archive CD somewhere. It would be interesting to see the differences from the stolen and the released sources.
-SyniK |
Re:Again? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:03PM EST (#158)
|
Not much.. :)
|
Re:Again? (Score:1)
by DocTee (tristan.rowley@ukonline.co.uk) on Wednesday December 22, @05:55AM EST (#302)
(User Info) http://web.ukonline.co.uk/tristan.rowley/
|
I'd say it would be substantially different, actually. The source that was stolen a few years ago only went as far as winquake, as far as i remember; this includes the GL versions and QuakeWorld.
There've been a LOT of changes since then.
- DocTee near int *the_end = &now; while (time) {finalcurtain++;} |
Do a search on yahoo for quakesrc.tgz :P (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:07PM EST (#163)
|
:)
|
Bzzzt! Re:Do a search on yahoo for quakesrc.tgz :P (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @11:19PM EST (#187)
|
No matches.
|
Try 'Quakesrc' in altavista then. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @12:07AM EST (#220)
|
This is the internet folks. That search may have worked 30 minutes ago.. but.. :)
|
Tools (Score:1)
by raskolnik (raskolnik@ihateclowns.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:23PM EST (#15)
(User Info) |
Does anyone know where I can find info and the tools/compilers to mess around with this?
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
out to fight for freedom and truth." -Henrik Ibsen |
| |
Re:Tools (Score:1)
by jsewell on Tuesday December 21, @09:46PM EST (#57)
(User Info) |
If you would have bothered to read the frickin article, you would know the answer to that.
Hint: look in the second yellow paragraph.
|
Mod impact (Score:1)
by NightHwk on Tuesday December 21, @09:24PM EST (#16)
(User Info) |
Will this have any impact for mods such as generations? Is artwork, levels, models etc still considerd to be property of the publisher? It would be nice to see some of the oldy and goody quake1 maps ported to q3 without any legal hangups. We're all in search of the perfect game when it comes to that, and I'd love to have at it on e1m7 with all the new tech of q3.
|
| |
Re:Mod impact (Score:2)
by Imperator (imperator@mytherDOESNOTLIKESPAM.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:31PM EST (#30)
(User Info) http://myther.com/
|
Quoth Carmack:
All of the Quake data files remain copyrighted and licensed under the original terms, so you cannot redistribute data from the original game, but if you do a true total conversion, you can create a standalone game based on this code.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves. |
Re:Mod impact (Score:2)
by Inoshiro on Tuesday December 21, @09:34PM EST (#42)
(User Info) http://www.thock.com/Dylan/
|
The reason Generations was pulled, was because they directly copied the levels, textures, and models from Quake 1, as well as the sounds from Quake 1, Doom, and Wolfenstein. These are licenced to GTInteractive, Apogee, and a few others I'm sure I've forgotten.
The engine is John's to give away, but the artwork is not :-( This is also why the two Descents, as well as Doom and Wolfenstein code giveaways were not available with data files.
Luckily, all new models and such created for Generations (like the Doom and Wolfenstein models and level recreations) are relatively safe.
---
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug, that is, a feature that can't be turned off, in Windows. See also: monopoly. |
Re:Mod impact (Score:1)
by Skid= on Wednesday December 22, @05:16AM EST (#296)
(User Info) |
Actually Quake1 levels were rebuilt from scratch for generations. The Quake1 models were converted. But textures and sounds were directly pulled from the orignal games. We just worked under a misconception that everything was legal after a vague communication on both sides with ToddH =)
|
Re:Mod impact (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:55PM EST (#143)
|
Im just hoping now with the source fags won't make really good proxy bots and clients that can get around the cheat protection...... >:|
|
Re:Mod impact (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @11:06AM EST (#399)
|
Get with the times, mojo. Play Quake II like the rest of us.
|
Re:Mod impact (Score:1)
by torgo3000 on Thursday December 23, @01:57PM EST (#477)
(User Info) http://www.ire.org/~al/
|
nothing beats House of Cthon with rockets in Q1. oh, and grapples, magic, heat seeking missles, and runes...
|
Halflife, etc. (Score:1)
by havardi on Tuesday December 21, @09:25PM EST (#17)
(User Info) |
Wasn't Halflife based off a modified Quake 1 engine. Half-life shows that the engine can indeed be used to make specatular games. I've always wished Rainbow Six, Rouge Spear, etc used the Quake engine for multiplayer-- maybe now companies can provide decent multiplayer linux servers for all their FPS games! yay!
|
| |
not quake 1 ... (Score:1)
by Augusto (augusto.sellhorn@_no._spa_._m_.ps.ge.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:27PM EST (#24)
(User Info) |
... but a modified quake 2.
Flame on ! - Johnny Storm, Fantastic Four |
Re:not quake 1 ... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:28PM EST (#111)
|
No. It's a heavily modified Quake I.
|
Re:not quake 1 ... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @09:10AM EST (#363)
|
| Both of you are partly correct and partly incorrect :-) Work on Half-Life was initially started with the Quake engine licensed by Valve as a basis for the HL engine. Later, Valve also licensed the Quake 2 engine - there could be a number of reasons for this. The result is, of course, that Half-Life is partially based on Quake and partially on Quake 2.
|
Re:Halflife, etc. (Score:2)
by CaptainCarrot (carrot@watch.ankh-morpork.gov) on Tuesday December 21, @09:30PM EST (#29)
(User Info) |
I believe its actually based on the Quake 2 engine. Does anyone recall any other games using the Quake 1 engine? None leap to mind right now.
|
Re:Halflife, etc. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21, @10:29PM EST (#112)
|
Daikatana? Pahahahah...
|
Re:Halflife, etc. (Score:1)
by CaptainCarrot (carrot@watch.ankh-morpork.gov) on Tuesday December 21, @11:49PM EST (#209)
(User Info) |
| You're cruel. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
|
Re:Halflife, etc. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @12:21AM EST (#227)
|
Hexen II was made from a modified Quake I engine.
|
Re:Halflife, etc. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @01:18AM EST (#256)
|
Wasn't there a semi-crappy game called Chasm - The Rift that was based on Quake 1?
|
Halflife is Quake 1 (Score:1)
by Render (mhansen.no@spam.intelogis.com) on Wednesday December 22, @10:42AM EST (#390)
(User Info) |
> I believe its actually based on the Quake 2 engine.
Nope. Half-Life is built on the engine from the original Quake -- this same gem we were just handed -- and not Quake 2. Even though HL was released well after Quake 2's release, the programmers at Valve had already implemented many of the improvements from Q1-Q2 in their own code, so there was no need for them to license Q2 and upgrade. HL is a Q1-derived game. Improvements to the engine include:
* Skeletal animation (Q1 was frame-based, Q2 was frame-interpolated)
* 16-bit colored textures (Q1-Q2 supported only 8-bit textures)
* Colored lighting effects (Q2 added this, but HL had it already)
* Direct3D rendering (Quake only supported OpenGL in hardware; HL supported both OGL and D3D)
* A bunch of scripting stuff
* blah blah blah
Point is, Quake 2 didn't bring anything to the table that Valve hadn't already surpassed, so they went with their own technology. Sin, OTOH, is a Quake 2 TC right down to its frame-interpolated toes.
Not that Quake 2 is a shoddy product for not having improved over Quake as much as Half-Life. Remember that Quake 2 was the only the second Quake-derived game to market. Given a development cycle as long as Half-Life's, id could have done miracles with that engine.
I can't think of any other games based on only Quake I, other than Hexen II -- Raven is always to first to market with their id-derived games. There were some other games announced from Quake technology when Hexen II hit. HL, Sin, Daikatana, and (of all games) Golgotha. HL released based on Quake I. Sin and Daikatana switched to Q2. Golgotha changed its engine entirely -- I don't remember reading why. Its source is of course now available but nothing much is going on with the project. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.
This move by Carmack to release the code surprises me. I once remember reading that he had planned not to release until the last Quake engine game shipped. But we're still waiting on Daikatana. (I think the upcoming Soldier of Fortune is also Q2-based). I wonder how Romero's taking this?
|
Re:Halflife, etc. (Score:1)
by RodStewart (robswin[at]hempseed.com) on Tuesday December 21, @09:39PM EST (#49)
(User Info) http://www.phish.net
|
The other comments repilying to this thread are half truths, half-life is mostly quake 1 code modified by valve with some quake2 components.
"Are you satisfied with fucking?" - Dave Matthews from "Halloween" |
Re:Halflife, etc. (Score:1)
by Render (mhansen.no@spam.intelogis.com) on Wednesday December 22, @10:52AM EST (#394)
(User Info) |
| Hmmm... Now that I think about it, you're righ |
Posted by Hemos on Tuesday December 21, @09:13PM
Quake 1 GPL'ed