Wait, I'm confused. I thought the source release from iD was always GPLv2? Did they just forget to put a copy of the GPL in the repo?
Nope. Historically Doom was released by ID software under Doom Source License. Quite different from GPL in general.
Doom Released Under GPLv2
21–30 of 39 posts
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#22Thanks, but I'd rather take the one without the GPLv2 license one commit earlier.
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[1] https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/commit/4eb368a960647c8cc...
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
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. 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?
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#24Thanks, but I'd rather take the one without the GPLv2 license one commit earlier.
lol is that a bad joke? GPLv2 is better
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example you couldn't rent or sell your fork.
You can though? But so can any buyer ...
Nope, that was explicitly under the "Prohibited Uses" section
https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM/blob/77735c3ff0772609e9c...
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#26Nothing to see here. The Linux Doom version was re-licensed to GPLv2 in 1999.
When I saw the title I thought they released the source for Doom 3...
Doom 3 source was released more than 10 years ago
https://github.com/id-Software/DOOM-3
As an example of something built with that, you can play Doom 3 in your browser:
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#27Wait, I'm confused. I thought the source release from iD was always GPLv2? Did they just forget to put a copy of the GPL in the repo?
Nope. Historically Doom was released by ID software under Doom Source License. Quite different from GPL in general.
id changed Doom's license to GPL in 1999. Scroll down to October 3 on this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20000818041410/http://www.doomwo.... I believe the confusion comes from when id uploaded the Doom source to Github, they uploaded an older version with the original license headers rather than the newer GPL version.
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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 l…
> as long as it runs via GitHub.
That is extremely limiting...
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#29Nothing to see here. The Linux Doom version was re-licensed to GPLv2 in 1999.
Not entirely. As I understand it, that re-licensing occurred when a member of the Doom community emailed John Carmack asking him if he would be willing to release the source under the GPL. He said no problem, but there was never an official source drop with the updated license from Id Software. Carmack's email is all there is, and there's some ambiguity over whether he had the legal right to unilaterally re-license it. This official release puts its GPL status on more solid ground.
Re: Doom Released Under GPLv2
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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.