DarkPlaces Beatiful Shots

[Swift]

No probs :

Cheers. I'm quite fond of #6. Looks lush.

[Irritant]

[Vermis resorted to open source as a means to an end because the status quo wasn't working and needed to attract followers; not for a noble reason ... or so I have been told]. What I saw nearly a year ago was enough to make me sick and heartbroken. But since that time, I feel that karma has had time to make things right ...

Vermuelen always struck me as the "corporate climber" type. A few months before Nexuiz was released, he sent me an email asking a ton of questions about how to launch the game's first release, to which I replied and answered fully, and gave him the best advice that I could. He never onced thanked me for it.

Years later he then asked me how Alien Arena was able to partner with a company and get toolbars bundled with the installer, and once again, I told him how, and we had a lengthy conversation on IRC about it, and I even went as far as to give my partner company his information, and him theirs. Yet again, not a single thanks for the effort.

Not surprising, since his "thank you" to the guys that did all the work on his game was to yank the rug out from under them, behind their backs.

[metalmodman]

You have to pay ID for the quake license first and ask permission from every one that contributed before you could sell it right?

I remember a while back a guy was recruiting people for his sponsored quake 3 mod and later tried to name the mod after himself. He did nothing but recruit people.

Any one remember the story to tron 1? lol

Did ID make Doom 3 or just the engine?

[mh]

You have to pay ID for the quake license first and ask permission from every one that contributed before you could sell it right?

Not really; the GPL allows (or doesn't prohibit; I'd need to check the text) commercial exploitation, so as long as you abide by the GPL (make the source available, etc) you can sell stuff if you want. Nothing to stop you. This is also confirmed by the readme that comes with q1source.zip:

The code is all licensed under the terms of the GPL (gnu public license). You should read the entire license, but the gist of it is that you can do anything you want with the code, including sell your new version. The catch is that if you distribute new binary versions, you are required to make the entire source code available for free to everyone.

Although that should really say "anyone who asks for it" rather than "everyone", because the GPL doesn't even require you to put your code up for public download either.

(Aside: if more people actually bothered to read and understand the GPL rather than projecting their own idealised vision on it, there would be a lot less flame-outs in the world.)

[frag.machine]

The code is all licensed under the terms of the GPL (gnu public license). You should read the entire license, but the gist of it is that you can do anything you want with the code, including sell your new version. The catch is that if you distribute new binary versions, you are required to make the entire source code available for free to everyone.

Although that should really say "anyone who asks for it" rather than "everyone", because the GPL doesn't even require you to put your code up for public download either.

The idea behind the GPL is that the source code must be at least as accessible as the binary. So, if your program has restrict distribution (for example, only for your paying customers), it's OK to distribute the sources only to them (IBM does this way with their version of the Apache web server). That's why it's a good idea (although, as mh said, not mandatory) to bundle both binaries and source code in the same package, so whoever gets your program will also receive the source, and thus the license requirement is satisfied.

[mh]

The code is all licensed under the terms of the GPL (gnu public license). You should read the entire license, but the gist of it is that you can do anything you want with the code, including sell your new version. The catch is that if you distribute new binary versions, you are required to make the entire source code available for free to everyone.

Although that should really say "anyone who asks for it" rather than "everyone", because the GPL doesn't even require you to put your code up for public download either.

The idea behind the GPL is that the source code must be at least as accessible as the binary. So, if your program has restrict distribution (for example, only for your paying customers), it's OK to distribute the sources only to them (IBM does this way with their version of the Apache web server). That's why it's a good idea (although, as mh said, not mandatory) to bundle both binaries and source code in the same package, so whoever gets your program will also receive the source, and thus the license requirement is satisfied.

It's the easiest and most rational way of doing it. Although section 3 of the terms and conditions in GPL 2 (which most of us use) - in particular 3b - is quite explicit in saying that you definitely don't have to make the source as accessible as the binary.

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

In other words, I could charge people the mail cost of sending them my source code on floppy disk (...or whatever...) and not have the source publicly accessible at all, then totally close the source after 3 years, and still comply with the GPL (so long as I didn't release any more binaries). Unfortunately GPL 3 doesn't do much to address this hole.

(Anyway there's nothing to stop anybody who recieves the source from making it publicly accessible.)

[scar3crow]

or so I have been told

I'm yet to encounter a comment on the whole issue that didn't seem to be compilations of hearsay leading up to a summary of assumptions. Combine that with a lot of painting of individuals in certain ways, and I am left with no reason, personally speaking, to regard anyone as even beginning to be an authoritative voice on the matter.

The only ones I can fathom being close to such are the original authors, hence, authoritative - Vermeulen and LordHavoc. I have had little interaction with the former, and extensively so with the latter to where I could easily err in his favor due to friendship, but despite the obvious chances of bias in their report, their word is clearly the most relevant, their decisions are the most pertinent, and their vision is the most binding regarding the future of the project. That is the base characteristic of authorship, no matter how it grows, and anyone who contributes to such a structure should be mindful of that.

Inside3d is not mine, before it is mine, it is FrikaC's, and before it is FrikaC's, it is Kryten's, and before it is Kryten's, it is AtomicGamer's/Telefragged's, and I must acknowledge that at every step of making any decisions regarding its future. It is never mine, and will never be mine, as I have no authorship, and I would be a fool to think that my contributing at a later juncture in its existence shifts its inherent quality, and the rights of those who contributed and supported prior to me.

[xaGe]

..Screw the Nexuiz bs! lol! Xonotic is already as fun as the predecessor since its forked from it. Plus its being very actively developed by a lot of the community that helped make Nexuiz what it was.

[xaGe]

..Blood Omnicide is looking more and more promising.

[metalmodman]

(Aside: if more people actually bothered to read and understand the GPL rather than projecting their own idealised vision on it, there would be a lot less flame-outs in the world.)

I assumed from baker post, some one closed source and tried to sell other coders open source project to a company. After reading the other post it sounds like its just an ad, the same as any other web sites ad?

Unfortunately I never got a chance to work on a large project before, so I never bothered reading GPL. Just hate the thought of some one taking advantage of people who are sharing work and ideas. But no idea what's going on there, hopefully they sort it out instead of fighting over it or killing the project.


Blood Omnicide looks good and just like the original game. Had to be made from scratch? I'm a fan of the kain game series.

[gnounc]

at first I thought they were ripping assets, but after a google image search and comparing the hud, it looks like a very good remake.

[WINGED_DOOM]

..Blood Omnicide is looking more and more promising.

Oh yes!
Btw i have post the review about this project. Screens are applied.

[mh]

Blood Omnicide looks good and just like the original game. Had to be made from scratch? I'm a fan of the kain game series.

I checked out their site and it looks like you need the original game data for it to run. Must drag out my old copy of it sometime.

[gnounc]

thats even better.

[metalmodman]

It would be interesting if they converted it some how, I wonder if they got all the secrets. I can't believe how accurate it is.