Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Doom 3 Source Code Published Under The GPL

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,397

    Default Doom 3 Source Code Published Under The GPL

    Phoronix: Doom 3 Source Code Published Under The GPL

    The Doom 3 source-code -- based upon the id Tech 4 engine -- is now available as open-source software to the gaming community under the GNU GPL license...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAxODk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    yes nice go go go!

    now we need a benchmark with this code in use

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    143

    Default

    It's too bad the git history doesn't show the patent conflict changes :P

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Interesting that they both chose the GPL3 and yet made additional modifications to the license (adding additional restrictions) hence making it completely incompatible with GPL3 code.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Interesting that they both chose the GPL3 and yet made additional modifications to the license (adding additional restrictions) hence making it completely incompatible with GPL3 code.
    what kind of "additional restrictions" ?

    (Edit) i read the part but i don't understand it.
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 11-22-2011 at 09:48 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Interesting that they both chose the GPL3 and yet made additional modifications to the license (adding additional restrictions) hence making it completely incompatible with GPL3 code.
    I think there might be some genuine legal problems with these restrictions!

    Here are the terms reproduced for anyone too lazy to go to github and look:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zenimax's Freaking Lawyers
    ADDITIONAL TERMS APPLICABLE TO THE DOOM 3 GPL SOURCE CODE.

    The following additional terms (“Additional Terms”) supplement and modify the GNU General Public License, Version 3 (“GPL”) applicable to the Doom 3 GPL Source Code (“Doom 3 Source Code”). In addition to the terms and conditions of the GPL, the Doom 3 Source Code is subject to the further restrictions below.

    1. Replacement of Section 15. Section 15 of the GPL shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

    “15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

    THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, TITLE AND MERCHANTABILITY. THE PROGRAM IS BEING DELIVERED OR MADE AVAILABLE “AS IS”, “WITH ALL FAULTS” AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.”

    2. Replacement of Section 16. Section 16 of the GPL shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

    “16. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

    UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR ITS AFFILIATES, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE PROGRAM(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), WHETHER OR NOT ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR SUCH OTHER PARTY RECEIVES NOTICE OF ANY SUCH DAMAGES AND WHETHER OR NOT SUCH DAMAGES COULD HAVE BEEN FORESEEN.”

    3. LEGAL NOTICES; NO TRADEMARK LICENSE; ORIGIN. You must reproduce faithfully all trademark, copyright and other proprietary and legal notices on any copies of the Program or any other required author attributions. This license does not grant you rights to use any copyright holder or any other party’s name, logo, or trademarks. Neither the name of the copyright holder or its affiliates, or any other party who modifies and/or conveys the Program may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. The origin of the Program must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original Program. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original Program.

    4. INDEMNIFICATION. IF YOU CONVEY A COVERED WORK AND AGREE WITH ANY RECIPIENT OF THAT COVERED WORK THAT YOU WILL ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR THAT COVERED WORK, YOU HEREBY AGREE TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE OTHER LICENSORS AND AUTHORS OF THAT COVERED WORK FOR ANY DAMAEGS, DEMANDS, CLAIMS, LOSSES, CAUSES OF ACTION, LAWSUITS, JUDGMENTS EXPENSES (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES) OR ANY OTHER LIABLITY ARISING FROM, RELATED TO OR IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR ASSUMPTIONS OF LIABILITY.
    This, at the bottom of a file that says right at the top,

    Quote Originally Posted by The Real GPLv3
    Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
    of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
    What I don't get () is whether the terms at the bottom are even legally enforceable:

    1. I'm using a copyright license document developed by someone else for my software. The original developer of the license said that you can't modify the license.

    2. I reproduce the license in full, and then say "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS". As in, below this point, there are no more terms and conditions; the terms and conditions are over.

    3. Then I go back and say, "ADDITIONAL TERMS APPLICABLE TO THE DOOM 3 GPL SOURCE CODE." and list some more terms and conditions! There are two problems with this:

    (a), the content and force of the additional terms modifies the original license, which we already established, the original developer does not allow (presumably by force of copyright over the license text itself);

    (b), listing additional terms and conditions after the text "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" could be considered misleading and unenforceable. It'd be like writing "You owe me your life savings" on the back of an envelope containing a signed contract, and expecting that additional language to be part of the agreed-upon contract.

    IANAL but this stinks of Zenimax's lawyers not liking the warranty and liability text in the GPL, so they had to spraypaint their own in there. But its presence there is like graffiti; it doesn't belong in/on a public, standard license. And it's not just a question of good taste, or GPL compatibility, or community spirit; I think they might have painted themselves into a legally unenforceable corner.

    I'd be very, very careful about using this source code for any serious projects (aside from recompiling it from source with some tweaks and playing the game with the original Doom3 assets) until the license is clarified or revised. In particular, if you intend to release your derivative work of this software under any license other than the verbatim text of COPYING.txt in the original source tree (which I can't call the GPLv3, because legally it's not the same thing), or incorporate any existing code into this software under any license other than the verbatim text of COPYING.txt in the original source tree, then you might be setting yourself up for copyright violation. If their twisted license is indeed enforceable. But even if it's not enforceable, then the question of what license it's under is still a mystery, so it wouldn't be safe to include GPLv2 or GPLv3'ed code into it.

    Actually, I think we can do a little bit better than that, but not much. We should be able to painlessly integrate LGPL'ed libraries (especially LGPLv3) into this source base, because the original GPLv3 text in COPYING.txt explicitly allows this, and Zenimax's changes didn't affect that text in the license. So that's good. But that's only because the license explicitly calls out LGPL: I don't think it would be safe, in the general case, to just take any WTFPL or BSD license and assume that it's compatible with the ZPLv3 (my ad-hoc invented acronym for the "Zenimax modified GPLv3").

    It's fine that they're aggregating their software with a ton of other open source projects released under basically every license under the sun; "mere aggregation" is a no-brainer and I find that completely unobjectionable (especially considering the almost universal usage of the libraries they bundle anyway). What's not fine is that they're basically trampling all over contract law and the wishes and/or rights of the FSF in being the originators of the GPLv3.
    Last edited by allquixotic; 11-22-2011 at 10:12 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    The "changing it is not allowed" means that you cannot actually alter the GPL text itself. The FSF has always (AFAIK) allowed the addition of terms granting extra permissions (indeed, LGPLv3 is constructed this way), and Section 7 explicitly allows the addition of trademark/indemnification terms that alter the terms of Sections 15 and 16. I suggest reading Section 7 in its entirety; it's clever.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    I mailed licensing@fsf.org letting them know of my suspicions about this license. We'll see what they say.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    The "changing it is not allowed" means that you cannot actually alter the GPL text itself. The FSF has always (AFAIK) allowed the addition of terms granting extra permissions (indeed, LGPLv3 is constructed this way), and Section 7 explicitly allows the addition of trademark/indemnification terms that alter the terms of Sections 15 and 16. I suggest reading Section 7 in its entirety; it's clever.
    That is pretty clever, damnit! OK, so it might not be as much of an issue as I originally thought -- nice find -- but I still think it's best to alert the FSF to it and let them figure out whether the license is sensible or not. The questions in my mind that are yet to be officially answered are as follows:

    1. Are the terms at the bottom of the license contractually enforceable, despite the fact that they come after the text "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS"?

    2. Do these additional terms/modifications result in a license that is incompatible with the GPLv3?

    3. Is this a free software license, taken as-is, assuming that it is completely enforceable and valid contractual language? Or conversely, does its text violate any of the four essential freedoms?

    4. Does the FSF agree, as copyright holders of the original GPLv3, that these modifications/additions are in accordance with permissions explicitly granted by the license to make these modifications?

    If we have:

    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Yes
    4. Yes

    ...then we're good to go. Otherwise, trouble.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    That is pretty clever, damnit! OK, so it might not be as much of an issue as I originally thought -- nice find -- but I still think it's best to alert the FSF to it and let them figure out whether the license is sensible or not.
    I'm pretty sure the licensing terms are legit. Come on have a little faith man. It's not like they took someone else's GPLv3 code and modified the license. It's their own fraking code and they decided to license it as is.

    So you need to just chill out

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •