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...
yes nice go go go!
now we need a benchmark with this code in use
It's too bad the git history doesn't show the patent conflict changes :P
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" ?
Originally Posted by elanthis
(Edit) i read the part but i don't understand it.
Last edited by Qaridarium; 11-22-2011 at 10:48 PM.
I think there might be some genuine legal problems with these restrictions!
Originally Posted by elanthis
Here are the terms reproduced for anyone too lazy to go to github and look:
This, at the bottom of a file that says right at the top,
Originally Posted by Zenimax's Freaking Lawyers
What I don't get () is whether the terms at the bottom are even legally enforceable:
Originally Posted by The Real GPLv3
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 11:12 PM.
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.
I mailed email@example.com letting them know of my suspicions about this license. We'll see what they say.