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.
Incredible this can run in the browser on my freaking phone! I remember playing Doom 3 when it came out, and my overclocked, water-cooled beast-mode computer at the time in the early 2000s could just barely do it.
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.
At the time it was claimed that it was dual licenced both with the original licence and GPLv2. So presumably if and only if you were wanting to sell modified versions the source code to them must be made available. It seems the GPLv2 licence came about as around 1999 some source ports were releasing binaries only. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jsahAmb8s4
What benefits does this confer, in practice, over the license it already had? The source code has been up there for years. The assets are still proprietary, right?
One is that the previous note said for non-profit use which could be interpreted as part of the license terms I suppose? While now it’s specifically under the GPL you can sell the source and any modifications.
But as you say the assets are still not covered and there are already more modern engines to play doom under other licenses anyway so…
When I first saw this I thought they released Doom 2016. I doubt anyone from Id will be able to comment on if 2016 will see the GPL, but there is no harm in asking. :-)
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
commercially exploit or use for any commercial purpose."
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."
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 long as it runs via GitHub.
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?
> 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?
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.
So you prefer, the DSL or GPL over GPLv2? The Doom Source License (or DSL) is the original source code license under which the Doom source code was released in late 1997.[1] I'll take this over the years and years the past licensing has caused any day.[2]
This commit now lists ZeniMax Media Inc. as the copyright holder. This is new compared to any other release of this code. The initial commit message was "The DOOM sources as originally released on December 23, 1997". This is now no longer the code as it was released in 1997. This code with a GPLv2 licence exists mirrored elsewhere on the internet.
