Bring back Risen3D

[hawkwind2]

Risen3D is on hold. Go here http://risen3d.newdoom.com/ for the reasons why and don't forget to email Abbs your support for Risen3d.

[SgtMagor]

tried mailing Abbs a few times, mail won't go thru...

[Chilvence]

He put up the wrong adress, try again.

Someone perform CPR on RISEN3d!

[deepteam]

Don't understand this at all. JDOOM is not GPL, therefore RISEN3D is not GPL. Releasing the source was Graham's intent, but to cancel it now because of invalid premise needs to be addressed.

The original DOOM license is used in JDOOM and if you look at the HERETIC and HEXEN license stuff, you'll notice that they are also not GPL - because RAVEN never released it that way. Hence DOOMSDAY can't make it GPL because you can't change the license to a more general one if you rely on multiple licenses.

ZDOOM is in a similar situation - no GPL.

VAVOOM license is invalid - he can't make it GPL since HEXEN/ACC is not GPL.

I've seen many posts here that imply otherwise - but releasing the source is optional in the original DOOM License. There were 2 versions and technically either one can be used.

[SgtMagor]

it will be a real bummer if Risen3d is canceled sigh!...:(

[drfrag]

Cancelling RISEN3D would be the most stupid idea ever.
And i don't think that asking for email support is a good idea.
RISEN3D is a very recent engine and not well known yet, receiving
few emails would mean nothing. But it's obvious that it will be
a success and its existence is necessary. It's among the best out there.
And i'm supporting it in my project, THE HERESY.

[Teflon]

And i'm supporting it in my project, THE HERESY.

Stop promoting that thing everywehre you go. It's rather annoying.

This does suck. Risen3D did sound real promising, what being one of the few OpenGL ports to support Boom and MBF features and all. Hopefully he'll get enough emails to continue.

[hawkwind2]

Administrator - please delete this.

[SgtMagor]

???...

[Chilvence]

It would be an awful shame to see Risen3d die before even coming out into the spotlight. I was fully expecting this program to come out of nowhere and surprise both camps of the Doom community. It would only take some well placed publicity, and that combined with a GPL source release would literally set intrest in this project on fire! ( in a good way ;) ). After all, people wont use it if they dont know what it is.

It has the unique cabability that almost everyone has been clamouring for in an OGL port, which is error free support of special map hacks that have forever been limited to Doom's quirky software engine. That alone would make it stand out as an achievement, but not only that, it's JDoom with Boom support! How many JDoom users have been asking for that since it started?

I'd advise anyone who wants to see this show go on to talk about Risen3d at any given opportunity, whether it's to some newbie asking how to make Doom.exe work on winXP, or a forum veteran thinking on making a Boom map, whatever, I dont know. You can only promote intrest in something that people are educated about, which is something that R3D unfortunately (and undeservedly) lacks.

[KuriKai]

ive never used it because i was never able to download it :(

[Chilvence]

Hmm, yeah, the ftp server was a bit dodgy. I always had to use an ftp tranfer program to actually get it.

There you go, theres another thing - have a nice http mirror for Risen3d that doesnt bug out with Mozilla! While you're looking for a good place, you can even have mine ;) Theres only 20 megs, but its wasted on my crappy site.

[deepteam]

RISEN3D is back on track. The issue mentioned was never a problem for the reasons I listed above. Need to get the links back up on the page - looks like somebody forgot or ?

That server is actually damn fast. There is sometimes a problem that has something to do with a user's system thinking the file is cached(?), so sometimes it appears to download, but actually doesn't. If you rename the file, it usually will download though.

[Chilvence]

Hmm, I thought the issue was that Graham didnt see the motivation to continue, not the liscence.

Regarding jbserver, it appears I have a different problem to the one you've seen. For example, this is the message I get when I try to read r3d_whatsnew.txt (only example I could find at the minute) http://www.stateoftheworld.eclipse.co.uk/doom/wasteofspace/jb/mozilla.jpg

But logging in with bullet proof and I can see it fine: http://www.stateoftheworld.eclipse.co.uk/doom/wasteofspace/jb/bullet.jpg

[SgtMagor]

i thought everything was back on track, with the 1.6.1.2 release!. i guess not...

[deepteam]

OK - guess there are 2 issues.

Please email Graham if you want him to continue!

And the other issue looks like a mozilla problem - not the site. I'd email mozilla and give them the details. I just do a straight ftp from IE and it just "works". The newtext is never a problem.

[SgtMagor]

Please email Graham if you want him to continue!


tried mailing Graham a couple of days ago, it was refused? only has Abbs addy on the website...

[deepteam]

Yeah, email it via Abbs address on the web page.

[Chilvence]

I already suggested a Risen3d forum to abbs to promote intrest in the port. If it was placed in a subcategory of the Doomsday forum (it is inherited after all), it would be certain to recieve plenty of traffic. If Graham and Jakko are alright by that, at least.

[SgtMagor]

anynews on on the state of Risen3D, anyone heard from Abbs yet.

[Chilvence]

I never see Abbs browse the forums, unless he has another alias or browses in invisible mode or something. It would be nice to know if theres an update on the situation.

[deepteam]

RISEN3D is back

http://risen3d.newdoom.com/

click the downloads link on top

[SgtMagor]

woot Risen3D is back, cheers! :)....

[Jon the Frad]

Don't understand this at all. JDOOM is not GPL, therefore RISEN3D is not GPL. Releasing the source was Graham's intent, but to cancel it now because of invalid premise needs to be addressed.

I was under the impression that jdoom was GPL... I got this idea from http://sourceforge.net/projects/deng/. I can see that the heretic/hexen code requires the older licence to be used. I can also see that the older licence doesn't require the source to be released- what an over sight on IDs part :(

So does that mean that the doomsday engine, and the various game modes under it are under different licences?

I requested the risen3d source code a while ago and I didn't get a reply.

[Xerxes]

RISEN3D is back

http://risen3d.newdoom.com/

click the downloads link on top

Yeah !!! http://doomcity.chez.tiscali.fr/data/Smiley/icon_ola.gif

[DaniJ]

The Doomsday Engine IS GPL.

It's the game dll's that are under the original license.

[Jon the Frad]

it seems to be back up now

[Jaquboss]

Don't understand this at all. JDOOM is not GPL, therefore RISEN3D is not GPL. Releasing the source was Graham's intent, but to cancel it now because of invalid premise needs to be addressed.

The original DOOM license is used in JDOOM and if you look at the HERETIC and HEXEN license stuff, you'll notice that they are also not GPL - because RAVEN never released it that way. Hence DOOMSDAY can't make it GPL because you can't change the license to a more general one if you rely on multiple licenses.

ZDOOM is in a similar situation - no GPL.

VAVOOM license is invalid - he can't make it GPL since HEXEN/ACC is not GPL.

I've seen many posts here that imply otherwise - but releasing the source is optional in the original DOOM License. There were 2 versions and technically either one can be used.

??? jDoom is GPL (it´s on sourceforge.net too) soo Risen3D must be GPL too .. Am I right?

[deepteam]

First, JDOOM was not originally GPL. So like DOOM itself, there are 2 licenses. Although "parts" of JDOOM -maybe- can be GPL, he can't subject the other parts to GPL. Technically it's in violation of Raven Software's license. If you create completely independent modules that serve as an interface to other code, then that module -maybe- can be separated. This is actually quite tricky.

Examples of modules that have independent legal licenses are sound DLLs, graphic DLLs and so forth. So if you wanted to make just a new sound driver, having nothing to do with the id/raven code, that would work.

But if you just repackage licensed code into separate exe and dll code, then all you've done is repackage the source and that does constitute a valid argument for an independent license. It would be a tough argument here to say that the RAVEN license does not apply. Both the original DOOM and RAVEN licenses are identical. IOW, just saying something is GPL does not make it GPL.

It's the very reason that ZDOOM CAN NOT be GPL. RH at least understands this. He also uses some BUILD code. IOW, once you incorporate material from another license, the whole package gets bound by the lowest common denominator. Not that any of those parties probably care, but that's the way it.

[Jon the Frad]

First, JDOOM was not originally GPL. So like DOOM itself, there are 2 licenses. Although "parts" of JDOOM -maybe- can be GPL, he can't subject the other parts to GPL. Technically it's in violation of Raven Software's license. If you create completely independent modules that serve as an interface to other code, then that module -maybe- can be separated. This is actually quite tricky.

Indeed it can be tricky. If you want to see which parts are GPL and which are not, grab the source and check the top of each file. The engine 'deng' is GPL, the DLL's are not. I think (hope) that deng derives only from doom and thus is legitimately GPL. I haven't got the source right in front of me so I can't check but the doom dll may be GPL too. The heretic/hexen ones are not (although, this is a bit confusing, as on sourceforge the whole lot is listed as GPL).

If doomsday was distributed as source under the older doom licence at some point, then the risen3d guy could use that licence and not release code providing he was working from a snapshot at least as old as the switch to the GPL. I will check the sf.net CVS logs when I'm on my own machine later for dates.

Both the original DOOM and RAVEN licenses are identical.

I'm in the middle of checking this with some legally-minded people at the moment for a related problem. I can say that at the very least, the heretic/hexen licence is very shitty :( The 'not-for-profit' clause has been shown in other licences to be a serious problem: What about distributing it on a CD with other things like pwads? Could even mirroring it on a commercial site like fileplanet w/ advertising revenue constitute a for-profit use of the code?

IOW, once you incorporate material from another license, the whole package gets bound by the lowest common denominator. Not that any of those parties probably care, but that's the way it.

This is true provided the various licences can co-exist. The GPL and the heretic/hexen licence are incompatible- you cannot take GPL code and subject it to the (more restrictive) heretic/hexen licence as that contravenes the intentions of the GPL author.

[deepteam]

It really doesn't matter what the top of each file says. That's merely the "opinion" of the author. The key is how the code is derived and how much it ties (is derived from) the existing code-base.

None of the work was done in "chinese wall" conditions. What that means is that ALL the code was coded by looking at the DOOM (etc) code and then stringing it together in a different way. Recombining source code (even if totally redone) does not constitute a basis to call the whole work GPL, since GPL implies that everything in the project is GPL. Since even the "new" modules can only work as a "whole" if the non-gpl code is active, then it become very difficult to argue a valid GPL status since I think everyone admits that the Raven sections are NOT GPL. Extending the DOOM functionality to include ACS automatically invokes the Raven license.

If it were as simple as just splitting stuff up, then any license could be changed merely by rewriting the code into a different sequence or by recombining parts. IOW, even a GPL license could be thwarted. I'm just illustrating that an argument can go both ways.

This is the very problem Linux is presented with :)

[Jon the Frad]

It really doesn't matter what the top of each file says. That's merely the "opinion" of the author.

Different parts of doomsday are licenced differently and the top of each file indicates which parts are GPL and which are not.


None of the work was done in "chinese wall" conditions. What that means is that ALL the code was coded by looking at the DOOM (etc) code and then stringing it together in a different way.


Yes the line between writing code after reading some other code and deriving explicitly from some other code is blurred. The nasty situations are where the code is clearly not copied, but perhaps 'inspired'. Theres little that can be done about this however.

I think everyone admits that the Raven sections are NOT GPL.

Absolutely.

Recombining source code (even if totally redone) does not constitute a basis to call the whole work GPL, since GPL implies that everything in the project is GPL. Since even the "new" modules can only work as a "whole" if the non-gpl code is active, then it become very difficult to argue a valid GPL status since I think everyone admits that the Raven sections are NOT GPL.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. I think you are arguing that doomsday cannot be licenced under the GPL, apologies if this is not the case. I can't really continue along this line of discussion until I've checked the dates of the various events that impact this.

Extending the DOOM functionality to include ACS automatically invokes the Raven license.

Only if the ACS is taken from the raven code. Afaik the zdoom ACS scripting predates the release of the raven source for example.

If it were as simple as just splitting stuff up, then any license could be changed merely by rewriting the code into a different sequence or by recombining parts. IOW, even a GPL license could be thwarted.

The engine/dll interface is perhaps as clean and 'external' as can be. I think such an interface allows people to combine wildly different licences into a working 'product' since the various components are to some degree stand-alone. I.e. the GPLd engine would work fine with a GPLd dll, and the non-GPL functions encapsulated in the library can be used by any program that links to it.

[deepteam]

To say it with a bit more detail: what an author puts at the top of a piece of code is not necessarily evidence that it is LEGAL GPL. The id and Raven parts automatically are what they are. But just because you create some new module (for example just to restructure the code), that doesn't mean you can now relicense it as GPL.

As I explained to LEGACY developers, the ACS RH used was obtained directly from Ben Gokey. I got it directly from him and directed Randy to ask Raven as I did when RH asked me for the source. So I argued that both RH and I actually can do what we want.

Now RH has included his code under the ORIGINAL DOOM license, therefore, you are stuck here. It can't be made GPL. IOW, he didn't create this independently at all.

Now as to the actual implementation of ACS in the code. That would be also be very difficult to argue that none of it was derived from Raven code. And again ZDOOM is not GPL, so you can't "borrow" the code and make it GPL.

ZDOOM has 3 main licenses, DOOM, RAVEN and BUILD - none are GPL. He's included these for some time and it's now not possible for him to change this since he bound himself by the terms of those documents.

It's wishfull thinking that one can circumvent a license via clever "packaging" tricks. Only if the other products can be used INDEPENDENTLY of your code would that argument start to be credible. IOW, the sound code is generic and can be used by any app. Same for GL or D3D. All generic products meant as universal interface APIs. What exactly is universal in JDOOM that any other program can use? The specific purpose for which all this is intended is the key.

If some other completely different program were able to interface to these dll modules for a completely different purpose, there would be a basis to argue. But so long as the code has only ONE purpose, then it's merely repackaging of the original code base.

So yes, I'm stating that DOOMSDAY (the package) can not be made GPL since that implies that the whole shebang is GPL and clearly that can not be. Now if you want to take a subset (DOOM), now you can take the new DOOM license and if you used NO Raven material, then it can be made GPL. I can't see how you can do that since RH can't make ZDOOM GPL. Technically this has already been violated in JDOOM since he has ZDOOM code in there. It's all in the details of what came from where.

[Jon the Frad]

To say it with a bit more detail: what an author puts at the top of a piece of code is not necessarily evidence that it is LEGAL GPL. The id and Raven parts automatically are what they are. But just because you create some new module (for example just to restructure the code), that doesn't mean you can now relicense it as GPL.

Thats true.

As I explained to LEGACY developers, the ACS RH used was obtained directly from Ben Gokey. I got it directly from him and directed Randy to ask Raven as I did when RH asked me for the source. So I argued that both RH and I actually can do what we want.

Interesting.. so when you got the source was it not under a particular licence? The ownership of the code is still arguably raven or activision.. I've seen cases where code was given by someone and then the actual owner stepped in later. I think that was something the winamp guys were working on and GPLd, and then AOL came in later and halted circulation. Anyway that is an interesting situation!

Now RH has included his code under the ORIGINAL DOOM license, therefore, you are stuck here. It can't be made GPL. IOW, he didn't create this independently at all.

Yup and on a similar note- if anyone wants to change licence midway through development, what happens to people who have submitted patches under the original licence? They still own the code they wrote. I think that for this to happen, every single author needs to be in agreement or have their contribution removed (which of course is impossible in many cases).

Now, I'd continue to discuss the packaging debate as I still think I have a case but it is now besides the point -

Technically this has already been violated in JDOOM since he has ZDOOM code in there. It's all in the details of what came from where.

I didn't know this was the case. You are absolutely right - this prevents doomsday from being released under the GPL. Do you know to what extend and where the ACS code is incorporated? e.g. the DLL, the engine...

(perhaps I should actually *look* at the code instead of asking these questions ;) )

Don't you just hate these licencing issues... such a horrible can of worms.

[deepteam]

Interesting.. so when you got the source was it not under a particular licence? The ownership of the code is still arguably raven or activision..
Well my situation is pretty cut and dried. I asked Ben Gokey right after HEXEN was released and gave the source to me (a day later I think) with the clear understanding that it was for a DOOM SHAREWARE editor. So although it's their copyright, I have 100% free use of the source to do with what I want. Use of code and copyright are 2 different things.

Just scan the source for mention of "ZDOOM" and other similar words like RH and stuff like that. I think I might even be indirectly mentioned:)

Haven't checked the latest, but all the HERETIC and HEXEN stuff used liberal copying of the original source code. And of course the plan to incorporate any of thiss into JDOOM immediately invokes the respective license issues. It's not just ACS, but other aspects as well.