Source Ports and Source Code

Alright, a certain source port which is pretty hyped has a big problemo to it. The author of the port doesn't want to release the source.

Now, my immediate reaction was "the GPL says he has to release it"; however, it seems that is not the case. This port is based off an older version of ZDoom, which wasn't under the GPL. This means that the author is NOT legally required to release the source code if he keeps the old license.

I want everyone's opinion on this. Do you think it's okay to keep the source to yourself because he conveniently bypassed the GPL? Do you think he is being a stingy bastard for keeping the source code? Do you think it's his right to decide? Please post only coherent messages here, it would be nice to not have flames in this thread. (GavinJCD, that means take your ritalin before posting :) )

UPDATE: A couple of other people have asked me to mention what happened to the GLDoom project way back when. Bruce Lewis refused to release the source code, and if you remember, had a hard drive crash. He had no backups of the source, so the project was lost. This source port looks extremely promising, and it would suck if the creator lost all of his work.

No flaming eh, I guess I'll have to redo my typing a bit here...

Well it isn't really upto him, it's down to if the old license still applies or not, if it's been renwed and it's dead, the the port's creator is breaking the law if he doesn't release the source. It's all down to what's in the GPL. if the old license doesn't apply anymore the coder has no choice, either release the code or suffer by the law of Carmack.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the reasonable post by prower above, I feel obligated to object to the unreasonable behaviour of some of the people on #doomroom.

The source port itself, based on a non-GPL copy of zDoom source, is itself not bound to the terms of the GPL license. As I understand (and nobody has told me to the contrary), the GPL license only applies to ports based on the GPL'd Doom source. Any other source ports based on the source with the original license can continue under their original Doom license or comply with the GPL license, it being their choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the license transfers to projects that base themselves on the licensed project.

Therefore, the project we're talking about is perfectly legal. However, certain parties have objected to the status of this project and have employed scare tactics including the brandying about of the holy name "Carmack". This is highly objectionable and questionable behaviour, and may have soured our chances of ever seeing this project to completion.

There, I've said my piece.

"Conveniently bypassed" is harsh; he's based his work on a non-GPL port, and ZDoom could not be GPL'd (easily anyway). Yes, it's his right to decide.But, yes I think it's stingy not to release his source. His work is building on a lot of work that went before it, into Boom and ZDoom, all of which was released into the community for others to improve on. It's a shame for the community if he doesn't do the same.

Well, obviously, if his port isn't based on GPLed code then we can't MAKE him release the source... but if it's really that big of an issue, it would be easy enough to simply not mention the port on Doomworld or Doomnation and just give it the silent treatment. Maybe that'll help...

yes I believe that has worked in the past.

prower said:

Alright, a certain source port which is pretty hyped has a big problemo to it. The author of the port doesn't want to release the source.Now, my immediate reaction was "the GPL says he has to re

I want this source to be released. I believe that this would be the right thing to do. However, this is an OPINION. As Ricrob told me once, "opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one".. I'm sure he got that from someone else but what I'm trying to say is that banning him from #doomroom for his opinion is like myst banning someone because they don't share his views on rap. The people we should be banning from #doomroom are the annoying idiots, but the author of this program is neither annoying nor an idiot, maybe just a little misguided (again, only my opinion). My opinion is that you should all be grateful that someone is about to make this achievement which has not been met since the source was released around two years ago. Enjoy the port, encourage the author to back up his source, and if you're desparate to see his code for whatever purpose you may have, wait until he's done with it, as he said that is when he will release the code. He has released his code before. You have no legal argument against this guy, all you have is your opinion. Try not to be an idiot about it.

GavinJCD said:

yes I believe that has worked in the past.

Ling that would be a ridiculous thing to do- and I'm suprised really considering you are such a professional newsie- remember, keep your own opinions out of it.

The force is strong in this one.

GavinJCD said:

No flaming eh, I guess I'll have to redo my typing a bit here...

Well it isn't really upto him, it's down to if the old license still applies or not, if it's been renwed and it's dead, the the port's creator is breaking the law if he doesn't release the source. It's all down to what's in the GPL. if the old license doesn't apply anymore the coder has no choice, either release the code or suffer by the law of Carmack.

Apparently you can use either licence.

What happened to glDoom in the past was too bad !
I've wroten often enough that I was really sad as I heard of that mess.
So GPL or not....release that f****** source !

Linguica said:

Well, obviously, if his port isn't based on GPLed code then we can't MAKE him release the source... but if it's really that big of an issue, it would be easy enough to simply not mention the port on Doomworld or Doomnation and just give it the silent treatment. Maybe that'll help...

Ok, this is how I see it:

1) He has no reason whatsoever to keep the source code to himself that he's communicated to anyone. Unless he can come up with a good one, I think he should release his source code every time he releases a binary (to anyone).

2) Remember what happened with gldoom? If the community as a whole had put more pressure on Bruce Lewis to release his source code at every stage, the port wouldn't have flopped and died.

3) Keeping source code to yourself for no good reason goes against the whole spirit of the community (if not the letter of the law in this case). Imagine, for a second, if wad files could not be decompiled. Nobody would have been able to learn from others work and there wouldn't *be* a community today.

I don't think anyone with any type of political power to bear around doom should be seen to support actions such as this. This incident could easily set a precedent for more authors developing closed source projects. That's the reason I didn't want him allowed in #doomroom until the matter was resolved - which could have been a significant blow to his development as his only use for the channel is to find people to test his project on. Similarly I think that if the majority of the doomworld staff support the issue, they should take the decision that Linguica mentioned above.

If anyone is still not convinced about the merits of open source software, here's a url that was point out to me by a friend this morning:

http://www.opensource.org/intro.html