Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: ... In fact, I would consider it acceptable in general to move everything in contrib to main as long as it each package was forced to be priority extra until it was suitable for general-purpose use as packaged in main (including any dependencies, of course). ... If I understand it correctly you suggest to move e.g. the package below to main? I always thought that the reason for contrib was to make a place for free software that needs non-free software/data/... to run. If we move these packages to main this would mean to put software to main that is either not installable or that doesn't run without installing additional software/data/... The priority extra doesn't help that e.g. a user who wants to use only software from main will see the fact that some of the packages he tries to choose e.g. in dselect aren't installable. That's something I consider worse for our users than the current state with a contrib section for exactly these packages. -- snip -- Priority: optional Section: contrib/web Installed-Size: 28 Maintainer: Ryan Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Architecture: i386 Source: netscape4.base Version: 1:4.77-2 Depends: navigator-smotif-477,netscape-java-477,netscape-base-4 ... Description: Meta package that depends on other packages This package depends on the real netscape packages, so as to make things easier for people to install. meta-package: yes -- snip -- cu Adrian
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:12:01PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: ... In fact, I would consider it acceptable in general to move everything in contrib to main as long as it each package was forced to be priority extra until it was suitable for general-purpose use as packaged in main (including any dependencies, of course). ... If I understand it correctly you suggest to move e.g. the package below to main? No, the issue is moot. If your example was meant to be reductio ad absurdum, point taken. But try less absurd scenarios next time. -- G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Oscar Wilde http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpuEFsBGXpqv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:53:06AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Several emulators (apple2, atari800, gnuboy, gsnes9x, gtkiemu, nestra pose, uae, vice, and xtrs) from contrib should also move to main immediately then, as you can't argue that there will never be free ROMs for those either. Further, they could be educational. You could add zsnes to this list. zsnes even includes a free demo rom that I got someone to hack up. Still, I don't feel like challenging the will of James Troup. pgpYApeGqrT0F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 09:21:11AM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote: Quake and doom have been released for ages. I am not aware of any way to play them without using non-free data files. There was a group that was trying to put together free data for Quake, but I don't think they're close to having something usable yet. Hrm? I played quake with the free pox dataset once. I didn't care for it nearly as much as the original, non-free data, but it does exist. pgpBxKeH8crgI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:31:43PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote: Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marcus Let's promote when we have something to promote. Does this count as something to promote? URL:http://psdoom.sourceforge.net Maybe I am missing something that is obvious to everyone else, but I don't see how the page you are linking to above is related to the quake2-engine. If there'd be something like psquake2, which onnly depends on quake2-engine and other free stuff, then, yes! this would be something to promote. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:31:43PM -0800, Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marcus Let's promote when we have something to promote. Does this count as something to promote? URL:http://psdoom.sourceforge.net Doesn't that need the non-free datasets? Daniel
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
* Erich Schubert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [snipped] BTW: The source has some drawbacks right now i fear: As far as i could see it does not include the glx driver (which is the only way to use all those nvidia graphics cards) but depends on an old mesa version and svgalib. An patch to add SDL-based GL acceleration to the Quake II source (and tweak the Makefile so it's more Linux-friendly) is available here: http://icculus.org/~relnev/main.php I have no idea if it works or how well it works; I just noticed people talking about it in #nvidia. Greetings, Erich -- Paul Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]pabs on #e (OPN IRC) http://www.pablotron.org/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562 pgpU2xjBh0tHz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Marcus == Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marcus Let's promote when we have something to promote. Does this count as something to promote? URL:http://psdoom.sourceforge.net -- Stephen A duck!
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote: It's a runtime environment (you might call it interpreter) for the graphics files and the gamei386.so (or whatever it was called) Fine. So the interpreter (quake2-engine) can surely wait until game data is packaged for main and then go straight into main with it? regards, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
/* Sorry for replying to the wrong message.. My NNTP feed sucks /big/ time. :-(( */ On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 11:17:09AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: I'm giving up. Let's just dump it into contrib and tell everyone to either warez the data files or buy them. Or.. Isn't there a shareware version of this game? Still not free as in free beer, but at least people won't have to (buy a) copy (of) the game. -- *=-+-__ |[EMAIL PROTECTED]: _ Ugh! Nio2f says something: __ : http://www.lintux.cx/ |/ is not a starcus withe wheng mary \ ~~-+-=-+~+-=*
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Dale Scheetz wrote: I'm willing to accept the quake2-engine in non-us as long as it is available somewhere with a maintainer to bounce issues off of. I suspect that myself and Ben excluded everyone else will accept it going into contrib... I think Dale's hit the nail on the head with his post. The issues keeping quake 2 out of main, granting Ben's insistence that it can be looked at as an engine for games, are: * As an engine for games, it is woefully lacking in documentation. Programming languages have at least one of a spec, sample code, a body of existing code, or something to read to learn them, while this engine does not. * Nobody has actually come forward and volenteered to put this in main and give it the level of mantainance software in main deserves. If it were in main, they would really be obligated to be able to tell users some way it can be used, whether that is pointing them as a game that uses it, or at some documentation for writing one or at a free level editor or whatever. But if all the maintainer can do is point the user at data files you buy on CD, it makes a mockery of it being in main. So in summary we may have actually excluded a package from being in main because it lacks sufficient documentation (nice precedent ;-), and this can all be changed by one maintainer with sufficient chutzpah to upload it to main and deal with the consequences. Anyway, my 2¢: If you don't like contrib, putting it in experimental/main would probably serve the above points just as well. -- see shy jo, who is currently uploading to main a library that is not used by any currently released free software, but which he expects will be entirely noncontroversial as software in main
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 04:01:25AM +, Adam Olsen wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:49:33PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 06:57:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But quake2-engine does not depend on anything to fulfill it's purpose. It is a gaming engine, not a game. This is the same logic that applies to libraries and interpreters. Huh? The purpose of quake2 is not to run quake levels and be a playable game? The purpose of the sources released is a gaming engine. They did not release quale2 the game, which is what the data files consist of. Notice that lots of games from Id are based on the quake3 engine. They aren't quake3, but they use the same engine, and different data files. Do not confuse a game engine (the source released) with the game itself (the data files that they didn't release). But you do agree that it requires having *some* data, no matter what game it's for? Which means having a Depends: quake2-data? And if you wish to argue that it can be used to develop the data, then you should have no problem in providing such a package of it. Does python Depend: some-python-script? No, it doesn't. Python is an interpreter. Same logic applies for the quake2 engine. Other things will depend on it, not the other way around. -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 06:32:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that's rediculous. Education is not a smokescreen, and you can't argue that there will never be free data available for quake2 (or know for sure that there isn't already). It doesn't matter whether there will be free date, or even whether there *is* free data: it matters whether it's packaged for Debian. On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 03:01:02AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: Ok, I'm going to upload libgaming. Nothing yet has been created for it, but it is possible. Should I upload it to contrib? If nothing's been created for it, why would you want to upload it to the distribution at all? The Deb in Debian does stand for Deborah, not Debating Society, right? And I thought Debian stood for promoting free software creation. Putting quake2 in contrib and tacking on that purchase the non-free datafiles message is just crap. Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 11:06:21PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 07:56:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I'm entirely happy with putting it in contrib, but I'm entirely baffled by your position: what exactly do you think would be gained by putting it in main? Well I'm not. It's taking the easy route. Dropping it into contrib and saying you need to buy the data files from Id to use this is a cop out, IMNSHO. Put it out there as a game development platform, which is _what it is_ and get the correct movement going. If you want to start a game development platform around it, then create a CVS repository where interested developers can contribute, and mailing lists where they can discuss. What good does it make to copy the source file into a Debian Package just for educational purposes?. People interested in that source file might as well download it from the original site; while those anxious to play Quake will get frustrated to see that quake2-engine, or whatever you call it, doesn't do anything. Merry Christmas, Jaime
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 01:42:45AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 04:01:25AM +, Adam Olsen wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:49:33PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 06:57:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But quake2-engine does not depend on anything to fulfill it's purpose. It is a gaming engine, not a game. This is the same logic that applies to libraries and interpreters. Huh? The purpose of quake2 is not to run quake levels and be a playable game? The purpose of the sources released is a gaming engine. They did not release quale2 the game, which is what the data files consist of. Notice that lots of games from Id are based on the quake3 engine. They aren't quake3, but they use the same engine, and different data files. Do not confuse a game engine (the source released) with the game itself (the data files that they didn't release). But you do agree that it requires having *some* data, no matter what game it's for? Which means having a Depends: quake2-data? And if you wish to argue that it can be used to develop the data, then you should have no problem in providing such a package of it. Does python Depend: some-python-script? No, it doesn't. Python is an interpreter. Same logic applies for the quake2 engine. Other things will depend on it, not the other way around. No, it doesn't apply, because quake2 is an engine for a game, not an interpreter for a language. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
No, it doesn't apply, because quake2 is an engine for a game, not an interpreter for a language. Actually the quake2 engine IS. It's a runtime environment (you might call it interpreter) for the graphics files and the gamei386.so (or whatever it was called) These graphics files and the gamei386.so can be exchanged to make a very different game out of the same engine. The gamei386.so for the original quake2 is GPL, too, but not necessary (as this is, i think, the only part that really depends on the commercial data files!!!) So the engine IS free; the original quake2 rules should go into contrib. Think of python running a compiled python script (?) or java running a java program. Greetings, Erich
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote: No, it doesn't apply, because quake2 is an engine for a game, not an interpreter for a language. Actually the quake2 engine IS. It's a runtime environment (you might call it interpreter) for the graphics files and the gamei386.so (or whatever it was called) These graphics files and the gamei386.so can be exchanged to make a very different game out of the same engine. The gamei386.so for the original quake2 is GPL, too, but not necessary (as this is, i think, the only part that really depends on the commercial data files!!!) So the engine IS free; the original quake2 rules should go into contrib. Think of python running a compiled python script (?) or java running a java program. But it still depends on the -data, just as much as every other package that depends on a -data does. And until there actually IS an alternative, it has to live with the side effects of a dependency on a non-free. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 11:24:21PM -0500, Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Maybe they will! That would be great. But I just don't see any actual effort out there, and it's been possible for a long time now. What good is wasting the effort for a free set of datafiles for something that was binary-only? Having the source means they can understand the game better, and that it will be ported to more platforms and will be _free_. This only recently happened. Quake and doom have been released for ages. I am not aware of any way to play them without using non-free data files. There was a group that was trying to put together free data for Quake, but I don't think they're close to having something usable yet. Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---\ | ...drums...drums in the deep! | | J. R. R. Tolkien| \--- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) /
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
In Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:45:25 -0500 Ben cum veritate scripsit : The Deb in Debian does stand for Deborah, not Debating Society, right? And I thought Debian stood for promoting free software creation. Putting quake2 in contrib and tacking on that purchase the non-free datafiles message is just crap. This reminds me, we have rather a pity situation with regards to doom. I was intending to fix up some doom / yadex packages. yadex seems to be pretty much unmaintained (just like other packages by the same maintainer), and I like legacy doom. (ah, in fact, I've noticed that it was NMU'd by someone who cares about it). By the way, yadex requires commercial data files by default (unless you rewrite the source code), which means it is impossible to bootstrap unless one has the commercial game data. (Just like, if gcc required some commercial compiler to compile, we would probably not want to release it in main, would we?) Why it is included in main currently is beyond my wonders. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 01:42:45AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: But you do agree that it requires having *some* data, no matter what game it's for? Which means having a Depends: quake2-data? And if you wish to argue that it can be used to develop the data, then you should have no problem in providing such a package of it. Does python Depend: some-python-script? No, it doesn't. Python is an interpreter. Same logic applies for the quake2 engine. Other things will depend on it, not the other way around. You are trying to duck a fundamental issue: that a quake-engine binary package will be utterly useless to about everyone. First: Python is immediately useful without any scripts. You can run it with the -c option to run python commands without any script coming into the game. Second: It is easy to write scripts. People do write them. The challenge here is: Show me a single useful way to invoke the quake engine with only free software or data. Even if it is just an empty room without any monsters, weapons. Just a wall. Something. Third: Python scripts exist. There are plenty in Debian. Show me a quake-data package that requires the engine. If only one point would be true for quake-engine, we wouldn't have this argument. I took the quake source, compiled it, and the first thing it complained about was that it couldn't load the file pics/colormap.pcx. Can you give me such a file under a free license? There doesn't seem to be information about the format of the file. For something to study and learn from it is exceptionally terse. I hope that people will write free data files for the engine, and a simple example data set (it doesn't need to be a complete playable game) would go a long way to bring your argument forward. But without any sign of such data, or people who actually say we are working on it rather than somebody else might work on it, it's pretty pointless to include quake2 in Debian main. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 04:45:14PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 01:42:45AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: But you do agree that it requires having *some* data, no matter what game it's for? Which means having a Depends: quake2-data? And if you wish to argue that it can be used to develop the data, then you should have no problem in providing such a package of it. Does python Depend: some-python-script? No, it doesn't. Python is an interpreter. Same logic applies for the quake2 engine. Other things will depend on it, not the other way around. You are trying to duck a fundamental issue: that a quake-engine binary package will be utterly useless to about everyone. First: Python is immediately useful without any scripts. You can run it with the -c option to run python commands without any script coming into the game. Just because it is easier to write scripts for Python than it is quake2-engine, doesn't change the fundemental issue that the sources are for an engine, not a game. Second: It is easy to write scripts. People do write them. The challenge here is: Show me a single useful way to invoke the quake engine with only free software or data. Even if it is just an empty room without any monsters, weapons. Just a wall. Something. Again, it is not easy to write C code, but gcc is useless without it. Complexity means nothing. Third: Python scripts exist. There are plenty in Debian. Show me a quake-data package that requires the engine. I'm giving up. Let's just dump it into contrib and tell everyone to either warez the data files or buy them. Screw trying to promote free stuff. Screw trying to promote people to create free datafiles for a free game engine. Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
I'm willing to accept the quake2-engine in non-us as long as it is available somewhere with a maintainer to bounce issues off of. I suspect that myself and Ben excluded everyone else will accept it going into contrib... I've downloaded just about everything there is at ftp.idsoftware.com and the docs are correct, there is no completely functioning edit tool for building game data files. There has been talk on this thread about someone trying to get it together to build such and editor/datastructure but nothing is known to have come of it. I'd love some starting points to begin a search for just what _was_ accomplished. As I see it, there needs to be a datastructure definition before there can be an adequate game editor, so there are two major jobs that need coordination with predefined lack of overlap (clean room...) I can do either one of these jobs with some help, but I'd rather work on the editor group if there were an adequate spec... I've e-mailed Jamie Wilkinson (who said he was working on a .deb) and offered my services to help get a totally free game on the table. I haven't heard back yet, but it is the holidays ;-) Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hrm. Are those gears I hear turning? :) It means I'm now more unsure than I was before so I want to wait before I say more.
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 11:50:11AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: I'm willing to accept the quake2-engine in non-us as long as it is Eh? non-us? Did the Supreme Court just uphold COPA and declare Quake2 harmful to minors or something? -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpJFwhyDJbZj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 11:50:11AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: I'm willing to accept the quake2-engine in non-us as long as it is Eh? non-us? Did the Supreme Court just uphold COPA and declare Quake2 harmful to minors or something? Translation (For Branden): I don't care where you decide to put it as long as I can download a package and talk to its maintainer. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 11:17:09AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 01:42:45AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
Just because it is easier to write scripts for Python than it is
quake2-engine, doesn't change the fundemental issue that the sources are
for an engine, not a game.
Sure. An engine that is not usable at the least in its current state,
except to play the proprietary quake game with it.
Second: It is easy to write scripts. People do write them.
The challenge here is: Show me a single useful way to invoke the quake
engine with only free software or data. Even if it is just an empty room
without any monsters, weapons. Just a wall. Something.
Again, it is not easy to write C code, but gcc is useless without it.
Complexity means nothing.
What's so difficult about main(){} and going from that? That's the
minimum you need to feed to gcc to create a runnable program. If you can
provide us with a similar null-game for quake engine, it would be a strong
point in favour of your argument.
I think the right comparison is not quake-engine with a C compiler like gcc,
but quake-engine with a gcc without libgcc and the C library. Theoretically
usable, but not really. Now add a proprietary libgcc and C library to it,
which is used with this custom version of gcc in 99.999% of all cases where
this gcc is used at all, and I think you are starting to get a fair
analogy.
Third: Python scripts exist. There are plenty in Debian.
Show me a quake-data package that requires the engine.
I'm giving up. Let's just dump it into contrib and tell everyone to
either warez the data files or buy them. Screw trying to promote free
stuff. Screw trying to promote people to create free datafiles for a
free game engine.
Let's promote when we have something to promote.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that's rediculous. Education is not a smokescreen, and you can't argue that there will never be free data available for quake2 (or know for sure that there isn't already). Um, can you give me an example of a package in contrib that this argument does not apply to? If what you are saying is a good way to think, then we should indeed not bother having contrib at all, right? If there *are* playable levels available for quake2 (which need nothing in the way of non-free game data) then of course it belongs (along with those levels) in main.
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
In fact, I would consider it acceptable in general to move everything in contrib to main as long as it each package was forced to be priority extra until it was suitable for general-purpose use as packaged in main (including any dependencies, of course). I believe many java packages belong in contrib. Where's the distinction? regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:50:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that's rediculous. Education is not a smokescreen, and you can't argue that there will never be free data available for quake2 (or know for sure that there isn't already). Um, can you give me an example of a package in contrib that this argument does not apply to? If what you are saying is a good way to think, then we should indeed not bother having contrib at all, right? If there *are* playable levels available for quake2 (which need nothing in the way of non-free game data) then of course it belongs (along with those levels) in main. Ok, I'm going to upload libgaming. Nothing yet has been created for it, but it is possible. Should I upload it to contrib? -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, I'm going to upload libgaming. Nothing yet has been created for it, but it is possible. Should I upload it to contrib? Can you give me an example of *anything* you think belongs in contrib?
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that's rediculous. Education is not a smokescreen, and you can't argue that there will never be free data available for quake2 (or know for sure that there isn't already). It doesn't matter whether there will be free date, or even whether there *is* free data: it matters whether it's packaged for Debian. On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 03:01:02AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: Ok, I'm going to upload libgaming. Nothing yet has been created for it, but it is possible. Should I upload it to contrib? If nothing's been created for it, why would you want to upload it to the distribution at all? The Deb in Debian does stand for Deborah, not Debating Society, right? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. The daffodils are coming. Are you? linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.linux.org.au/conf pgpCo1O7zO1BJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In fact, I would consider it acceptable in general to move everything in contrib to main as long as it each package was forced to be priority All my messages in this thread have the premise that we want to keep a distinction between contrib and main. When this premise doesn't hold my objections against quake2 in main of course falls. Taking this step back and discussing wether we want to keep that distinction could be interesting. I'm not against merging contrib and main but the merge shouldn't be hidden away behind This code could be educational-arguments for each package. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: Nej, jeg bruger RedHat. -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:50:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: snip If there *are* playable levels available for quake2 (which need nothing in the way of non-free game data) then of course it belongs (along with those levels) in main. Uhm, guys. You need much more then just free maps, you also need replacement fonts and other graphics. (Stuff used for the console, the menu, the in game HUD, and a few other things.) Replacements for those are unlikely to exist now, and will take a while to generate. In short, the source is definitely contrib for now, maybe in a few months to a year that might change, maybe not. Zephaniah E. Hull. -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor pgpPytuL7IRsU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 01:44:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I checked a handful and they are all optional. Optional seems correct to me; extra is (from memory) for packages which require add-on hardware or which conflict with standard or higher priority packages, which doesn't apply to the emulators. It's also for packages which random users are unlikely to want to install on their systems (examples from my packages include things like a lint type tool for FORTRAN programs). -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. pgpoyqNL6mqar.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 12:22:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, I'm going to upload libgaming. Nothing yet has been created for it, but it is possible. Should I upload it to contrib? Can you give me an example of *anything* you think belongs in contrib? PC emulators that require a BIOS rom. Mol requires the MacOS ROM file from MacOS itself. Things that Depend: ... packages in non-free (we can distribute quake2-engine as depending on nothing, since it is just the engine, not a game...the games would depend on quake2-engine for operation. Lots of things go in contrib, but a gaming engine that just happens to have non-free data files that use it, does not need to go into main. The engine is a development platform. Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 03:44:16AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:50:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: snip If there *are* playable levels available for quake2 (which need nothing in the way of non-free game data) then of course it belongs (along with those levels) in main. Uhm, guys. You need much more then just free maps, you also need replacement fonts and other graphics. (Stuff used for the console, the menu, the in game HUD, and a few other things.) Replacements for those are unlikely to exist now, and will take a while to generate. As I said. The engine is meant to develop games for. Just because no one has developed games for a development system (the engine), doesn't make it contrib. You people need to think of it as an interpreter of the data files. Do not judge the engine based on the data files that are available for it (else we'll have to start judging script interpreters and libraries the same way). Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 12:01:47PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 03:44:16AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:50:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: snip If there *are* playable levels available for quake2 (which need nothing in the way of non-free game data) then of course it belongs (along with those levels) in main. Uhm, guys. You need much more then just free maps, you also need replacement fonts and other graphics. (Stuff used for the console, the menu, the in game HUD, and a few other things.) Replacements for those are unlikely to exist now, and will take a while to generate. As I said. The engine is meant to develop games for. Just because no one has developed games for a development system (the engine), doesn't make it contrib. You people need to think of it as an interpreter of the data files. Do not judge the engine based on the data files that are available for it (else we'll have to start judging script interpreters and libraries the same way). There is a distinction between data and a program. If the engine was just a gamecode interpreter then, yes, you could make the gamecode depend on the engine. But it's not, and the vast majority (or all, if the gamecode is serverside and the quake2 package doesn't include a server) is binary data. We have many packages already (such as amphetamine and it's -data) where the main package depends on the data (and vice versa), which sets a precedent. The way to package quake2 would be having quake2-client and quake2-server which depend on quake2-data, which is provided by quake2-data-nonfree. Now, if you DID have something that was just the gamecode, and you had a freestanding interpreter (such as the one in quakeforge), then you could have the interpreter with no depends[0], and make your gamecode depend on the interpreter. [0] technically with quakeforge's interpreter, it'd depend on the quakeforge libs, but that doesn't really matter. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Previously Ben Collins wrote: PC emulators that require a BIOS rom. LinuxBIOS. Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Peter Makholm wrote: Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But I wouldn't dream of trying to do such a thing without a game engine to test it on. How else to you test what you built? Why would you ever build a game without an engine to run it on? How is preventing you from installing quake from contrib or in any other way? The only thing I think people has said is that as long as there doesn't exists frre levels Quake should go into contrib and not into main. My point was that I have a valid use for the code even though there exists no free game data. I need the game engine to create a game. Thus it is useful even when no game exists. My apt-get is set up to follow main, contrib, and non-free. I only worry that a package exists before I try to download it. Apt-get install quake2 fails to find any package in woody. And what do I download for game building tools? So far I'm stumped ;-) Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: blimpo:~# gcc gcc: No input files You have to write or get code for gcc. Should we deliver a hello.c with gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are You might be surprised to learn that we actually ship quite a bit of C source code in Debian suitable for use with gcc. Not to mention the source code for gcc itself ;-) Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 12:22:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, I'm going to upload libgaming. Nothing yet has been created for it, but it is possible. Should I upload it to contrib? Can you give me an example of *anything* you think belongs in contrib? PC emulators that require a BIOS rom. Mol requires the MacOS ROM file from MacOS itself. Things that Depend: ... packages in non-free (we can distribute quake2-engine as depending on nothing, since it is just the engine, not a game...the games would depend on quake2-engine for operation. But, by your logic, none of those belong in contrib. All of them have potientally useful educational value. And all could, in theory, become useful if someone wrote a free alternative for the non-free thing they depend on.
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 04:08:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 12:22:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, I'm going to upload libgaming. Nothing yet has been created for it, but it is possible. Should I upload it to contrib? Can you give me an example of *anything* you think belongs in contrib? PC emulators that require a BIOS rom. Mol requires the MacOS ROM file from MacOS itself. Things that Depend: ... packages in non-free (we can distribute quake2-engine as depending on nothing, since it is just the engine, not a game...the games would depend on quake2-engine for operation. But, by your logic, none of those belong in contrib. All of them have potientally useful educational value. And all could, in theory, become useful if someone wrote a free alternative for the non-free thing they depend on. But quake2-engine does not depend on anything to fulfill it's purpose. It is a gaming engine, not a game. This is the same logic that applies to libraries and interpreters. -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But quake2-engine does not depend on anything to fulfill it's purpose. It is a gaming engine, not a game. This is the same logic that applies to libraries and interpreters. Huh? The purpose of quake2 is not to run quake levels and be a playable game?
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 06:57:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But quake2-engine does not depend on anything to fulfill it's purpose. It is a gaming engine, not a game. This is the same logic that applies to libraries and interpreters. Huh? The purpose of quake2 is not to run quake levels and be a playable game? The purpose of the sources released is a gaming engine. They did not release quale2 the game, which is what the data files consist of. Notice that lots of games from Id are based on the quake3 engine. They aren't quake3, but they use the same engine, and different data files. Do not confuse a game engine (the source released) with the game itself (the data files that they didn't release). Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The purpose of the sources released is a gaming engine. They did not release quale2 the game, which is what the data files consist of. Notice that lots of games from Id are based on the quake3 engine. They aren't quake3, but they use the same engine, and different data files. Do not confuse a game engine (the source released) with the game itself (the data files that they didn't release). So there are two things that bug me here. First, a user who sees quake listed in main should reasonably expect to get Quake, and they don't, they get an engine which is essentially useless to them, and which is extremely likely to *remain* useless to them *forever* unless they go out and purchase the proprietary data files. Second, your example seems totally fabricated. If there were a plausible enterprise--ANYONE--who was seriously planning on using this engine to make free levels that don't depend on id's nonfree stuff, then I'd buy your argument. But there really is no credible effort out there to do this; not because there is no package in Debian, but because it's a considerable venture and hasn't garnered interest. I'm entirely happy with putting it in contrib, but I'm entirely baffled by your position: what exactly do you think would be gained by putting it in main? Thomas
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:49:33PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 06:57:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But quake2-engine does not depend on anything to fulfill it's purpose. It is a gaming engine, not a game. This is the same logic that applies to libraries and interpreters. Huh? The purpose of quake2 is not to run quake levels and be a playable game? The purpose of the sources released is a gaming engine. They did not release quale2 the game, which is what the data files consist of. Notice that lots of games from Id are based on the quake3 engine. They aren't quake3, but they use the same engine, and different data files. Do not confuse a game engine (the source released) with the game itself (the data files that they didn't release). But you do agree that it requires having *some* data, no matter what game it's for? Which means having a Depends: quake2-data? And if you wish to argue that it can be used to develop the data, then you should have no problem in providing such a package of it. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 07:56:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The purpose of the sources released is a gaming engine. They did not release quale2 the game, which is what the data files consist of. Notice that lots of games from Id are based on the quake3 engine. They aren't quake3, but they use the same engine, and different data files. Do not confuse a game engine (the source released) with the game itself (the data files that they didn't release). So there are two things that bug me here. First, a user who sees quake listed in main should reasonably expect to get Quake, and they don't, they get an engine which is essentially useless to them, and which is extremely likely to *remain* useless to them *forever* unless they go out and purchase the proprietary data files. As I said, call it quake2-engine and describe it as _the engine_ minus the game. The thing is just as useless in contrib, except that if we label it what it is, and not what people expect, then someone might say Oh shit, you mean we can write our own games with this thing?!? instead of Ok, I need to go download the datafiles from a warez pup to use this thing...why did they even include it? Second, your example seems totally fabricated. If there were a plausible enterprise--ANYONE--who was seriously planning on using this engine to make free levels that don't depend on id's nonfree stuff, then I'd buy your argument. But there really is no credible effort out there to do this; not because there is no package in Debian, but because it's a considerable venture and hasn't garnered interest. Fabricated!? You really want to underestimate the free software community? We have a whole freaking OS free, and you don't think anyone will put in the effort to make one a game? I'm entirely happy with putting it in contrib, but I'm entirely baffled by your position: what exactly do you think would be gained by putting it in main? Well I'm not. It's taking the easy route. Dropping it into contrib and saying you need to buy the data files from Id to use this is a cop out, IMNSHO. Put it out there as a game development platform, which is _what it is_ and get the correct movement going. -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Second, your example seems totally fabricated. If there were a plausible enterprise--ANYONE--who was seriously planning on using this engine to make free levels that don't depend on id's nonfree stuff, then I'd buy your argument. But there really is no credible effort out there to do this; not because there is no package in Debian, but because it's a considerable venture and hasn't garnered interest. Fabricated!? You really want to underestimate the free software community? We have a whole freaking OS free, and you don't think anyone will put in the effort to make one a game? Maybe they will! That would be great. But I just don't see any actual effort out there, and it's been possible for a long time now. Well I'm not. It's taking the easy route. Dropping it into contrib and saying you need to buy the data files from Id to use this is a cop out, IMNSHO. Put it out there as a game development platform, which is _what it is_ and get the correct movement going. Hrm.
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 08:08:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Second, your example seems totally fabricated. If there were a plausible enterprise--ANYONE--who was seriously planning on using this engine to make free levels that don't depend on id's nonfree stuff, then I'd buy your argument. But there really is no credible effort out there to do this; not because there is no package in Debian, but because it's a considerable venture and hasn't garnered interest. Fabricated!? You really want to underestimate the free software community? We have a whole freaking OS free, and you don't think anyone will put in the effort to make one a game? Maybe they will! That would be great. But I just don't see any actual effort out there, and it's been possible for a long time now. What good is wasting the effort for a free set of datafiles for something that was binary-only? Having the source means they can understand the game better, and that it will be ported to more platforms and will be _free_. This only recently happened. Well I'm not. It's taking the easy route. Dropping it into contrib and saying you need to buy the data files from Id to use this is a cop out, IMNSHO. Put it out there as a game development platform, which is _what it is_ and get the correct movement going. Hrm. Are those gears I hear turning? :) -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything but id's game data. I think it depends on whether there are any actual game levels around which are free. The distinction between contrib and main is not whether it is *possible* to create something free which the contrib software would be useful for; it's really whether there *is* such a thing. If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. If someone has levels (that at are all fun--that is, which are real games) which the engine works with, then it belongs (along with those levels) in main.
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything but id's game data. Are you sure? I have sarien, a interpreter for old Sierra games, in contrib because I havn't found any games I could distribute in main. Should that be moved to main? (The Sarien-package doesn't provide tools to make games youself I don't know if Quake does) -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: Nej, jeg bruger RedHat. -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Does this include any game levels? From John Carmacks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) .plan: As with previous source code releases, the game data remains under the original copyright and license, and cannot be freely distributed. -- Jonas Moberg
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. But that's obviously not the case. A game engine, especially one coded in large part by a luminary in the fieldlike John Carmack, is interesting and useful (to programmers) in its own right. We wouldn't stick a Free compiler or interpreter for some new-fangled programming language in contrib simply because no Free programs written in that language were yet packaged for Debian. I would, however, be tempted to mark such an engine as Priority extra until Free game levels were packaged for Debian, so that Debian's many non-programming users would not get their hopes up at being able to play the game in Debian as distributed. -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton pgpK9ugzb19HE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:42:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. But that's obviously not the case. A game engine, especially one coded in large part by a luminary in the fieldlike John Carmack, is interesting and useful (to programmers) in its own right. We wouldn't stick a Free compiler or interpreter for some new-fangled programming language in contrib simply because no Free programs written in that language were yet packaged for Debian. I would, however, be tempted to mark such an engine as Priority extra until Free game levels were packaged for Debian, so that Debian's many non-programming users would not get their hopes up at being able to play the game in Debian as distributed. How about the fact that the engine requires the game data to run, meaning it needs a Depends: quake2-data. Without such data it shouldn't be packaged at all. No, I wouldn't stick a new compiler/interpreter in contrib. But I wouldn't package it at all either, unless I was either going to package a program that used it, or I had some local program that used it. And in the case of an interpreter, you could use it interactively. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On 21 Dec 2001 19:57:43 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: Does this include any game levels? If it doesn't include any levels that a person can play, then it only belongs in contrib. Only the engine has been GPL'd; all the artwork is still copyright Id Software. The only way you're legally allowed to use it is from purchasing the game itself. There's no reason why the engine itself can't be included in Debian, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't absolutely *have* to have game data, to begin with(if you also care to look at the package as an educational one, anyways). Not only that, but in time there will be fully Free artwork available which people can then download and use with the engine. Come on ... this is a cool-factor thing, at least partially :) Having Quake II source in Debian would be pretty spiffy, if you ask me. And like I said, it'd be nice to be able to 'apt-get source quake2' and read what they've written. -- .--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=. /David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori. \ \Clan Barclay Either action, or death./ `---==-=-=-=-===-=---=--=' pgpc7bFId0sLy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's no reason why the engine itself can't be included in Debian, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't absolutely *have* to have game data, to But thats is an argument for putting all the stuff in contrib into Debian main. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: Nej, jeg bruger RedHat. -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 10:10:14AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: I have sarien, a interpreter for old Sierra games, in contrib because I havn't found any games I could distribute in main. Should that be moved to main? No. Free programs that require data which is not freely available belong in contrib. When free data exists, the program can move to main. The possibility of free data is not enough. This applies particularly to emulators. Regarding packaging the Quake sources for educational benefit; is that really of any benefit? This could lead to the lets-package-everything debate again. Has the Finnish constituition been packaged yet? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:35:34AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: Come on ... this is a cool-factor thing, at least partially :) Having Quake II source in Debian would be pretty spiffy, if you ask me. And like I said, it'd be nice to be able to 'apt-get source quake2' and read what they've written. If it's just source (with no useful binary package), why should it be packaged? Why can't you download it directly from the web if it interests you? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Regarding packaging the Quake sources for educational benefit; If the Quake sources could go into main without any free data then why can't any other package in contrib go into main because the code could potentially be educational. (Sarien for exanple) Bottom line: If Quake goes into main we could as well move everything in contrib into main too. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: Nej, jeg bruger RedHat. -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Hamish writes: Regarding packaging the Quake sources for educational benefit; is that really of any benefit? Would the Quake package include everything one would need to create a Quake game? Perhpas those who wish to package it could write and include a simple Hello world type example. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:37:48 +0100, Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's no reason why the engine itself can't be included in Debian, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't absolutely *have* to have game data, to But thats is an argument for putting all the stuff in contrib into Debian main. Like I said, if you look at it from an educational percpective ... :) But yeah, I see your point. I think in my mind the big difference is in probability. Look at Lyx. It's in contrib because it requires libforms. Upstream isn't interesting in rewriting it to not use libforms, and I don't see any volounteers to come up with something a la lesstif. But with Quake2, you can be pretty damned sure that there will be at least dozens of people coming up with fully Free stuff that can be used as quake2-data. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that, at least morally, it's allright to put Quake2 in main. -- .--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=. /David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori. \ \Clan Barclay Either action, or death./ `---==-=-=-=-===-=---=--=' pgpA3vQt2kxt4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:44:39 +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:35:34AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: Come on ... this is a cool-factor thing, at least partially :) Having Quake II source in Debian would be pretty spiffy, if you ask me. And like I said, it'd be nice to be able to 'apt-get source quake2' and read what they've written. If it's just source (with no useful binary package), why should it be packaged? Why can't you download it directly from the web if it interests you? One word; 'debuild' :) See my response to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd) for the rest of my feelings on the matter :) -- .--=-=-=-=--=---=-=-=. /David Barclay HarrisAut agere, aut mori. \ \Clan Barclay Either action, or death./ `---==-=-=-=-===-=---=--=' pgp5jgNiN2xQb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
In Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:51:17 -0500 David cum veritate scripsit : But yeah, I see your point. I think in my mind the big difference is in probability. Look at Lyx. It's in contrib because it requires libforms. Upstream isn't interesting in rewriting it to not use libforms, and I don't see any volounteers to come up with something a la lesstif. Are you sure lyx isn't being ported to other than libforms? But with Quake2, you can be pretty damned sure that there will be at least dozens of people coming up with fully Free stuff that can be used as quake2-data. No, we still don't have free doom data yet. Check out freedoom, last time I've checked, they were progressing pretty firmly. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But with Quake2, you can be pretty damned sure that there will be at least dozens of people coming up with fully Free stuff that can be used as quake2-data. When that day comes, then we could move quake2 to main. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: Nej, jeg bruger RedHat. -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: But yeah, I see your point. I think in my mind the big difference is in probability. Look at Lyx. It's in contrib because it requires libforms. Upstream isn't interesting in rewriting it to not use libforms, and I don't see any volounteers to come up with something a la lesstif. Actually, LyX is being ported upstream to Qt and Gtk/Gnome. It's just taking forever because they decided to do a huge all-encompassing gui-independence framework instead of just getting something that worked. I believe the 2.0 release is supposed to have support for other toolkits, but I'm not sure; I just read the news page a while ago, and my memory is hazy. But with Quake2, you can be pretty damned sure that there will be at least dozens of people coming up with fully Free stuff that can be used as quake2-data. Just like they have for Quake 1? Daniel -- / Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---\ | Put no trust in cryptic comments. | \-- A duck! -- http://www.python.org -/
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:37:48 +0100, Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's no reason why the engine itself can't be included in Debian, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't absolutely *have* to have game data, to But thats is an argument for putting all the stuff in contrib into Debian main. Like I said, if you look at it from an educational percpective ... :) But yeah, I see your point. I think in my mind the big difference is in probability. Look at Lyx. It's in contrib because it requires libforms. Upstream isn't interesting in rewriting it to not use libforms, and I don't see any volounteers to come up with something a la lesstif. FYI: Upstream *is* rewriting LyX not to use libforms. And, also, libforms will be free software in the forseeable future, very likely. Either way, woody+1 will have lyx in main. Jules
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything but id's game data. I think it depends on whether there are any actual game levels around which are free. The distinction between contrib and main is not whether it is *possible* to create something free which the contrib software would be useful for; it's really whether there *is* such a thing. If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. If someone has levels (that at are all fun--that is, which are real games) which the engine works with, then it belongs (along with those levels) in main. So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has much more uses than just to play games (as the README in the source says, also for educational purposes). -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, then is it none-free? Can it be used for its intended purpose without the data files? For anything? If these tools are out there, then presumably someone will use them to create a minimal set of free data files. At that time, then the whole thing can go into main. By the way, isn't contrib a silly and misleading name? -- David N. Welton Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/ Free Software: http://people.debian.org/~davidw/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/ Personal: http://www.efn.org/~davidw/
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has much more uses than just to play games (as the README in the source says, also for educational purposes). The problem is that even if you made levels for it, the game would still be useless. You would still need new models for all the objects/players/weapons, new textures and sprites for everything, etc. An entire new game world is what is needed. Perhaps there are people in the Free software community willing to begin a project to replicate the Quake II data under the GPL? - k -- copyleft (c) 2001, Kyle McMartin
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: I just heard it through the www.linuxgames.com ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/quake2.zip Can we include that in Woody before too deep freeze? That's neat, but I wish we at least had quake 1 in contrib for woody. Woody will be the first release of debian in years and years without the possbility of quake at all (in main, contrib, or even non-free), I think. -- see shy jo, who used to maintain quake for non-free, and is really annoyed to see it not be in contrib anymore
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything but id's game data. I think it depends on whether there are any actual game levels around which are free. The distinction between contrib and main is not whether it is *possible* to create something free which the contrib software would be useful for; it's really whether there *is* such a thing. If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. If someone has levels (that at are all fun--that is, which are real games) which the engine works with, then it belongs (along with those levels) in main. So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has much more uses than just to play games (as the README in the source says, also for educational purposes). But the binary doesn't have educational purposes. The binary simply won't run, without some data files. I don't know if there's a freely downloadable shareware one like there was with quake1. Certainly I don't see how we can, in main, distribute a binary that does nothing but give an error message and exit. I could see it as a source-only package, though. Jules
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:07:02PM +, Jules Bean wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything but id's game data. I think it depends on whether there are any actual game levels around which are free. The distinction between contrib and main is not whether it is *possible* to create something free which the contrib software would be useful for; it's really whether there *is* such a thing. If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. If someone has levels (that at are all fun--that is, which are real games) which the engine works with, then it belongs (along with those levels) in main. So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has much more uses than just to play games (as the README in the source says, also for educational purposes). But the binary doesn't have educational purposes. The binary simply won't run, without some data files. I don't know if there's a freely downloadable shareware one like there was with quake1. Of course it does. You can teach basics of game development using a pre-existing engine. Teachers can use the binary to take their students from planning to creating worlds, to designing AI, etc. It has many benefits. We can even describe it as such in the description if it makes the zealots feel better. Certainly I don't see how we can, in main, distribute a binary that does nothing but give an error message and exit. I could see it as a source-only package, though. blimpo:~# gcc gcc: No input files You have to write or get code for gcc. Should we deliver a hello.c with gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are plenty of free levels out there for quake2 right? We don't have to distribute that same code just to put quake2 in main. -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:07:02PM +, Jules Bean wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything but id's game data. I think it depends on whether there are any actual game levels around which are free. The distinction between contrib and main is not whether it is *possible* to create something free which the contrib software would be useful for; it's really whether there *is* such a thing. If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. If someone has levels (that at are all fun--that is, which are real games) which the engine works with, then it belongs (along with those levels) in main. So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has much more uses than just to play games (as the README in the source says, also for educational purposes). But the binary doesn't have educational purposes. The binary simply won't run, without some data files. I don't know if there's a freely downloadable shareware one like there was with quake1. Of course it does. You can teach basics of game development using a pre-existing engine. Teachers can use the binary to take their students from planning to creating worlds, to designing AI, etc. It has many benefits. We can even describe it as such in the description if it makes the zealots feel better. Certainly I don't see how we can, in main, distribute a binary that does nothing but give an error message and exit. I could see it as a source-only package, though. blimpo:~# gcc gcc: No input files You have to write or get code for gcc. Should we deliver a hello.c with gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are plenty of free levels out there for quake2 right? We don't have to distribute that same code just to put quake2 in main. Don't most of them require the non-free PAK file? What about the Q2 demo? -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are plenty of free levels out there for quake2 right? We don't have to distribute that same code just to put quake2 in main. And do you realise that none of those levels is *any* use *at* *all*, without the commercial game data? The code simply won't load levels, as it stands, unless it has loaded the game data. Even if that protection feature was disabled (trivial, certainly) it still wouldn't work: all such free levels require some stuff from the commercial data, the weapons, the models, the textures, etc. Jules
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 07:35:59PM +, Jules Bean wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are plenty of free levels out there for quake2 right? We don't have to distribute that same code just to put quake2 in main. And do you realise that none of those levels is *any* use *at* *all*, without the commercial game data? The code simply won't load levels, as it stands, unless it has loaded the game data. Even if that protection feature was disabled (trivial, certainly) it still wouldn't work: all such free levels require some stuff from the commercial data, the weapons, the models, the textures, etc. But it is possible, just a matter of time. And again, the educational purpose still stands. The binary has use without the non-free data. -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
The code simply won't load levels, as it stands, unless it has loaded the game data. Even if that protection feature was disabled (trivial, certainly) it still wouldn't work: all such free levels require some stuff from the commercial data, the weapons, the models, the textures, etc. Are you aware of all those Total Conversion Projects, which aim to replace all this commercial data? There have been hundreds of such projects, some of which might have made it... Sure, most of them will have died by now; but maybe one or two will really have been able to become a true total conversion as JC stated... at least they will now have more incentive to do so. Maybe this one might be quite ready: http://www.planetquake.com/stand/ BTW: The source has some drawbacks right now i fear: As far as i could see it does not include the glx driver (which is the only way to use all those nvidia graphics cards) but depends on an old mesa version and svgalib. It looks like it's the source of 3.19; whereas 3.20 is current; so there are probably some known bugs in it? So maybe it's most interesing as source tarball for developers. Greetings, Erich
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has much more uses than just to play games (as the README in the source says, also for educational purposes). Yeah, but that's a smokescreen I think. It seems like an excellent candidate for contrib. The argument you give could be applied to *any* package in contrib: they all have *some* potential educational value, they all *might* be useful if somebody went and wrote free analags to the nonfree things they depend on, etc.
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:40:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So if I create a game with _no_ levels, but the tools to create them, then is it none-free? Just because the only ones available are non-free, doesn't preclude that it is possible to create your own. The engine has much more uses than just to play games (as the README in the source says, also for educational purposes). Yeah, but that's a smokescreen I think. It seems like an excellent candidate for contrib. The argument you give could be applied to *any* package in contrib: they all have *some* potential educational value, they all *might* be useful if somebody went and wrote free analags to the nonfree things they depend on, etc. I think that's rediculous. Education is not a smokescreen, and you can't argue that there will never be free data available for quake2 (or know for sure that there isn't already). The quake2 engine is a gaming engine. Lots of libraries in our current source are the same sort of things, and at one time did not have a game based on them. Did they go into contrib? No. If they had a game based on them that was non-free, would we put them in contrib? Probably not, because they are libraries as opposed to binaries. Not so with the quake2 engine. However, just because it is a binary executable engine does not make it any different than a development library in terms of game development. Advertise the thing as a gaming engine, not as a game. Call the package quake2-engine, and then once we get some, we will have cool-game Depend: quake2-engine. The fact is, that the quake2-engine does not depend on anything to perform what it was made for, and that is to be a gaming engine. The data is the game, and requires the engine. Makes sense to me. -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
If there are tools available for building game levels, I'd certainly build at least one level... But I wouldn't dream of trying to do such a thing without a game engine to test it on. How else to you test what you built? Why would you ever build a game without an engine to run it on? Lets not get the chiken/egg problem so screwed up we can't ever have chicken _or_ eggs! I need access to a game server/engine way before I begin to write game territory. Free Quake II! On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:57:21PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: If the only practical use of the engine is to run non-free levels from id, then it belongs in contrib. But that's obviously not the case. A game engine, especially one coded in large part by a luminary in the fieldlike John Carmack, is interesting and useful (to programmers) in its own right. We wouldn't stick a Free compiler or interpreter for some new-fangled programming language in contrib simply because no Free programs written in that language were yet packaged for Debian. I would, however, be tempted to mark such an engine as Priority extra until Free game levels were packaged for Debian, so that Debian's many non-programming users would not get their hopes up at being able to play the game in Debian as distributed. -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But I wouldn't dream of trying to do such a thing without a game engine to test it on. How else to you test what you built? Why would you ever build a game without an engine to run it on? How is preventing you from installing quake from contrib or in any other way? The only thing I think people has said is that as long as there doesn't exists frre levels Quake should go into contrib and not into main. -- Når folk spørger mig, om jeg er nørd, bliver jeg altid ilde til mode og svarer lidt undskyldende: Nej, jeg bruger RedHat. -- Allan Olesen på dk.edb.system.unix
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that, at least morally, it's allright to put Quake2 in main. Why not wait until there really is free data? Doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience. If we assumed all non-free data or software could be replaced, then we wouldn't need contrib at all - everything could go in main. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: blimpo:~# gcc gcc: No input files You have to write or get code for gcc. Should we deliver a hello.c with gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are You might be surprised to learn that we actually ship quite a bit of C source code in Debian suitable for use with gcc. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:48:09AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:42:41PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: blimpo:~# gcc gcc: No input files You have to write or get code for gcc. Should we deliver a hello.c with gcc to meet those same requirements? You do realize that there are You might be surprised to learn that we actually ship quite a bit of C source code in Debian suitable for use with gcc. The point is that quake2-engine is a building block. If I create a library for developing programs, does it go into contrib until someone writes a program that uses it? Certainly not. It goes into main so that it can be used. Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:45, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that, at least morally, it's allright to put Quake2 in main. Why not wait until there really is free data? Doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience. If we assumed all non-free data or software could be replaced, then we wouldn't need contrib at all - everything could go in main. I agree. After all the talk about how easy it will be to write quake levels I'm surprised that the people who want Quake in main don't just knock one up instead of putting all the effort into debating the issue... ;) -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 03:56:54PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: I think that's rediculous. Education is not a smokescreen, and you can't argue that there will never be free data available for quake2 (or know for sure that there isn't already). Several emulators (apple2, atari800, gnuboy, gsnes9x, gtkiemu, nestra pose, uae, vice, and xtrs) from contrib should also move to main immediately then, as you can't argue that there will never be free ROMs for those either. Further, they could be educational. Does this sound absurd yet? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:52:35PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: The point is that quake2-engine is a building block. If I create a library for developing programs, does it go into contrib until someone writes a program that uses it? Certainly not. It goes into main so that it can be used. How often are libraries written in isolation without some application program immediately ready to use them? I don't believe that ever happens. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:53:06AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Several emulators (apple2, atari800, gnuboy, gsnes9x, gtkiemu, nestra pose, uae, vice, and xtrs) from contrib should also move to main immediately then, as you can't argue that there will never be free ROMs for those either. Further, they could be educational. Does this sound absurd yet? Not to me. As long as these packages had a debconf note that warned of the problem, I wouldn't consider it a big deal. These packages are all priority extra, right? In fact, I would consider it acceptable in general to move everything in contrib to main as long as it each package was forced to be priority extra until it was suitable for general-purpose use as packaged in main (including any dependencies, of course). OTOH, I don't feel passionately about it, so if people are wedded to the concept of the contrib distribution, so be it... -- G. Branden Robinson| To be is to do -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | To do is to be -- Aristotle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do be do be do -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpa2XW71wsNL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:45:51AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 09:51:17AM -0500, David B Harris wrote: Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that, at least morally, it's allright to put Quake2 in main. Why not wait until there really is free data? Doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience. If we assumed all non-free data or software could be replaced, then we wouldn't need contrib at all - everything could go in main. Exactly. The GPL doesn't care that it could be used with a free alternative at some arbitrary point in the future, it cares that it can't be used with a free alternative NOW. If/when such an alternative becomes available, then the issue of putting it into main can be readdressed. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
This one time, at band camp, Joey Hess wrote: That's neat, but I wish we at least had quake 1 in contrib for woody. Woody will be the first release of debian in years and years without the possbility of quake at all (in main, contrib, or even non-free), I think. (I'm not yet a d-d, I'm currently halfway through the NM process.) For several months now, it has been my intention to get quake2 debs back into non-free, since they dissapeared from the archive. I have not yet contacted the previous maintainer (Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about this, but I've managed to dig up source packages from the depths of Google. I've been working with these to take care of the installation of data files. In any case, I'd still like to be the one to maintain quake2. This is *not* an ITP; the source isn't buildable with gcc yet, and will require a lot of work before packages can be made available. To answer the original poster's question: no, there won't be any quake2 debs for woody's release. My 2c on the location of the package: I'd put it in contrib. The binary would be useless without any data files, which implies a Depends: quake2-data, which as already discussed is non-free; policy dictates that it should be contrib. This doesn't preclude the package moving to main if that dependency is removed, however. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg Virtual reality is its own reward.
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:39:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Not to me. As long as these packages had a debconf note that warned of the problem, I wouldn't consider it a big deal. These packages are all priority extra, right? I checked a handful and they are all optional. Optional seems correct to me; extra is (from memory) for packages which require add-on hardware or which conflict with standard or higher priority packages, which doesn't apply to the emulators. OTOH, I don't feel passionately about it, so if people are wedded to the concept of the contrib distribution, so be it... Well, the name is misleading but the concept is sound, imho. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:23:58PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: Lets not get the chiken/egg problem so screwed up we can't ever have chicken _or_ eggs! Damn. I'm hungry now. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. The daffodils are coming. Are you? linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.linux.org.au/conf
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:57:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Juhapekka Tolvanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just heard it through the www.linuxgames.com ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/quake2.zip Can we include that in Woody before too deep freeze? P.S: I don't subscribe to this list. I am smart enough to read mailing-list archives via WWW, but you can Cc: me if you want. Does this include any game levels? If it doesn't include any levels that a person can play, then it only belongs in contrib. That's not true. If it is possible to create game levels for it that are free, than it is considered free. It's not like you can't get anything but id's game data. Ben -- .--===-=-==-=---==-=-. / Ben Collins--Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 05:55:46AM +0200, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: I just heard it through the www.linuxgames.com ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/quake2.zip Can we include that in Woody before too deep freeze? P.S: I don't subscribe to this list. I am smart enough to read mailing-list archives via WWW, but you can Cc: me if you want. If you want one that works, wait until QF has finished sanitizing it. I wouldn't hold my breath for woody though. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
