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

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 dependencie

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

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. Fu

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? > > http://psdoom.so

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? > > http://psdoom.sourceforge.net> Maybe I am missi

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? http://psdoom.sourceforge.net> -- Stephen "A duck!"

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

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 p

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 sh

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 th

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. S

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? Transl

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 sa

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

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 d

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 w

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

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

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

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

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 gamei38

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 <

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?

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 is

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 depe

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 t

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

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 I

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

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 engin

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 interprete

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 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. Noth

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 contri

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 ar

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 i

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/ | |

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: > > > > > If there *are* playable levels available for quake2 (which need > > > nothing in the

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: > > > 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 t

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

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

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 11:50:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > 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, yo

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 mai

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 ev

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

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

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

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 argume

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]> I don't speak for anyone save myself.

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 s

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 currentl

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 se

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. Fu

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

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, gsnes9

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 o

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 d

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

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 soft

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

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 g

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 i

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 ga

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. Ar

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 j

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 level

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 <

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 possi

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

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 debi

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

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 m

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. > >

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 > >

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

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 e

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 a

Re: Quake 2 sources GPL'd

e > 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 :) -- .--=-=-=-=--=--

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 cont

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. --

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

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 wr

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

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

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

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 en

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

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

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

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.

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 re

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? >