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 +0000, 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 <bcollins@debian.org> 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 \
> ` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
> `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions
Reply to: