Re: non-satisfyable Recommends: in main (was Re: Bug#661329: recommends doom-wad which is only provided by non-free doom-wad-shareware)
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 09:27:19PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> So it's, of all Doom resources, the lack of _levels_ working with original
> (-llish) Doom code that's the problem? This would sound a lot more dire if
> less than, say, 1/3 of us who remember the times of original Doom made our
> own levels.
Yes.
> There's a bad case of Sturgeon's law, of course, but the only difficulty
> here lies in sifting through a giant pile of levels and picking the best
> ones.
>
> My own "masterpieces" probably don't belong in the "best" category, but at
> least a few could be ok contenders, especially after a few minor edits.
> (Temporary URL: http://angband.pl/tmp/mywads/, ignore old copyright
> statements, yadda yadda).
Thanks.
> If you pool mine, yours and a few other random folks' wads, you'll have
> enough content to get a good set. And if you want one of famous ones,
> there's a good chance authors will agree to relicense.
I had a plan to package a collection of PWADs ('patch' WADs - levels) as a
package which I never did. I'm going to see about picking that up tomorrow.
I've identified two that are "public domain" and featured in a "100 best PWADs
of all time" list in the last few years. After that, I'm hoping to arrange
access to the DB backing 'http://www.doomworld.com/idgames";, which has user-
submitted ratings and a list of txt files supplied with each PWAD. Luckily,
there was a widely-used txt-template that offered one of three "licenses"
and the majority of people who created levels used the template and picked
a license, so it should be possible to identify some highly-rated PWADs
which have DFSG-compatible terms. ("you can do whatever you want with this
file." was one of the license-texts; one of others was "you may use this
as a base for another PWAD, but you must give the original author credit"
which I think should pass, depending on how strict you want to be about
interpreting the proscriptiveness of "base for another PWAD")
Reply to: