Doom/Doom II on Trisquel
Hello Trisquel users,
I am new to this forum
and my favorite game of all time is Doom/Doom II!!!
but i like to know...
...Is doom/doom II free software? Because the doom engine is licensed under the GNU GPL and the MIT (expat) License as seen in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_engine
The game itself costs money and the only way i see fit is from steam, which is laden with Digital 'Restrictions' Management and proprietary software. But it runs of Trisquel (I'm not endorsing proprietary software by the way)
So is it a free software game? I mean, there are source ports for doom/doom II and i like to run it on Trisquel. There is a GNU/Linux port of Zandronum.
Also, i tested Trisquel mini on a virtual machine to see if the operating system as the GNU/Linux distro for me(my current GNU/Linux distro right now is Debian) and if doom (Zandronum) worked and it ran horribly and slow. The graphics card is an AMD Radeon so that could be the problem.
When the two elements are combined - no.
Software side is free, the assets no. You cannot re-distribute the entire package as is.
In this case it is your own personal choice if you choose to use the combo, if you are ok with not sharing everything then that is your own call. That where free software comes in, it isn't so much a 'specification' as such but more a set of goal that you should strive for. If you are not bothered by this restriction then that merely applies to you and others you personally know that might have wanted a copy.
This is an issue that I find very interesting in that it combined both the concepts of the free software movement and the free arts movement. They are very similar in their goals but different in the details.
Oh why, Thank you. I only care that the engine is free. is that ok with the Trisquel community? I only to play intend to play Doom by myself. I might distribute copies to the modified engine to friends. But they will need a copy of Doom/Doom II/Final Doom. Is it good to run on Trisquel? it is free on the Software side at least. & why cant i use Zandronum? It's WAYYYYYYY superieor to prboom
Oh why, Thank you. I only care that the engine is free. is that ok with the Trisquel community? I only to play intend to play Doom by myself. I might distribute copies to the modified engine to friends. But they will need a copy of Doom/Doom II/Final Doom. Is it good to run on Trisquel? it is free on the Software side at least.
I recommend prboom+ , which is a GPL version of the doom engine.
For free assets, check out freedoom
I dont really need free assets because i already own the commercial game. Why do i need a doom clone when i have the real thing?
you should try out the shareware version of doom. before buying it (from somewhere other than steam, Like i did, because it's non-free software)
http://www.doomworld.com/idgames/idstuff/doom/doom19s.zip (the original Shareware version for doom)
And use a DOS emulatior like DOSbox for GNU/Linux, That's under the GNU GPL and i use it on my machines.
Again i came to the Trisquel forums because i care about free software, just like you, Turtleman.
And Thank you for your support today. I hope you have a nice day.
& Why can't i use Zandronum? Is it a issue relating to Free Software? Because it's more flexible than prboom, in my own experience
If the original link i provided is too proprietary for you, you can just get the shareware doom wad (on it's own, no engine) here:
http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/slitaz/sources/packages/d/doom1.wad
(and combine it with a free-software doom source port of your choice!)
and check the MD5 sum in case of viruses!
Zandronum is not free as in freedom, It uses some parts of the zdoom engine which is not free software. My personal recomendation is odamex, eternity engine and Prboom+ as they support most wad mods. You can easily build them from source.
Personally, given the choice between free and nonfree assets, of course both being free software, I prefer to support the free assets.
Let me elaborate on proprietary Doom engines:
When id Software originally released the Doom engine, it was under a custom license called the "Doom Source License":
http://doomwiki.org/wiki/Doom_Source_License
This license forbids any sort of commercial use, in particular, but also has other restrictions making it non-libre. Authors of source ports like ZDoom chose to use it instead of the GNU GPL because of a lack of copyleft in it.
Unfortunately, a huge portion of WADs are made for ZDoom and will therefore not work in any libre Doom source ports. But oh, well. That's just something we have to live with.
According to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html as long as your game engine and related software is free/open/libre then the artwork can be commercial or whatever you want.
"Since the art in the game is not software, it does not need to be free. There is in fact free game software developed by companies, as well as free games developed noncommercially by volunteers. Crowdfunding development will only get easier."
the artwork can be commercial or whatever you want.
Not "whatever you want". In the quote, "it does not need to be free" means it does not have to respect all four freedoms that define free software. However, the FSF believes (well, at least rms believes) that the freedom to non-commercially redistribute exact copies must always hold. Whatever the kind of work that is distributed. That includes artistic works in video games. A license that prohibits such non-commercial sharing is unethical. It attacks the social solidarity of the community.
For the record, randall Munroe's XKCD uses this:
Creative Commons Nocommercial, any version (#CC-BY-NC)
This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money for copies. We recommend you do not use this license.
And I quite like it, so I won't personally follow the FSF's recommendation because a fully free license makes perfect sense regarding software,
but I had doubts about artistic creations for example.
Now there's no doubt in my mind anymore.
I'm finally at peace :P
at least this license is perfect for comics and similar creations.
Also, if I can run non-free programs (like games I find no replacement for)
in a TRULY sandboxed environment on my Trisquel, I won't make it a habit but I find no harm in that
if it's fully disconnected from any data/location data etc.
But again, I personally consider that to be the exception, not the rule.
And for now, I hadn't to resort to that yet. So far, so libre.
By the way, my stance on libre culture is this:
I am opposed to non-libre culture. As such, I refuse to make any of my work non-libre. I once turned down an offer to write a book on Python programming because of this principle and the publisher's unwillingness to make the book available under a libre culture license.
However, I don't think it's productive to refuse to take part in a culture composed of non-libre works. For example, refuse to watch movies that are non-libre, or refuse to play games with non-libre cultural components. This is just self-censorship, and it can alienate you from society. If you are not a part of the culture, how can you possibly hope to end the problems it has (such as being composed of non-libre works)? As such, there are multiple games I play, multiple TV series I watch, and multiple things I read that are non-libre culture, and I sometimes even promote such works. I may refuse to support the publishers if there's an alternative, though (not the authors; it's the publishers which typically restrict the distribution of works).
I once turned down an offer to write a book on Python programming because of this principle and the publisher's unwillingness to make the book available under a libre culture license.
The funny thing is that these proprietary books end up on the web anyway.
A semi-libre option might have been a solution (see my post above).
Personally, I fail to see how preventing commercial redistribution could be unethical.
For the same reason as for software. Text books and manuals aim to achieve a work. They enter the same category as software. You can watch rms' conference "Copyright vs. community" for the whole argument: http://audio-video.gnu.org
The audio is very long, and goes through the history of copyright, DRM etc.
What's the argument that applies here, in a nutshell?
Software can be malware, but a book can't.
It's just not the same category to me.
(You seem to differentiate text books and manuals from say, a novel or a comic, but I'm not sure of that).
If it can't be distributed commercially,
It's still accessible, modifiable and can be distributed, just not for a fee.
It simply prevents people from abusing the author, without restraining the user's freedom.
Best of both worlds, it's fair to both parties.
How is that non-ethical?
The argument is that the user achieves a work with the manual or the text book (unlike with art) and must be allowed to do whatever she wishes with it. That includes commercial activities. That is why a license that prohibits commercial usage is non-free. More generally, any "do no evil" clause makes a license on functional works non-free. The author should not impose her views on what is evil and what is not.
> Personally, I fail to see how preventing commercial redistribution could be unethical.
This says it all: freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
Thanks for the link.
About the economic argument (which is the heart of the matter):
If you want to obtain additional protection against large scale exploitation, use a Share-Alike license.
This applies doubly to governments and educational or scientific institutions: content which is of high cultural
or educational value should be made available under conditions which will ensure its widespread use.
It seems that it's really a matter of context. I mean we're not talking about free software here.
As an author (let's stick with the online comics example),
It's clearly unthinkable. It's personal work.
I really don't see how in that specific context it is unethical.
Allowing others to make profit from my work as-is or slightly modified is unethical though.
Comics are artistic works. You have "spectators". Not "users". rms would only insist on the freedom to non-commercially redistribute the comics. Even CC BY-NC-ND satisfies that requirement. That said, I understand the practical (rather than ethical) issues the NC clause raises.
It's hard to understand the exact connection between a document and the work that can be made with it.
Even if it's under a NC license, The work made by it can be licensed as completely free software. At least it should be possible.
But since you mention it, there's probably some legal aspect that prevents such a thing to happen.
Either way, the quote I took about XKCD's license is from the FSF website,
so they clearly don't recommend it as a general rule, as explained in Calinou's link.
And yeah, I didn't think about practical related issues.
I guess some contextual exception should ideally be stated on that FSF licenses page,
like "such NC license (maybe only specific ones btw) remain ethical only for specific types of works (artistic), because *explanation* ".
Not as badly stated of course.
It's hard to understand the exact connection between a document and the work that can be made with it.
Take a manual for instance (but it really applies to any functional work: software, encyclopedia, cooking recipes, text books, dictionaries, etc.). If an instruction is wrong, the user should be free to correct it. If a feature is non-documented (it can be new for instance), the user should be free to document it. If there is a different better way to achieve something, the user must be able the modify the text, etc.
oh I meant the NC clause.
The idea that preventing someone else to sell my manual,
while anyone totally being able to modify, redestribute (non-commercially), etc.
If I understand what you wrote previously, this is unethical because it's used to produce a work.
Why is that exactly?
Wouldn't that be possible for the produced work to be licensed
as fully free anyway (even commercial redistribution)?
I mean preventing non-commercial redistribution shouldn't prevent
correction, documentation and/or modification by anyone else.
That's what I don't understand.
I found this transcript of rms' Copyright and Globalization talk (in 2001): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html
Someone raised your question and rms seems to think that granting the freedom to commercially redistribute functional works does not usually harm the author (the incentive to produce more works remains intact), whereas it does not seem to always be the case for the other two types of works:
QUESTION: With regard to the functional works, how do you, in your own thinking, balance out the need for abolishing the copyright with the need for economic incentives in order to have these functional works developed?
STALLMAN: Well, what we see is, first of all, that this economic incentive is a lot less necessary than people have been supposing. Look at the free software movement where we have over 100,000 part-time volunteers developing free software. We also see that there are other ways to raise money for this which are not based on stopping the public from copying and modifying these works. That's the interesting lesson of the free software movement. Aside from the fact that it gives you a way you can use a computer and keep your freedom to share and cooperate with other people, it also shows us that this negative assumption that people would never do these things unless they are given special powers to force people to pay them is simply wrong. A lot of people will do these things. Then if you look at, say, the writing of monographs which serve as textbooks in many fields of science except for the ones that are very basic, the authors are not making money out of that. We now have a free encyclopedia project which is, in fact, a commercial-free encyclopedia project, and it's making progress. We had a project for a GNU encyclopedia but we merged it into the commercial project when they adopted our license. In January, they switched to the GNU Free Documentation License for all the articles in their encyclopedia. So we said, “Well, let's join forces with them and urge people to contribute to them.” It's called “Nupedia,” and you can find a link to it, if you look at http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia. So here we've extended the community development of a free base of useful knowledge from software to encyclopedia. I'm pretty confident now that in all these areas of functional work, we don't need that economic incentive to the point where we have to mess up the use of these works.
THORBURN: Well, what about the other two categories?
STALLMAN: For the other two classes of work, I don't know. I don't know whether people will write some day novels without worrying about whether they make money from it. In a post-scarcity society, I guess they would. Maybe what we need to do in order to reach the post-scarcity society is to get rid of the corporate control over the economy and the laws. So, in effect, it's a chicken-or-the-egg problem, you know. Which do we do first? How do we get the world where people don't have to desperately get money except by removing the control by business? And how can we remove the control by business except — Anyway, I don't know, but that's why I'm trying to propose first a compromise copyright system and, second, the voluntary payment supported by a compromise copyright system as a way to provide a revenue stream to the people who write those works.
If someone (you?) finds the time to watch a more recent version of the Copyright vs. Community talk, it would be nice to report here whether rms' argument has evolved. Usages have evolved at least (many more people read e-books for instance) and rms always considers current usages to make an argument (that can therefore evolve).
I am a translator!
Maybe what we need to do in order to reach the post-scarcity society is to get rid of the corporate control over the economy and the laws.
About functional works, ok, I get the argument overall (though the NC aspect isn't specifically addressed, but I see how it can be impractical to distribute, for say, financing the printing of manuals).
about non-functional works, I thought about the post-scarcity mindset (though not as a society but as an individual), and indeed it could work for me.
As long as no power (money) is involved, it's a possibility.
As for how such a scarcity-free society could happen, (besides for example torrents contributing to that), I vaguely remember that the whole Silicon Valley is working somehow towards that. Probably not with the exact same intentions, but with the idea of making work for a living unnecessary (not necessarily a positive thing, but it's a natural evolution as technology evolves). I'd like to read more about this subject, and I'll try to find that article.
I'll also try to check if his argument has evolved. but most likely it didn't, because even with e-books, the situation is overall not that different I suppose.
Thanks for the link, Magic Banana.
About functional works, ok, I get the argument overall (though the NC aspect
isn't specifically addressed, but I see how it can be impractical to
distribute, for say, financing the printing of manuals).
about non-functional works, I thought about the post-scarcity mindset (though
not as a society but as an individual), and indeed it could work for me.
As long as no power (money) is involved, it's a possibility.
As for how such a scarcity-free society could happen, (besides for example
torrents contributing to that), I vaguely remember that the whole Silicon
Valley is working somehow towards that. Probably not with the exact same
intentions, but with the idea of making work for a living unnecessary (not
necessarily a positive thing, but it's a natural evolution as technology
evolves). I'd like to read more about this subject, and I'll try to find that
article.
I'll also try to check if his argument has evolved. but most likely it
didn't, because even with e-books, the situation is overall not that
different I suppose.
Thanks for the link, Magic Banana.
https://github.com/marrub--/GLOOME/
GPL compliant ZDOOM clone.
I use prboom+ as the main port, with FreeDoom 0.9 as the Doom IWAD replacements for PWADs. They work really well.
But wait a moment, I looked up the License zandronum was on (Modified sleepycat license), and it was FSF approved and compatible with the GNU GPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#BerkeleyDB
and this disclamer about the license from zandronum.com proves it:
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
New code in Zandronum is released under a 4-clause license based on the OSI-approved and GPL-compatible Sleepycat License, with the addition of the "No Endorsement" clause from the 3-clause New BSD License.
Practically, this means that Zandronum's source code is safe to use in either GPL or Doom Source License/Raven Source License/etc. source ports as long as the terms of the Zandronum license are satisfied.
The Zandronum license only covers Zandronum-specific code. Some source files contain additional notices of original copyright by their contributors.
See ZDoom license page for more details on other licenses used within Zandronum.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************
and about the game itself. Yes, i know it's not libre. You have to pay for the artwork. But magic banana says for a libre-game we have to non-commercialy redistribute doom/doom II to our neighbour/friend? Isn't that Unauthorised copying? if they want it, they have to buy the game themselves.
Yes, i know that the artwork is still nonfree, but most game companies have a huge disregard for free software, Like EA, rockstar for example. But ID software (under bethesda now) released some of their game engines under a free software license, so why is the game bad, in your opinion. Buying your friend a copy is one thing, giving it away for free non-commercially is another thing.
But magic banana says for a libre-game we have to non-commercialy redistribute doom/doom II to our neighbour/friend?
You do not have to. But you must be free to do so.
Isn't that Unauthorised copying?
An ethical license would authorize it.
Zandronum is not free software because it's based off non-free code. You can see these problematic parts (Build, FMOD Ex, MAME, and MUSLib) on the ZDoom license page.
As previously mentioned, GLOOME should provide a working replacement. Now if it would only be possible to run Brutal Doom with it…
GLOOM is awesome, at last I can play those zdoom wads that I love so much!!!
Thank you a lot for letting us know that this engine exists :)
(I tried gzdoom mods but no zdoom at the moment)
I would boycott your project, and encourage all others to do so, just for the
content of this post alone.
Why do you want to boycott my project? which thing I've said is offensive? I've only said that I like GLOOM. I made a mistake and I wrote "least" instead of "last" but that is because I don't know English as well as some of you. Everything offensive I've said was unintentional and I'm sorry for it.
That wasn't aimed at you! It was a reply to chaosesque. I have no problem with
you whatsoever.
Why did you think that was a response to you? Did it not appear correctly
threaded? I have no idea, because I post via the mailing list.
My apologies, I thought it was directed to me because you replied my comment.
Thank you for the response, I was worried for offended somebody.
I believe you are use the mailing list and reply to messages that were deleted from the forum, hence the confusion. See https://trisquel.info/forum/doomdoom-ii-trisquel to understand.
Never heard of Gloom, I will check it out now!
I can recommend Gloome, it is awesome! Way nicer than prboom+ (although I still think prboom+ is great too)!
Well, prboom+ is lighter than Gloome, you don't need any Zdoom features for most PWADS.
Was this topic started in light of Doom 1 and 2 being available DRM free on GOG?
https://www.gog.com/promo/bethesda_launch_id_software_bundle_260815
No it wasnt. It was about buying Doom From steam. Ofr Any DRM-free game on steam (if there's any out there)