Wednesday, March 10, 2010

DirectQ is going Public Domain

I've decided that I'm going to make DirectQ 1.8.2 and onwards a (limited) Public Domain work. This is something I've wanted to do for a long time now, as I have some serious reservations about the FSF and the GNU GPL, specifically their free software purity thing (another issue I have with the FSF is that I despise Unix - I'm all for a Free OS so long as it's not a Unix-like). So I'm really doing this because I don't want my work to be covered by a license that I don't necessarily agree with the ethos of. I'm fully aware that by doing this, a Big Bad Wolf might steal my work, pass it off as their own, make profit from it, and not give anything back. That's OK. I don't work on DirectQ for power, money, women, fast cars or glory; I work on it for my own personal enjoyment.

And before you ask - yes, I've checked on the GNU website and have confirmed that this is fine to do.

Versions 1.8.1 and before will remain GPL. Additionally, DirectQ contains code for which I do not own the copyright. This code includes the original ID Quake code, the MD5 generator, the unzip.c code, anything I've sourced from tutorials or other folks engines, and maybe a few others. The licenses attached to this code will need to remain in force, so the Public Domain release will only apply to my own original changes. It will however retroactively apply to all changes in 1.8.2 onwards that are original work by me, irrespective of when those changes were made.

What this means is that a piece of my code sourced from the 1.8.2 or later codebase will be Public Domain, but the same piece of code sourced from any earlier version will be GPL, even if the code has been completely unchanged between versions.

Until DirectQ 1.8.2 is actually released none of this will apply, of course.

4 comments:

Coranth said...

I'm not an advocate for Unix or Linux but. why do you despise it, so? Give us some reasons, please; let's hear 'em!

There are some things I hate about Linux, (and I hope no one flames me for stating them):

1. Too many distros. New distros of Linux are being made all the time, with different ways of doing things and or package installation; it's a mess!

2. There's no 'standard' way of installing packages on any Linux Distro; each has their own package management software, and something that works on one flavor of Linux might not work on another.

3. The CLI. Enough said.

4. Drive naming. Arrrrggh! Why 'sda/sdb or hda/hdb? Why?? Why can't they just use ordinary LETTERS for drives, like with Windows???

4. Linux application names. With Windows, names make sense. You want to write a document? Open 'Word'. You want to paint a picture, try 'Paint'.

But Linux application names are just... UGH! With names like KTerm, Amarok, Banshee, k3B... no ordinary user would know what any of those do, except for perhaps KTerm, which is KDE's Terminal Program. Even worse, is GIMP. Yes, GIMP!

I know, I know, it's a worthless ACRONYM, short for GNU Image Manipulation Program... but someone who doesn't use Linux will just see the WORD 'Gimp'; and that word is old slang for a crippled / disabled person! It's disgusting.

5. The Linux 'Elitism.' Whilst Linux is getting better, and more user-friendly... there are still people out there who maintain a high and mighty attitude in regards to Linux. "Linux shouldn't be user friendly" or "Linux should only be for the experts" or "Linux should only have a command line", they say.

And be careful where you go to get help. Some Linux communities don't mind questions from 'newbs' (I hate that word, 'newb' or 'newbie'; it's degrading) but others will tear you to shreds for asking the simplest of questions! And beware if you're a windows user.

6. Codecs. Who gives a toss if they're not all free? Who cares about 'legalities'. Arrrgh! Just put the damn things in so media plays 'out of the box.'


Well, that's my rants against Linux. I believe they're all legitimate complaints, and I hope you don't bash me for them.

Entar said...

I didn't know you could do that. In fact, it seems sort of counterintuitive, considering the nature of GPL, that they would let you just take the license off and make it public domain - unless I'm missing something...

mhquake said...

I managed Unix servers for a coupla years so believe me I have ample reason to loathe it, and I won't bash anyone for expressing their dislike either.

mhquake said...

@Entar: I didn't either, but it seems as though the GPL is compatible with Public Domain works. I believe that by leaving previous releases fully GPL but switching my original work (only) to any alternative license (so long as it's GPL compatible) everything is above board.

The previous versions will always be GPL, that can't be revoked for something that's already been released under the GPL.

For new versions the bulk of the code will actually still be GPL - that's the ID code, which ID own the copyright for. I've also got RSA code in there as well as some other stuff, but that will also retain it's original license. So what I'm doing is relinquishing my copyright on my original stuff, making it Public Domain, and combining it with GPL stuff.