Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Community Asset Pack Replacement -- and the LICENSE #2

Open
computermouth opened this issue Oct 17, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Community Asset Pack Replacement -- and the LICENSE #2

computermouth opened this issue Oct 17, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@computermouth
Copy link

computermouth commented Oct 17, 2024

Just thought I'd throw up a thread here about a community created asset pack. (finding that community if there is one, or starting one if there isn't)

As far as I can tell from the LICENSE, this should be fine, akin to running a custom DOOM WAD or "full conversion mod" (ala FreeDOOM, LibreQuake, etc). The one thing I wanted to check on is the clause regarding binary distributions.

Basically, you can compile yourself a copy, for free, for personal use. But if you want to distribute a compiled version of the game, you might need permission first.

I see that that line was copied from the VVVVVV LICENSE and wanted to check if the intent there was to stop binary distributions of the game with it's original assets, or binary distributions at large. This license would also deter linux distros and other package managers and software distribution platforms from picking it up as well, but if that was Cellar Door's intent, fair enough.

@flibitijibibo
Copy link
Owner

flibitijibibo commented Oct 17, 2024

We're mostly avoiding binary distributions in general, just so we're able to ensure that people are using official builds unless they really know what they're doing - that said, total conversions and content packs like FreeDOOM would definitely get clearance and be added to the exceptions list. (Distributions wouldn't repackage it, but it could definitely go on something like Flathub to cover that type of situation.)

@computermouth
Copy link
Author

Ok cool, in regards to Distributions wouldn't repackage it, but it could definitely go on something like Flathub to cover that type of situation. do you mean that because while that project would have the EXCEPTION, it still likely wouldn't pass something like Debian's Free Software Guidelines? While a flatpak would get cleared by you/CellarDoor?

@flibitijibibo
Copy link
Owner

Sounds about right, yeah. For some other real-world examples you can check out existing exceptions for VVVVVV:

https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/blob/master/License%20exceptions.md

@computermouth
Copy link
Author

Righteous. Should folks find this issue, and be interested in contributing or keeping an eye on the effort, meet me over at openrl1!

(ps, big fan of your work Ethan, thanks for SDL3_gpu 👯‍♂️)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants