Leaderboard

This is actually a rather old request that we encountered often shortly after going standalone in 2013. Hardcore GNU\Linux folks, especially those who use Debian, think that all open projects should use GPL v3 licenses with full "Libre" licensed content ( Creative Commons ). The goal is that open projects should be a shared resource that no single person or group regulates and can be used for ANY purpose without fear of prosecution or litigation. The primary motivation is "extreme paranoia". Any license restriction is seen as a potential trap that could unintentionally jeopardize contributors or users. For example: Imagine that I create a blog where I review darkmod missions and earn advertising revenue by visits. Through a very convoluted legal premise, the owner of non-free assets used in TDM could claim I owe them revenue since their license doesn't allow "any" commercial exploit of their work. Likewise, the owner of an internet cafe where the game is played might owe the asset owner their revenue. The ISP that made the asset available to it's subscribers might owe them too. The overarching theme is that copyright scope is not clearly defined and can be perverted to sabotage open projects. A fully Libre compliant project is immune to these risks. People who want their favorite projects to be easily available in GNU\Debian evangelize this type of license change. The problem is that most TDM contributors would strongly object to allowing their work to be used by 3rd party commercial projects, especially if those 3rd parties simply rebranded darkmod and sold it as a game in an app store. Even if that were a palatable eventuality, it would also make Embracer Group ( current owners of Thief IP ) more inclined to attempt a legal take-down of our project. A Libre version would need to be a fork that is maintained outside our community so that we can still clearly state that we prohibit all commercial usage. Debian and other similar distros need an easy way to allow users to install projects that are strictly non-commercial rather than forcing all open projects to permit 3rd parties to resell their work.

I guess posts about helping people understand what this thread is not for kind of still count.

Yes, all images, models and sounds would be gone. Even if you made a barebones replacement that only provides a very limited selection of assets you would need to create thousands of files just to achieve basic game functionality (movement sounds, guard clothes and speech, menus, tools and weapons etc.). It's probably orders of magnitude more work than when TDM got rid of all Doom3 assets for going standalone in v2.0. Technically it's probably possible for an FM to contain a full game's worth of assets, except for the code itself. IIRC some Doom3 mods had custom .dll's to extend the base code, though.

"Things that could be improved" in the main TDM forum.

As much as I'm a big fan of FOSS, it gets messy when it involves assets with a whole mix of licenses. The engine? Sure that'll work, but TDM is useless with just the engine. Even if you have a separate libre version with verified assets, you've now split the project into a full version and a libre-only version and for what? Some entry in a niche wiki and the Debian repo? Once people want actual full missions to play you begin to drift away from the restricted licenses imposed on the libre version and have to code and accommodate for that. If TDM was developed with the day-one intention of only allowed libre licensed assets then there'd be no problem, but it hasn't and what your asking is probably too much work and effort for little benefit.

I have now added coordinates to the bugtracker issues that did not already have them.

GPL guarantees end users the four freedoms to run, study, share, and modify the software. It puts restrictions on any derivative work that it must be distributed under the same or equivalent license terms, but it does not prohibits from making money.