Source code license

[twoscomplement]

Hi there! It's not clear to me what license this code is released under - would you be willing to add a LICENSE file to the repository?

Many thanks!

[chungy]

It seems that commits prior to 6a7a141 were covered under the MIT license. It's unclear why it was deleted (the commit message is only "Delete").

[Lgt2x]

Without an explicit license, this repository (at least its latest version) cannot be considered open source anymore

[killermosi]

Maybe @kevinbentley can clarify why this was done and what are the plans for the source code license.

[JeodC]

Licensing is currently unclear, but there are no issues moving forward with maintaining this repository.

[DanielGibson]

Urghs that sucks

[mrdaemon]

Licensing being unclear actually feels like an issue moving forward, it's difficult to contribute to something that may be legally acted upon later.

Moreover it's going to make distribution of anything done with it difficult for the same reason.

[Arcnor]

The license issue will be solved shortly (the right people have been asked AFAIK), and for those that feel that the lack of license is an issue for contribution, they can always hold back for a bit until there is one in place, remember it's been around 24h since this dropped :).

[Laxystem]

I would recommend MPL 2.0 for this repo if you haven't decided already. It's a file-based copyleft license - that is, modified files must be released under the MPL, but new files don't - that way, companies can't resell the game, but it's still possible to create mods with a different license (including the GPL).

[KellyThomas]

that way, companies can't resell the game,

No restrictions on commercial use, they just have to offer the their modifications to the MPL code to their consumers.

[Laxystem]

That's what I meant - they have to prominently link to the source code, and are therefore forced to contribute their changes to the project.

[d10sfan]

That's a shame, hopefully a true open source license is picked, looking forward to the future of this project.

[Nolram12345]

I'd love to see a return of the MIT license, or maybe Apache 2 - MPL2 would be also be cool, but the GPL has proven troublesome with mods in some situations with other old games.

[DanielGibson]

I just hope it'll get a real open source license, and not some kind of "you can only use this source for Descent3 source ports, and not commercially" deal.

@kevinbentley If you need an argument for a real open source license for whoever holds the rights on Descent3: It would allow them to use this project (or other community source ports) for their official versions on Steam/GOG/whatever.
If the license is liberal enough (like MIT, unlike GPL), it would even allow them to use code from source ports for future releases on consoles, in case anyone ever wants to do that.

[pombredanne]

An interesting question is: who is the copyright holder? and who can license or relicense?

This is kinda unclear.

• Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrage_Games ... the successor of Outrage would be THQ?
• Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THQ THQ went bankrupt in 2012 and some of its assets were sold, possibly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embracer_Group / Nordic Games which later became https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THQ_Nordic ?
• Per linkedin @kevinbentley was a Technology Director at Outrage Entertainment https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinbentley and was involved with Descent3 development
• Per https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/-i-descent-i-games-yanked-from-gog-store-thanks-to-royalty-dispute there have been some not too distant royalties issues.

[kevinbentley]

I'd like to say that there's not a controversy here, just some due diligence. I realize now that I should have waited to release this code, but waiting for details is why it wasn't release for the past 15 years so far. Like @Arcnor said, if you're concerned about it, please don't offer any contributions. The project is new enough that if anyone objects when it is announced, it won't be hard to back out any previous contribution.

I'll repeat what I've said before though, I don't want anyone to begrudge the owners (which is Parallax software for the record) for whatever license they settle on, it is generous for them to release the code under any license, because they didn't have to, and nobody is being coerced to use the code in any form.

So please be patient, forcing a quick or specific outcome is not going to help.

[pombredanne]

@kevinbentley re:

So please be patient, forcing a quick or specific outcome is not going to help.

Thanks! you rock

[kevinbentley]

The code has been released under GPL 3.0

[purpleidea]

Awesome work, thanks! Good license for a game. John Carmack did the same.

[8bitprodigy]

The code has been released under GPL 3.0

Why gpl? What's wrong with the original mit?