ZDoom

The MoltenVK licensing issue can probably be bypassed by only having it directly interact with the Build licensed code. Of course that doesn't help when the desired code is under the GPL.

It's not that easy. The main problem is that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere what the GPL linking exception to Build code actually is. Just saying "with linking exception" is not a license exception and if challenged in courd may be voided just for that - in which case the entire package is illegal.

For me this means that I find myself unable to link with anything third party that is licensed under any GPL version and the LGPL v3.1.

Going back to the original topic, I uploaded missing macOS builds.

Try to went through the Duke4.net forum to find something about licensing but not sure found something useful, but...

Maybe it's still good idea to talk with TerminX and the EDuke32 team about this license mess...they did dealt with them in past(I know they did tried to not make their hardworks became illegal mess past several times) and they would know how mess that was and see if something can do or not, I guess.

Ultimately I think I would more like the perspective of a legal scholar who specializes in copyright.

In any case though, my opinion is that the current copyright system (as it stands in law) as a whole is a massive fucking clusterfuck and the whole system needs to be abolished and redone from scratch. I think something could be done that would protect both creators' and users' rights a lot better and prevent debacles like the GPL where a creators' rights are restricted in order to promote an ideology, to the point where you can't even mix two GPL projects together for the absolutely absurd reason that they are different GPL versions.

And no doubt, it was turned into a giant clusterfuck to find holes and ways to exploit them when needed too.

Rachael wrote:Ultimately I think I would more like the perspective of a legal scholar who specializes in copyright.

In any case though, my opinion is that the current copyright system (as it stands in law) as a whole is a massive fucking clusterfuck and the whole system needs to be abolished and redone from scratch. I think something could be done that would protect both creators' and users' rights a lot better and prevent debacles like the GPL where a creators' rights are restricted in order to promote an ideology, to the point where you can't even mix two GPL projects together for the absolutely absurd reason that they are different GPL versions.

lowskill. wrote:And no doubt, it was turned into a giant clusterfuck to find holes and ways to exploit them when needed too.

Yeah...

*Duke's sound* Heh, heh, heh, what a mess!

For some reasons, I thought that was why Ken did used his own licensing rules for his Build engine, because he didn't like any of them, GPL or BSD or anything else that has to deal with law bullshit...

Doing his own wasn't the problem. Adding the non-commercial-use clause was.

Graf Zahl wrote:Doing his own wasn't the problem. Adding the non-commercial-use clause was.

I think back then, he just didn't considering about this clause will caused more problems now.

It had been causing problems right from the start and he never backed down. I think that says a lot.

Rachael wrote:Given that Richard Stallman and the FSF has not come after 3D Realms (who originally did the GPL-with-exception source release), Ken Silverman (who allowed it), or any of the developers that came after (up to and including the EDuke32 ones), I suspect that they simply don't care.

The FSF cannot take legal action against anyone unless they own the copyright to the source code. In this case they do not.

Graf Zahl wrote:It had been causing problems right from the start and he never backed down. I think that says a lot.

Well, that's will still puzzled us since he decided made a engine, let it to be heart of commercial game(s), but then wrote a license that forbidding commercial using......it was messed up already...

PlayerLin wrote:Well, that's will still puzzled us since he decided made a engine, let it to be heart of commercial game(s), but then wrote a license that forbidding commercial using......it was messed up already...

It is quite simple, actually. He wants you to pay him (by buying a license) if you want to monetize on a game built with Build.

dpJudas wrote: It is quite simple, actually. He wants you to pay him (by buying a license) if you want to monetize on a game built with Build.

Yeah, after I wrote that post my brain just get this idea, well...that explains anything -- he want totally control.
Make sense now.

The license only applies to build, the engine. I do beleive one can make a commercial game that uses this engine, sell the game for profit(art, sounds, maps...) the engine however needs to be available online for free with a source release.

For Ion Fury Voidpoint has accuired a seperate license with Ken through 3Drealms (I think)