doombsp-users Mailing List for BSP
Brought to you by:
cph
Menu
▾
▴
doombsp-users — Any discussion related to BSP
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2000 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Andre M. <ama...@te...> - 2005-02-01 00:38:28
|
Due to a typo, BSP 5.1 doesn't build on big-endian platforms. In endian.c, at line 198, ConvertLinedef() is misspelt as ConvertLineDef(). After fixing the error, it compiled and worked fine with gcc-3.3 -maix32 on AIX 5.1. I haven't tried 64-bit mode yet. --=20 Andr=E9 Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ |
|
From: Colin P. <cp...@cp...> - 2002-04-06 23:45:21
|
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 06:57:33PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote: > Isn't that a perfect occasion to use this ultra quiet list? Here it is for > your reviewing pleasure. List of changes at the top of the diff. Thanks, that's pretty comprehensive :-). Committed. -- Colin Phipps <cp...@cp...> http://www.cph.demon.co.uk/ |
|
From: Andre M. <ama...@te...> - 2002-04-06 16:58:52
|
Isn't that a perfect occasion to use this ultra quiet list ? Here it is for your reviewing pleasure. List of changes at the top of the diff. -- André Majorel <ama...@te...> http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ |
|
From: Andre M. <ay...@do...> - 2000-09-22 12:49:32
|
On 2000-09-22 11:59 +0100, Colin Phipps wrote: > I've checked through the source again, and there appear to be 2 > relevant licenses: > > - "please credit me" applies to most files > - the code in makenode.c is at least partly derived from DEU 5.0, > and comments indicate this is under a "if you use this in your programs, > mention my name" Yep. As is done in Yadex, for instance. Note that Raphaël Quinet and Brendon Wyber both explicitly allowed me to release Yadex under the GPL (without any additional "give me credit" clause), so no problem is to be expected on their side. > Anyway I don't care about the non-GPL ports enough to go out of my > way to accomodate them. If the current license is not GPL compatible, > I'll certainly go for a BSD+advertising style license. If it can be GPL'd, > I will probably do so, because GPL is the main license for Doom stuff these > days. Okay. I've subscribed to gnu.misc.discuss. Fire. :-) > <joke> > Looks like time to talk to some GPL experts... hey let's ask slashdot! > </joke> Brilliant idea. -- André Majorel Work: <ay...@do...> Home: <ama...@te...> http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ |
|
From: Colin P. <cp...@do...> - 2000-09-22 11:00:41
|
I've checked through the source again, and there appear to be 2 relevant licenses: - "please credit me" applies to most files - the code in makenode.c is at least partly derived from DEU 5.0, and comments indicate this is under a "if you use this in your programs, mention my name" The former is vague, probably enough so that the GPL is sufficient to be considered to satisfy it. Although it's not clear. The latter definitely looks like a BSD+advertising clause type of license. At the moment it appears that BSP's license is only compatible with the non-GPL ports; how ironic. On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 02:47:05PM +0000, Andre Majorel wrote: > Sure, but it's not because it's always been broken that it > should not be fixed. Point taken. > > - the non-GPL Doom ports want to include bits of BSP, or contribute bits > > to it. > > I think these are illegal anyway. Wasn't there an argument > recently between Carmack and the author of csDoom ? I must've missed Carmack stepping in; I know that several of the GPL port authors tried and failed reasoning with him, myself included. Carmack's view is neatly summed up by http://csdoom.sourceforge.net/carmack.txt I think a fair summary is that they're legal for educational use, provided you trust Raven not to sue you for the hexen bits. Anyway I don't care about the non-GPL ports enough to go out of my way to accomodate them. If the current license is not GPL compatible, I'll certainly go for a BSD+advertising style license. If it can be GPL'd, I will probably do so, because GPL is the main license for Doom stuff these days. <joke> Looks like time to talk to some GPL experts... hey let's ask slashdot! </joke> Colin |
|
From: Andre M. <ay...@do...> - 2000-09-21 12:39:53
|
On 2000-09-21 09:05 +0100, Colin Phipps wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 05:06:44PM +0000, Andre Majorel wrote: > > Colin, could you try to clarify a bit BSP's license and your > > intentions regarding it ? The web page says it's BSD, COPYING > > says something else. It would be nice to be more precise, > > especially since BSP is included is other software. > > The only requirements that the BSP source makes is that the authors > continue to receive credit. The Sourceforge page says it's BSD because that > was the closest license its list. I *am* thinking of putting in a normal > BSD license for the next version though, since the wording is clearer and > the disclaimer is needed. > > > My personal preference goes to the GPL, of course. If you ask > > me, I'd hate to see BSP licensed under a BSD-ish license. > > There are 2 situations in which it makes a difference: > - closed source forks of BSP, That was exactly my concern. We've seen that happen before. Perhaps not in the case of BSP but I believe it happened at least twice for DEU. >but given BSP 3.0 source is available anyone > can do that anyway Sure, but it's not because it's always been broken that it should not be fixed. Leaving open the possibility of a closed fork acts as a deterrent more than an incentive to most potential contributors. > - the non-GPL Doom ports want to include bits of BSP, or contribute bits > to it. I think these are illegal anyway. Wasn't there an argument recently between Carmack and the author of csDoom ? > I don't much like the non-GPL ports, nor would closed source forks be nice, > but I can't stop either, and by staying with a BSD-like license I think I > reduce the chance of forking in the first place. Er... more so than with a GPL license ? > > (I'm not sure whether it would be OK to release under the GPL > > without the original authors' permission, though. In my > > understanding, the GPL does not insist on giving proper credit, > > unlike BSP's original "license".) > > I think a "give credit" license is compatible with the GPL, which > contains the same idea expressed as preserving copyright notices. Mmm. Hope so. Or perhaps GPL + special "give credit" clause. If we agreed on the principle, we could ask the GPL heads on gnu.misc.discuss about the details. -- André Majorel Work: <ay...@do...> Home: <ama...@te...> http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ |
|
From: Colin P. <cp...@do...> - 2000-09-21 08:06:51
|
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 05:06:44PM +0000, Andre Majorel wrote: > Colin, could you try to clarify a bit BSP's license and your > intentions regarding it ? The web page says it's BSD, COPYING > says something else. It would be nice to be more precise, > especially since BSP is included is other software. The only requirements that the BSP source makes is that the authors continue to receive credit. The Sourceforge page says it's BSD because that was the closest license its list. I *am* thinking of putting in a normal BSD license for the next version though, since the wording is clearer and the disclaimer is needed. > My personal preference goes to the GPL, of course. If you ask > me, I'd hate to see BSP licensed under a BSD-ish license. There are 2 situations in which it makes a difference: - closed source forks of BSP, but given BSP 3.0 source is available anyone can do that anyway - the non-GPL Doom ports want to include bits of BSP, or contribute bits to it. I don't much like the non-GPL ports, nor would closed source forks be nice, but I can't stop either, and by staying with a BSD-like license I think I reduce the chance of forking in the first place. > (I'm not sure whether it would be OK to release under the GPL > without the original authors' permission, though. In my > understanding, the GPL does not insist on giving proper credit, > unlike BSP's original "license".) I think a "give credit" license is compatible with the GPL, which contains the same idea expressed as preserving copyright notices. I'm still open to persuasion on this though :-). Colin |
|
From: Andre M. <ay...@do...> - 2000-09-20 14:59:26
|
Colin, could you try to clarify a bit BSP's license and your intentions regarding it ? The web page says it's BSD, COPYING says something else. It would be nice to be more precise, especially since BSP is included is other software. My personal preference goes to the GPL, of course. If you ask me, I'd hate to see BSP licensed under a BSD-ish license. Why did you choose BSD ? Is that because you couldn't contact Colin Reed or because you positively want BSD ? (I'm not sure whether it would be OK to release under the GPL without the original authors' permission, though. In my understanding, the GPL does not insist on giving proper credit, unlike BSP's original "license".) -- André Majorel Work: <ay...@do...> Home: <ama...@te...> http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ |
|
From: Colin P. <cp...@do...> - 2000-09-20 13:00:34
|
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 01:04:18PM +0200, Florian 'Proff' Schulze wrote: > >glBoom now supports glBsp nodes and it fully complies with the current > >specification v2.0 (glBsp 1.91). > > > >bugs: Demos recorded in classic BSP node - modus may loose sync when > >played with gl nodes and vice versa. Thats all - I hope 8) > > I will look into that, because the nodes only need to be used for rendering, > maybe I can fix that. The node building affects game sync stuff in a number of ways: - the awful design decision (alas, not fixed by glBSP) to add split points as vertices (hence all the kludges in level editing tools etc to strip out "node builder vertices"). It would have taken little extra space to just store the start and end coords in the SEGS instead of using vertex numbers, and saved a lot of mess everywhere else. Since mobj's can get stuck on vertices, adding vertices to a level changes the gameplay. - the NODES are used in line-of-sight calcs, although only to save calculations (the actual real testing is done with the LINEDEFS). Still, if the NODES are buggy then it'll affect demos. That's all I can think of offhand... no doubt I've missed a few. Colin |
|
From: Colin P. <cp...@ho...> - 2000-09-01 08:37:38
|
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:40:54AM +0000, Andre Majorel wrote: > BSP 5.0 compiles fine and seems to work fine too. Congrats. :-) > Bad things I noticed : the usage message is not quite in sync > with the code. What are your plans regarding the man page ? I'd forgotten about it :-). I'll grab the one from xwadtools and update it. The usage message should be up to date though. The only serious bug I know of right now is the repeated splitting bug (bug #2 from bsp23bug.wad - pity bsp23bug.wad no longer triggers the bug in bsp 3.0+, but I have a wad that does). Colin |
|
From: Andre M. <ama...@te...> - 2000-08-31 23:39:27
|
BSP 5.0 compiles fine and seems to work fine too. Congrats. :-) Bad things I noticed : the usage message is not quite in sync with the code. What are your plans regarding the man page ? -- André Majorel <ama...@te...> http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ |
|
From: Colin P. <cp...@ho...> - 2000-08-29 09:19:23
|
Testing again... |
|
From: Colin P. <cp...@ho...> - 2000-08-29 08:52:25
|
Just testing... Colin |
