Open Source *Game* Programming?

Henningsen peter at
Wed Jan 17 22:24:45 UTC 2001

>> IANAL but I think the general reaction would be that the
>> graphics are part of the overall work and said game company
>> would then be obliged to also give away the graphics,
>> which you would then have access to.
>Doom and Quake have been released as GPL.  Graphics and data files have not.
>By this reasoning, anyone except the creators of Doom or Quake could not
>distribute those programs at all, since the graphics are necessary to use
>the program and they are not open source.

It is my understanding that graphics that comes with a game does not have to
be given away with GPL'd code. In fact, one of the most promising ideas of
open source game developers on generating revenue is to release the game
with some graphics (like the first levels), and then charge for more and
better graphics. In that model only the graphic artists get paid, which
makes sense because the open source game community is desperately short of
good graphic artists.

Peter Henningsen

P.S.: And thanks to everybody who posted a reply to my question. I'm
pondering the dis/advantages of the Aladdin license, and of dual licensing
with the GPL. Realistically Microsoft probably wouldn't want to release any
games under the GPL, and if they did, that would be worth it;-)

More information about the License-discuss mailing list