Statistics Time: If Id Tech 5 goes GPL, when could it happen?

[Razik Mazilya]

Alright, I don't know if anyone cares but I made a table that compiles data about Id's game release dates and source release dates in order to make predictions on when Id Tech 5 could go GPL because I am a nerdy guy interested in programming.

Here is that table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1buAPkj_E0VE4VEpABOsK3QJYaLT6VutacqftwUxF1zA/edit?usp=sharing

I averaged the time between the game's release date and it's respective source release date, the time between the previous games release date and the next games source release, the time between source releases, and the time between the next game's release and the previous games source release. All Id games seem to go open source after the next game is released so the average we're interested in is the time between the next game's release and the previous games source release. That put's Rage being open sourced later this year, so hope is not yet lost.

Also, source release date prediction 1 is based on the time between the games release and source release, with 2 being based on previous release date and next source release date, and so on and so forth.

Please discuss, and feel free to point out any math mistakes I made in the predictions or what ever. Please note that the source release dates under the predictions cell are predictions only and not official. (I know it's obvious, but just to be safe.) This is all assuming that Id is still interested in open source, which they have released some stuff after BFG Edition and even corrected a file header in the BFG's source last year (wow) so it's a definate "maybe". I want my Linux port so let's hope.


tl;dr Id Tech 5/Rage's source release is not overdue yet, don't let go of hope that the community can fix MegaTextures, lol.

[Razik Mazilya]

In addition, there is no need to worry about it not going GPL. You see, it seems Zenimax made a mistake. That mistake is basing id Tech 6 off of id Tech 5, and id Tech 5 off of id Tech 4. I might remind everyone id Tech 4 is GPL software, and that the GPL REQUIRES all modifications to GPL code be released as GPL. I know id Tech 5 is based off of id Tech 4 code, I saw a console message in Rage with a class name, out of curiousity I looked up this class name in Doom 3's (note how it's the original, not BFG, because backporting the code from id Tech 5 would be a workaround to the modifications rule). When I looked up the class name, it was there, plain and clear. Id Software admitted that id Tech 6 is based off of id Tech 5. Both of them are legally required to be open source.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but the GPL spells it out pretty clearly that all modifications to GPL source code must be published under the GPL, which means that it needs to be available in source form.

Zenimax could be in real trouble with the FSF if word gets out (so make sure it get's out lol, Zenimax deserves it after how they want to treat John Carmack).

Lawyer feedback welcome. i am looking for someone to back up my claim, even partially. Discrediting it is also welcome so I don't look like an idiot.

EDIT: Dang, why are all my posts so long?

[JD777]

Too much reading...head hurty.Good luck in your quest for hidden knowledge young one.Grasshopper goeth into the info void.Chairs have no legs and therefore you will have to sit on the floor though.

[InfinityJosh]

GPL? Gasoline!

[Razik Mazilya]

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

GPL? Gasoline!

What? What is wrong with free and open source? Besides, id Software chose to use it, they need to follow the license THEY chose.

[Razik Mazilya]

Originally posted by JD777:

Too much reading...head hurty.Good luck in your quest for hidden knowledge young one.Grasshopper goeth into the info void.Chairs have no legs and therefore you will have to sit on the floor though.

Sorry to disappoint. What are you talking about after the tl;dr though?

[JD777]

I don't know just thinking of something while typing that.Good luck in getting answers though.I don't know much about GPL.

[Razik Mazilya]

Originally posted by JD777:

I don't know just thinking of something while typing that.Good luck in getting answers though.I don't know much about GPL.

It's fine. It's a good license if you don't want people to make closed source forks of your software.

[UnKn0wN]

Carmack (he was the one who pushed gpl releases) left and id is under Bethesda, chances are high that there will never be a gpl release of idtech 5/6
also because of the way megatextures works and the requirements to bake/build maps the engine is rather unpractical and a hassle to use for small/indie projects.
in short, highly unlikely that it´ll ever gonna happen and I wouldn´t waste my time waiting for it.

[nivkaha]

Not that it matters much, (and I know this is old) but that's not how the GPL works.
If I own the copyright to code, I can release it to you under GPL but to someone else (or myself) under whatever license I want.

If they wanted to take modifications that the community made and use them in their new games or game engines, then they'd have to either get the rights/license to the modifications or release their code as GPL but otherwise they're free to do with their code whatever they want, they still own it. GPL just gives everyone else a GPL license too.

[SolivaN]

And how this affect with the acquisition from Microsoft?
We lost all hope now?

[Razik Mazilya]

Originally posted by SolivaN:

And how this affect with the acquisition from Microsoft?
We lost all hope now?

Wow, I wasn't aware people still cared.

Well, it might be a good thing with Microsoft, considering they actively support open source now.

[SolivaN]

Originally posted by Razik Mazilya:

Originally posted by SolivaN:

And how this affect with the acquisition from Microsoft?
We lost all hope now?

Wow, I wasn't aware people still cared.

Well, it might be a good thing with Microsoft, considering they actively support open source now.

Really? I never hear that microsoft turn to GPL some of his software, I'm right?

[Razik Mazilya]

Originally posted by SolivaN:

Originally posted by Razik Mazilya:

Wow, I wasn't aware people still cared.

Well, it might be a good thing with Microsoft, considering they actively support open source now.

Really? I never hear that microsoft turn to GPL some of his software, I'm right?

Maybe not GPL, but we might get a source release at some point.