News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
List Of Maps With GPL Sources Available
So, just for general reference, it would be good to collect a list of all the GPL maps available, with links. I know vondur and RPG have released some, for example, and maybe others too, but there's no easy way to see what's available without browsing every mapper's files page and func archives.
Id Map Sources 
My Own Maps... 
My own maps are all available under GPL too. However, nobody can browse them right now because this new server doesn't allow directory listing. My attempt to enable it with .htaccess files didn't work, so I guess I'll just have to create an HTML page. 
Vondur (Q1 and Q3):

RPG (Q1):
On each map's page.

CZG (Q1):

Tyrann (Q1):

Nexuiz (Q3BSP):
Included in each release.
I forgot where their cvs/svn is, might be easier to snatch the sources from there.

OpenQuartz (Q1):
Included in the pak0.pak or

Tremulous (Q3BSP):
Probably included in the releases.

All the OpenArena map sources should be somewhere, I cannot be arsed to browse through that 4chan/gargoyle stuff though...

Oh well, I wanted to sleep now. 
Mine Aren't GPL 
my maps are so crapy that i have to pay for someone use my idears :p 
Email Me 
If you want the warp source - or else just get it straight from quaddicted / the shub hub.

I put a password on the zipfile: warpspasm is your open sesame. 
Just An FYI 
My Q3DM maps are also GPL. 
Didn't mention before but the original source link is broken - I also went to the site to try and post a corrected one but couldn't find the download in news archives or anywhere else.

The link works for me, try this otherwise:

czg & RPG: Whoops. :) 
Forgot the obvious. 
Tremulous Is Not GPL ... 
... it's Creative Commons share-alike with attribution.

Big difference!

GPL requires almost no overhead, whereas the Creative Commons licenses are a true nightmare with a trillion billion restrictions and all kinds of documentation requirements.

Don't forget Tyrann's maps are GPL ...

Great thread, by the way. 
Tremulous is based upon the GPL source release of the Quake 3 game engine. As a result the Tremulous code is also licensed under the GPL. This means that not only is Tremulous free in terms of monetary value, it is also free in the sense that you are free to use and examine it. 
That's The Engine, Not The Game Media 
As a result the Tremulous code is also licensed under the GPL

It's the Quake 3 engine so the engine has to be GPL. Just like how the Warsow engine is GPL or any standalone game that uses DarkPlaces.

But the game media is not GPL with Tremulous, nor is it with Warsow. The game content in Tremulous is Creative Commons Share-Alike With Attribution, a non-GPL compatible license. 
They are doing a great job not writing that on their site. Blergh. :( 
GPL ? 
No mine.. I never provided the .map file with the .bsp/.lit files...
And just a (stupid) question: what would be the benefits to provide .map files ? 
JPL: Other than if someone would more easily want to make a remake or remix of a map, I dunno... 
Ah Ah Ah 
Do you really think somebody would like to make a remake of any of my meany map ? No way.... 
That's Not True ... 
JPL, there are many reasons to release your map sources under the GPL.

Among them, someone could use structures in your maps in other maps and do it with a clean conscience and any decent person is going to credit the author.

Case in point, let's say someone wants to make a base map and wants to put some fighter jets in the hangar.

If Event Horizon's map sources were GPL, they might decide to copy those structures to the new map.

Someone who cares about licenses is going to be an honest and decent person. I mean, some dishonest person could decompile a map and take anything they want. 
Concerning the planes, it is a prefab I found on the internet... so it is already under a GPL licensing: I just changed the texturing.... so everybody can find it just "googling" it.... bad example ;)

BTW, if some people are interested by any of the structures of any of my map(e.g "Five Rivers Land" skulls, etc..), they can easily ask me via email to provide them a prefab (maybe I'll add a section on my website..)...
Well, I'd rather prefer to control who will use what I did, rather than offering it for free to the world, never knowing who would use it, crediting me or not...

Maybe I'm too "conservative"... :P 
Reasons To Release Map Source 
1. for easy demonstration of features/monsters/ideas

2. for others to learn from it ("that's how he did it")

3. for others to use stuff in their own map (no more need for prefabs) -> this increases productivity

4. should the map one day be abandoned or the author lose interest, open source allows others to fix bugs, make a Quoth version, any number of things

5. Inspiration for others

6. Show-off

7. Template for making contest/event maps (speedrunning etc.)

8. Anybody who has problems with the map can just fix them and not bug the author. "Too hard" for example could be fixed. If you opened the source for src.bsp, we could take out some of the bobs :) and some people would then enjoy the map more.

There could be remixes, chainmaps...

Please consider that you yourself are using GPL software; had id not GPLed Quake, there would be no Darkplaces, ezquake etc.

Id gave up Quake, so giving up a map (to the public) is really a comparatively small thing.

Imagine if the hipnotic monsters/weapons were GPL, projects like Quoth could just grab them and polish them up, completely legal... if their maps were GPL, mappers could just take prefabs from them, for example the rotating stuff...

sadly hipnotic was abandoned rather than GPLed. And so you have abandonware, i.e. zombie software. GPL would have prevented that.

Releasing a map source is no risk really; how many GPL map remakes have you seen? Not many. How many of them did not give credit? Even less.

But Why Does It Need To Be GPL 
GPL = Gay Pile of Love 
Releasing a map source is no risk really; how many GPL map remakes have you seen? Not many. How many of them did not give credit? Even less.
How many look like a Gay Pile of Love? Many.
You aren't too conservative. The GPL expands and eases the ability for other authors to leverage existing work, if necessary.

Just one example, RPG's Quake 3 map was used in OpenArena. The map had to be retextured, of course.

Tyrann's Aggressor was used in Nexuiz.

The above are poor examples because to me it seems unlikely that someone would re-release a GPL single player map. To me it would seem more likely that someone might use some of the structures as prefabs or building blocks of part of a map.

The beauty of the GPL is that it makes the overhead very light on someone wishing to use the work. They don't need to ask, it does not have any stiff restrictions/prohibitions or limitations on use and also assures that if your work is used, that their work must be open source as well.

Anyway, that's a personal decision for a map author to make if they want to do it or not.

One thing I've grown to more appreciate about the Quake community is the progressive nature of many in the community. I recall emailing Tyrann to ask permission to include one of his old maps in a project of mine where inclusion was in conflict with the supplied readme and he informed that I could use it and that he had GPL'd it a couple of years ago anyway. I personally was impressed by that was unaware at the time that any map authors except Metlslime had done that.

/End of me talking about that. Just wanted to explain my experience. 
I Think By Far 
the best things are
1) You can learn from the map source! Yay, new mappers to the scene. (It of course doesn't have to be GPL for this.)

2) You can make other versions of the map. For example DM versions of SP or DM maps, with some small but bad flaws removed, bugs that were found in playtesting. (It's often not possible to find these when mapping.) 
Best Way To Learn 
is to have the map you are studying running in Quake in one window and your editor up in another.

Another viable means is to have pics from architecture up in a browser while building a replica in editor. I did this recently with a very interesting building (in terms of design and history) and created about
18 prefab designs for the Indian Summer pack.

Also, isolating a design in an editor
and rebuilding it from scratch helps if you are a noobie learning how to use your editor of choice. This is where a GPLed map can be of the most help for a mapper.

Though I think the greatest value isn't so much in how it could help a mapper learn to map but in how it allows coders and modders access to materials that they would not have without having to beg some uppity;) mapper for help on a project. 
About Learning 
Best thing would be to have demo recording in the editor.

I guess if you're just starting out or looking for some complex entity magic looking at map sources might give you some answers but in general it doesn't seem very rewarding to me. 
GPL Remixes, Learning From The Masters, Other Licenses... 
Another good example was speedy's remix of e1m1rmx where he redid the monster placement, but left everything else the same.

Also, I think being able to learn from maps is important -- both for new mappers seeing how to set up standard entities (wind tunnel placement, triggered spawns, etc.) but also for experienced mappers to learn from each other's advanced tricks and hacks.

Plus you can learn some good build habits like how thick the walls are, how many brushes some objects are made out of, etc. I'd be curious to see how messy or clean other people's brushwork is, for example :)

And no, it doesn't have to be GPL to function as a learning aid, and it can use other licenses (like zlib) and still be legal to remix or sample. 
bear, maybe in the least some guru mappers could do animated gifs of some sweet brush laying... :)
There must be some screen capture program that takes shots to files via some shortcut.

Czg's arch tutorial has been one damn helpful thing for my mappistry, reducing workloads and improving quality hugely with the whole clip/stretch/shear/shear approach of complex groups. (I don't think it's even possible in radiant.)

I have a little test project about 24 sided cylinders that I should submit some day... Too bad it gives some qbsp warnings, I wonder if there are some rounding errors when I stretch stuff in WC... (Still seals fine.) 
improving quality hugely with the whole clip/stretch/shear/shear approach of complex groups. (I don't think it's even possible in radiant.)

Hello? Is there anyone in there? Are you an arch back there, and is that a barrel vault arch behind you? What!?! You were made with Radiant? No shit, really? 
A Little Voice Answers... 
... nothing in here but a rather large ego!

Sorry Headthump, I know that's not how you meant it. :D

In all seriousness, if anybody doesn't know, you can skew brushes in Radiant by holding down CTRL and then holding left click + drag outside the edges of the brush. Rather uselessly it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the documentation anywhere (not in recent versions anyway), but it still works. 
>#21 posted by czg [] on 2007/08/02 >13:10:48
>GPL = Gay Pile of Love

You use the original quake.exe?

I used to admire you. And this as end with your post. 
Mr Fribbles 
I do it out of Love,

Love of a well placed zing. 
Map Sources But No GPL 
I just said in my readmes something to the effect of "do what you like with the source, make your own maps or whatever, just give me some credit".

I've released map sources with my maps since my Wolfenstein map and also released the source to apsp1, sm28 and sm32 (the latter of which aren't wholly mine though) and do so mostly so that there is a backup of the .map and .rmf somewhere on the internet along with the bsp (containing the textures) so I can get back my maps if my pc goes up in smoke ;) 
Skew was removed in GTKR 1.5... I've brought it up with the coders but they don't seem interested in bringing it back.

But, it is true that you can't skew multiple brushes in radiant in the same way that you can in worldcraft. 
Oh Right Metl 
I wasn't aware of that. I haven't used 1.5 extensively, as I considered 1.40 to be the last known useable version of GtkRadiant.

I guess it makes sense that they removed the skew function, since they seemed intent on fucking up the base editing controls/techniques, adding extra steps and reducing workflow ease and efficiency.

Another nail in the coffin for 1.5... 
I GPL'ed my slip map today (thanks Bengt!): 
cool, but did you forget how to use winzip? 
cool, but did you forget how to use notepad? 
You Forgot The Readme.txt 
if you're only putting one file in the zip why did you use a zip at all? wtf. 
lun: all the necessary info is at the top of the .map file


neg: is the line break character in the .map not windows-compatible? 
I meant you should have included a .txt with your name and the GPL info - didn't know the info was in the .map file itself. People are too dumb to realize this. 
People are not expected to open the .map in a text editor!

You're doing good wrong! Shame on you! 
it IS the "source code" :D 
Source Code Is Displayed As Text 
map sources are not. 
.map is totally an ascii format 
The Fact Remains... 
...that no matter how many smartass comments you make, nobody could reasonably expect anyone to look inside a .map file for information that is usually provided in a seperate .txt document.

You can read the text strings in a .bsp as well, if you open it in a text editor... so you could theoretically embed your readme information in a .bsp, if you could be fucked typing it in as worldspawn keys or some shit. However, that doesn't mean you're not a tool for doing so and actually expecting people to find it. 
Center print the entire license agreement to the player when he/she starts the map or, better yet, make a giant texture out of it so that others could include it in their maps.

I am kidding, of course ;) 
a microsoft word 2007 .doc. Everybody should have that. 
I'm serious when I say a .map file is a text file... just because you do not view it that way does not mean it isn't 100% human-readable text. I was following the GPL guideline that says I should put the short version of the license at the top of the source code file. Did I do it incorrectly?

You called me a tool, fine, I now put it aside; I'd appreciate more open-mindedness in the future about these things. 
Yes. Most of us are aware that a .map is just a plain text file.

The difference between a .map and source code though is that everybody is going to open code in a text editor to view and edit it... whereas a .map is going to be loaded in a level editor.

Not everyone is even going to have .map associated with a text editor. Even those of us that do are unlikely to go looking in there unless they have a very specific reason to do so.

The point is that nobody is going to know that information is in there unless you somehow tell them (for instance, let them know by adding a note in the expected accompanying readme.txt :)

I actually think adding that info in the .map was quite clever and is a (very nerdy) "fun" thing to do. It also means that if the readme gets lost then the information is still there.

The main point that was being made though is that you want people to be able to find and read both the licensing and general information associated with your map file. In order to do that, they have to be able to find it. If you want to have it in the .map file, fine, but provide a readme file that informs the user to look inside the .map file for that information. 
Readme File... 
... like txt file are never read by players, or so few... believe me... :P 
This Is Stupid 
As soon as someone modifies the map and saves it out as something else, the comments all disappear. AFAIK no editors preserve them.

Stop being a fuckwit, ok? 
i have to say i'm somewhat bemused as to why you're so adamant to do it in such an atypical way... you only making it harder on the people who are getting the file. if you included a regular .txt file along with the info in the .map file, that would be a different matter, but flat out not including a text file is just odd. 
Necros: it's not me being an advocate for one position over another, I just find the whole "whoa wtf you put the license IN THE ACTUAL FILE?!" sentiment incredibly weird. But, as pointed out above, no one looks at these files (now that we have decent editors (it's not 1996)) and editors probably overwrite the comments. So, yeah, there's a .txt now. 
Downloaded Because I'm Gay. 
Gay for the GPL. 
Gay People League 
Where is teh src for sm.bsp? 
Like One Guy Posts His Work And What Happens 
a call for maps and nobody responds except one guy is nice enough to share his work

and you jump on him

people who don't create shit and just rag on other people make me ill 
Who exactly hasn't created anything or released anything? I think everyone here is a mapper with released maps. And many of us have also released our source files. 
Are You A Mapper Cowbot? 
Lunaran Map Sources 
legally, can it even be used in Urban Terror? That game is not GPL 
I Think.... 
they could use it, but they would have to release the source to their version of the map.... 
GayPileofLove Peer Pressure! 
Small wizard r_speeds galore Q1DM:
Small plain, curvy medieval Q1DM:
Old medium metal Q1DM:

Screenshots on the site, textures in .bsp. 
ApinaRaivo the biggest GPL map in terms of brush count? 
Quite possibly, may God have mercy on the soul of whoever tries to make sense of it :) 
I Guess... 
i forgot to add the link here, but my map sources can finally be found here: 
Spirit, do you still have the rpg / czg source files? The links at the beginning of the thread don't work anymore. 
Hm is all I have from RPG. (Unless it was some weird filename, do you know it/them?)

And czg was so nice to send me the files: 
They Had Names Like ... 
http:// /files/maps/

Czg Mapsource 
will have to look at this... 
Excellent, Thanks Baker 
Here you go:

I got them from the Internet Archive. Fixing the zip files is simply appending two null characters at the end of the file (I just took the opportunity and wrote about it ). 
Good job on rescuing those.

How did you find out or discover the null character issue? 
Actually, Once I Wanted To Fix Them, It Was Easy 
I noticed that the filesizes were "right". So I got a file that I knew I had the original and compared them. 
Silly Zip Fixer Utility 
I made this stupid zip fixer.

GUI. Windows only. 
Zip Fixes 
I predict now that someone in the future will be trying to download the zip fixer from (because the real site is no longer up) but won't be able to extract it because the zip file is corrupt... :D 
Take that you future cunts, flying around in your hover cars and reading what I'm writing now through the wayback machine version 4k. 
Best joke ever 
You Know, 
if they invent resurrection in the future, they might decide to skip those that taunted them.

I welcome our future Overlords, and hope to be of service to your every need. Every need ;) If you have lost the recipe to LSD, cocaine, good funk bass, anal sex, or any other thing that was hip in this time frame, I'm the man you need. 
Don't get taken in by Kanye West. Whatever that little bitch says, he does not represent. 
Don't kowtow to those future bastards - they'll ressurect you from a bit of your hair as a day-duration-gimp.

Also, send me your recipe for LSD. 
My Hair, Hmmm 
damn, probably all they would need to figure out the chemical composition would be a few strands of my hair. 
Come To Think Of It 
if they got a hold of Mitch Hedberg's body, I wouldn't have even that advantage.

Speaking of Mitch Hedberg, download Parliament/Funkadelic's Atomic Dog sometime; it's pretty apparent to me, his whole mannerism and voice inflection was derived from this one record. 
Scary ... 
I hadn't considered the concept that a very distant future could be reading this right now.

/No, "now" isn't a relative thing. The future is just bad lag. 
Laggy Motherfuckers 
I hate the future, by the way. 
Laggy Motherfuckers 
I hate the future, by the way. 
I'm drunk enough, gn. 
Also, send me your recipe for LSD.

Wont do that over the internets, but I have a story to share. When I was kid, my little dearly departed creole granny from Louisiana would visit us a few times a year. It was a tradition in her family to make their own root beer distilled into a concentrated form from sassafras roots. She would bring several bottles of this concoction up for me, and let me tell you buddy, that stuff would fuck you up good and hard. You were suppose to mix the stuff with tonic water or seltzer to dilute it, but I never did. Straight, no chaser! You may already know what substance this sort of root beer shares a similar chemical composition: 
Granny's Rock. 
No Map Sources But 
These are some amazing GPL sound effects: 
There are some very good sounds there.

I knew of this pack, it seems to have gotten bigger though. :)

GPL for sounds is a bit strange, since there's no source. CC would make more sense. 
GPL for content still makes sense; if you create a derivative texture/sound/etc, then your derivative texture/sound/etc must also be free for people to use. 
GPL for sounds is a bit strange, since there's no source.

The GPL defines the "source" to be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." By this definition, sound effects can well be their own source if in .wav format. For lossy formats like MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, source would probably be a lossless version. 
Practically, you run into trouble as soon as you mix GPL sounds with anything under a different license (because the result would be considered a derivative work by the GPL, and the viral aspect would kick in). The other license might not allow the work to be relicensed under GPL, in which case you have to bin the whole work.

The result is that GPL only really works with GPL, ie within the context of the GNU project. It's good for the GNU project, but bad for progress.

The GPL doesn't play nice with others, which is just as bad as commercial licenses not playing nice with others and hence puts the whole GNU mythology ad absurdum. 
Yes, but this stuff is made for games and open-source games use the GPL. So this is the best way as no license mixing is involved. Isn't that basically what you are saying too? 
In Part, Yes 
but not all open source games use the GPL. That's the bit where the problems start.

What you are saying is true only if you assume the whole environment is GPL.

Quake, for example, is different. Most mods don't use the GPL. The sounds don't use the GPL, nor do the models, skins or textures.

What I'm saying is that if you make stuff, and you want your stuff be universally usable, the GPL is not the best way to go. Public Domain is the best way to go.

GPL is the best way to go if you want your stuff to only be used in a GPL environment (ie, restrict it).

Of course there are two sides to this medal. You just pointed out the other one. 
I acknowledge that I have been very GPL zealous in the past. But I got older and more experienced :)

As an example:

(...) That, however, doesn�t change the fact that I find a position which actively tries to discourage proprietary software to be wrong, both from a practical and MORAL standpoint (hey, if Stallman can use the language of morality, so can I). I posed the following scenario in the Talkbacks to my previous blog. Say a borough or neighborhood decides they want to build a park. Since parks involve both allocations of land and resources to buy park equipment, they aren�t cheap, so the community must decide how to build something that suits everyone in the neighborhood.

Now, assume there is a group in that neighborhood who is vegetarian. Further, this group isn�t just vegetarian, but has a strong dislike for those who aren�t vegetarian. Therefore, they insist that no one be allowed to eat meat while in the park (they managed to get those who insisted that no one who eats meat anywhere, in the park or otherwise, to back down). If the neighborhood doesn�t agree to these terms, they will go off and build a park that is exclusively vegetarian, cost inefficiencies and wasted space be damned.

They have a right to do that, as it is their money they will spend on the park. Why, however, does the fact that others eat meat affect the decision not to eat meat among vegetarians? Further, however many ways you slice it, an exclusivity stance is wasteful of human effort, as now the neighborhood will have two parks. (...) 
Oh Yes! 
I thought you meant a typical (more restricting) CC license. I am all pro-"full-freedom" too. 
especially when it comes to assets(?) like sounds, textures, code snippets etc. 
Turns out I was too naive about creative commons licenses, too. Let's see:

CC Attribution license:

If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author").

CC Attribution-ShareAlike License:

You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan).

Spot the difference. The part in bold is the problem. 
the bold part is what makes it a "share-alike" license. CC has a lot of licenses, their goal is to provide content creators with choices about how to license their work. I'm not suprised that some of them are similar to the GPL.

I think the real grey area for these sorts of licenses is whether a larger work, made by assembling small pieces, is also bound by the terms of the small pieces.

i.e. if a .map is released under GPL, does and some mod uses it, does the entire mod have to be GPL, or do they merely have to re-release the .map source for the specific .bsp that was derived from the original .map?

To me the latter interpretation feels right, i mean otherwise a GPL quake engine can't be used to make a game where the art and levels are proprietery, but the engine source is released.

Therefore I would imagine that a GPL sound would merely require you to re-license any sounds or music based on it, not every level, texture, and model in your game that uses that sound. 
I guess the issue is static vs. dynamic linking. Any modern game has external data files that contain the art, music, sounds, etc, and these are "linked" at runtime, which is the reason (in my opinion) they don't get tainted by the same license as the engine code. And vice versa -- the engine doesn't get tainted by the license attached to the content it loads.

Doing some google searches, it sounds like the question of closed-source software dynamically linking to GPL software is somewhat contentious. One argument is that even if dynamic linking produces a derivative work, that work is created by the user at run-time, not by the software developer. I think the answer to this question would also answer the question of a proprietary game/mod that uses GPL content. 
Creative Commons Is A Mess In Many Situations 
The Creative Commons especially before 3.0 can be kind of a mess and requires a lot of overhead.

I read a critique of the CC by the Debian Linux people and an explanation of the strings with CC by a MMORPG game company.

There are a lot of hidden strings and caveats and CC licenses unlike the GPL aren't automatically updated to be compatible with a new version.

This means Creative Commons 2, 2.5 and 3 are incompatible with each other.

The CC is good for standalone works, but sucks for collaborative works or anything that is going to mix and match content. 
To all of you closed-source cunts who are exploiting the open-source bedrock of code released by fans in support of a nonprofit niche audience: fuck off. 
Your generic, smoldering rage notwithstanding ... who are you raging against specifically? 
Well, having decided that actually reading and comprehending the debate would take too much time, he saw the words GPL and open source and tried some fairly ineffective flame baiting. Just ignore the trolling and continue the conversation at something above pre-school level...

Speaking of which, does that really mean that you can just load whatever you want to keep non-open source at runtime without infringing the license (under either/both CC or GPL). So you could effectively sell a Quake if you created entirely new art content and just released the engine code/any improvements to it. (mebe something like Urban Terror the previously Q3 mod would be a better example, would they be able to sell that if they wanted?)

(ps. j0 momz) 
Apparently the word 'mod' is missing from that post. I'll leave you to work out where ;p

(I think it was kidnapped by evile rockers tbh) 
OHH! OOOH! I Know! I Know Where!!! 
does that really mean that you can just load whatever mod you want to keep non-open source at runtime

Is it!? Is that where it was?!?!? :DDDD

Did I get it right?! 
Does Ricky Win 
A rotfish? 
No. Fail. 
And the prize is a test tube of Shambler's piss once I recieve my damn prize from the twat competition... 
Therefore I would imagine that a GPL sound would merely require you to re-license any sounds or music based on it, not every level, texture, and model in your game that uses that sound.

Yeah, but that is enough of a problem.

Of course it's a somewhat academic problem, since I probably may not alter id's sounds, for example, legally, in the first place :-P

Even mixing a CC-Attribution-Sharealike sound with a GPL sound produces a conflict - both licenses want the derivative work for themselves. Free software cunts struggling about who gets to limit my freedom.

The dynamic linking thing (engine, pak files...) might be a loophole, but mixing sound files is a pretty static thing. Unless you create a temporary entity that plays the GPL sound at the right time, on a free channel (mixing at runtime, using the engine as a mixer). You then have a derivative work that only exists for a short time - it's performed live in a way and only recorded by the player's brain.


see? Your brain must be GPLed. Wait, that creates a license conflict.

But yeah, it's academic. Half the Quake mods out there violate some license. Luckily, they're a fringe phenomenon and their authors neither make nor have money. Most of those mods are also history.

I just found the vegatarian story pretty funny. :) 
well it's a funny place we're in. I'm planning on releasing the rubicon2 source, but i can't put any real license on it (GPL or otherwise) because it comes from sources that have no real license, such as the original progs source, the hipnotic source, and the custents source. They are merely released with the informal "you can use it to make quake mods" agreement. In fact the hipnotic code says at the top: "Do not distribute." So how did I get it then?

And then in the realm of sound effects, i have a mixed bag of modified id sounds, a couple sounds from quake2, and a couple original sounds i made. Then I have considered using some legal GPL or CC sounds too, but it's funny because I will be sure to follow those licenses correctly even while having the stolen game sounds mentioned above, for which I'm obviously not using the license correctly. 
It;s Just Life So Make The Most Of It 
The few, the proud, the people that make a Quake mod.

Licenses are a fad, by 2300 they'll look back and view us as silly cavepeople in an embryonic stage of human thought. 
All My Maps Are GPL 
I updated my website and the readme files of my maps a few months ago, all my maps are released under the GPL. The map files are included in the zip archives. 
Single Zip 
I took all the Q1 GPL map sources and made a zip of the zip. List of authors: Vondur, RPG, Negke, Jago, Tyrann, Metlslime, Lunaran, "other" Spirit, id1 (plus Aquashark's "fixed" id1 map sources, the "end" map wasn't quite like the end.bsp) and the OQ maps.

License for Warpspasm .map source sounds near public domain so included that too.

Annoyingly, this took 1.5 hours to do (tracking them down, download, broken links, etc ...)

Next time:

Find Trinca's map sources and include, maybe assemble all the Q3 open source ones (Nexuiz, RPG, Lunaran, Sock, whoever else ...) and maybe even Q2 ones as well (Metlslime). 
my speedmaps also have sources released, but i guess there's no link to them on my website... i'll hae to find the url when i get home. 
aderlass zip is broken. So is neg3beta (which is a DM map anyway). Incidentally, I repackaged all my DM map scraps into a single zip just yesterday. 
My Speedmapping Source Files 
Here they are: sm37 sm49 sm55 sm60 sm74 sm80 
Is public yeah - glad someone saved that. 
Thanks Baker 
Just don't try looking at the maps. 
thanks guys 
oh, I don't think the czg terra sources are in that are they? if you want I can send them to you to add to a future version or whatever 
Re #124 
Oops, I didn't realize actually got deleted from my files directory somehow. It's fixed now. 
I think I have those already, but thanks for the notification. I'll end up making another .zip sometime in the future with general .map sources.

czg's sources are a different license than the ones in that zip and for clarity I want to keep the zip "same license", especially because subplots #2 and #3 are that I have a big reworked Nexuiz .wad that I trying to organize and break out into prefabs as hopefully more than a "thought experiment".

Random comment: Negke's brushwork is so very creative. 
Random Response 
Thank you, Sherlock :D 
But Yeah 
The amount of creativity in one of Negke's speedmaps puts most full maps to shame. 
And Some Episodes 
Valve 220 Format + WADs 
Very partial set (25 maps +/-) with a big WAD containing their textures (can't change the textures without knowing how the brush is supposed to be textured) and also Valve 220 format versions for Worldcraft 3.3.

/@ijed: Usually I don't play speedmaps and the Vertical Map I only killed about 16 monsters or so ... I'm ashamed to admit I never found the secret levels in Travail but I don't want anyone to tell me either because eventually I'll replay Travail yet again. 
So Uhhh 
Don't judge a book by its cover then!

Baker, I take it you've exhaustively played the vertical map on DM instead? What's the verdict? ;) 
Skinny Norris 
Hehe, the monster "density" was quite high and I looked up and saw how much more there was and looked at my health bar and since I am unwilling to cheat, I think I kinda gave up. ;)

Progression was very difficult and for whatever reason when playing I am usually primarily motivated by cool looking areas I can see but cannot get to and with Skinny Norris I imagined Scrag and Vore hell.

This was back at the time you released the map, way back when ...

Not a criticism of the map, everyone has different map styles they like plus I'm biased towards base/industrial themes. I'll have to try Transloquake with moon base and discover the secret entrance in Travail ;)

I'm actually kind of embarrassed about how few of your maps I've played. 
I don't know how to say this without sounding like an ass, but I tend to not play high-concept maps, which include most of negke's. I look at them, and appreciate what they're trying to do, but they're not accessible enough for me.

I'm more likely to start up PRBOOM and bash through Knee-deep in the Damned a few times, than to replay many of the top rated Q1SP maps of the last few years. Because that doesn't require me to - how should I put this - deal with the designer's artistic ambition.

Quoth maps also confront me with the artistic ambition of Quoth, not just the mapper.

Many Q1SP are like exquisite statues of twistedness, or monuments of brutality. Usually when I get the urge to play some FPS, I don't want to be dragged to an artistic exhibition and suffer through an academic speech where an artificial concept is hammered into my skull. I want to pull out the shotgun, switch off the thinker and kill some freaks. 
So in that vein ... what makes a solid, classic Quake map for you? What would you prefer that mappers concentrate on, if making a vanilla Q1SP map? 
It's Funny That You Say That As 
That pretty much sums up my dislike of RemakeQuake. 
What Is The Problem... 
.. with the artistic veins of Quake ? I don't understand why when mappers try to do something different but a brown-ish standard Quake map, there are systematically either boycotted or considered as outcasted of the community... (I am exagerating, I admit...) Nonconformism is what makes the world moving forward, else humanity still would have continued to be what it was 10000 years ago... though... 
That's fine. Some like gimmicky maps, others prefer oldschool run-and-gun gameplay (tip: coag skill 2). In this sense, Doom is indeed more suited for this, because it has better weapons and, unlike Quake, is properly balanced. This also affects one's stance towards the montercount.

statues of twistedness, or monuments of brutality - I like this one. 
i'm curious, could you list a few more examples of the "high concept" maps that you don't really like? I thought i understood what you were saying until you mentioned Quoth, and now i don't understand again. :) 
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2020 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.