>GPL did not bring out the desired goal, that is, advancing 3D games and the FPS genre
Well that's not so easy to measure, since the lessons developers have learned from Id's codebases aren't necessarily so explicitly stated, as a learning resource the Doom 1-3 & Quake 1-3 sources have been invaluable to many game devs.
>"mod community" banging on 30 year old tech because that's all that's "free"
Seems more like a problem with the culture of game development, getting the sources for 20+ year old games if the planets align shouldn't be the norm but it is. Also the things people accomplish with those very old engines are very often more experimental and innovative than what you generally get from the modern industry, you have to at least appreciate the dedication involved.
>I'm pretty sure there was a Doom 2, Quake 2, Q3A...
Well yeah, but Doom 1+2 and Quake 1 have the most popularity in large part due to what the community does with them, which gets spread around various places and gets people outside those communities interested in playing these new mods and total conversions.
>Are you saying Id is making money off of Doom and Quake today?
Yep, for Id it's a very low maintenance deal: By providing the games on Steam and other stores (generally just the original DOS versions wrapped with DOSBox) players buy the games, then take the data files and play them with source ports and mods developed completely by outside devs, Id doesn't need to get involved at all and can just let the money come in.
>Presumes source port developers would keep their changes to themselves
I base that on observations of other scenes where sharing your work isn't a requirement.
>which is fine too, as it actually introduces diversity and competition
Personally I don't think so, in those scenarios you often get certain projects having lots of control over the community, where what they say goes and people have much less power to mitigate the damage in the event of a lead dev with bad intentions.
>you would have to play the original versions instead because the superior source ports didn't all release their code?
That's fair, I didn't think that completely through. My concern was more about the issue of continuous maintenance when developers inevitably stop working on their port and that project is closed source, such that eventually you end up needing a jenga tower of fixes for fixes of ports as operating systems and hardware move on.
>Gotta be kidding me...
My point was about Id software since 2016, not during their '90s successes. The original Doom 4 was a 50 shades of brown modern shooter, which they scrapped and instead took great inspiration from Brutal Doom and the Doom community in general.
>and it happened before any source release
Id game modding pre-source code was actually far more limited than what people create now with modern ports, Doom for example only had Dehacked which is very primitive compared to the power of technologies like Zscript.
>not because you can play it on linux with normal-mapping or shadows 10 years later
The continued development enabled their games to remain much more relevant than they would be, it's the long term of a game that source releases benefit most.
>if you're not GPL you're proprietary
My impression was part of your issue with GPL was that it could contaminate proprietary projects through code observation (GPL enforcement mainly seems to affect more flagrant violations like outright code copying from what I've seen), but maybe that's a misunderstanding.
>releasing as GPL is a death sentence for code - no one will do anything of worth with it
Well Linux is the obvious counter point to that, Torvalds doesn't even care about FOSS but he got lots of code contributions out of it which is what he wanted.
>It is also not "free"; it places restrictions on its use and obligations on the user
That's about maintaining freedom, otherwise you can end up in a situation like MINIX & Intel where big players can take things for themselves and try to prevent others from having the freedom they did (Intel ME).
>or *gasp* charge money for them
You can sell GPL software, that is one of the core features of Stallman's idea of software freedom after all. For example, Krita is GPL3 but sold on storefronts like Steam.
>code of incredible value was essentially put in a museum
New games are being made with these engines and sold, they're hardly untouchable artifacts that you can only glance at.
>MIT, BSD, Apache, ZLib, etc. are the de-facto games industry standard free licenses for a reason
Yes because the software business in general likes having absolute control (especially over users) and keeping their code to themselves where possible, that doesn't mean that long term it's the best strategy: The money spent on remasters for instance could be greatly reduced with community engines, not only increasing revenue for re-releases but making it much easier to keep a game somewhat relevant without having to invest nearly as much in upkeep of that game.
>Arguments about the linux kernel or cryptographic software are not applicable here
They're good examples of why GPL works so I don't see how that isn't applicable.
>Is this a legal thing? Cover your ass thing? I don't understand
Maybe devs just believe it's a good idea, preservation is a major aspect of source port development and copyleft helps keep updated code available over a longer time period.
>"games made with (source port)" results in exactly 0 games
For GZDoom there's quite a number (including games like Hedon, Vomitoreum etc):
On Quake (Darkplaces) there's Wrath: Aeon Of Ruin, Xonotic, Nexuiz Classic and perhaps others I can't think of.
>you'd make a clean-room copy of some legendary game like 007 Goldeneye or Halo 1 or Ocarina of Time or some shit
007 is in the works, OOT is already done.
>Then you'd actually have something more than a line on your gamedev resume
As a counter point I'd mention Kaiser from the Doom community, he did lots of stuff for Doom and now works at Nightdive as a programmer, his Kex engine is what powers most of their remasters.