Difference between revisions of "Talk:License"

Revision as of 09:54, 7 November 2006

We might be pushing it by saying we strictly adhere. Perhaps a slightly softer word but still retaining the effectiveness? --Manc 18:24, 31 March 2006 (CST)

Would "oblige" be suitable? -Deathz0r 18:25, 31 March 2006 (CST)

I was thinking "diligently" or "dutifully" follows... --Manc 18:26, 31 March 2006 (CST)

I like "dutifully", "diligently" seems to be a bit too highbrow. -Deathz0r 18:28, 31 March 2006 (CST)

With all the new information on zDoom project's change to GPL willingness, just low priority, we need to update this to give that information. Additionally, as a note, it seems the same may be true for GzDoom if we need any of their resources.-- Kituskun 3:50, 7 Nov 2006 (CST)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 I like "dutifully", "diligently" seems to be a bit too highbrow. -[[User:Deathz0r|Deathz0r]] 18:28, 31 March 2006 (CST)
-== Update on zDoom status needed. ==
+With all the new information on zDoom project's change to GPL willingness, just low priority, we need to update this to give that information.  Additionally, as a note, it seems the same may be true for GzDoom if we need any of their resources.-- [[Use:KitsuKun|Kituskun]] 3:50, 7 Nov 2006 (CST)
-Considering that Randy and other zDoom contributers have said that they would allow their work to be GPLed, and that Randy would even like future versions zDoom to be GPL, but it just isn't as high priority on his project.
-Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the current 2.x tree of zDoom is in bugfix development, so major code restructuring is out of the question.
-Additionally, in my discussion with GzDoom writers conserning my upcoming Bleading Edge Doom project, once I familiarize myself with the general source tree, they seem quite inclined to grant their code too.  (In case we want another source code set.)  Of course, some of them are already also helping on OdaMex.