Hi OpenArena - awesome work you guys are up to. So cool to play some real games on my new Linux machine. I'm interested in what you guys have against Creative Commons content - legal or philosophical reasons?

I suppose the main reason is OpenArena is distributed under GPL, and Creative Commons isn't compatible. I don't know details, but the more a licence permits distribution and offers possibilities, the more I agree with it ;-). Cacatoes
Exactly, incompatibility with GPL is the reason. GPL allows commercial explotation (as in, being included in commercial Linux distros, for example) and CC NC disallows this. GPL allows derivative works (as in, create stuff derived from OA's assets) while CC ND disallows this. The only doubts I have are with CC By and CC SA. -- 14:50, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

Why you cant implent Per-Pixel lightning? Quake 2 Evolved has it and it uses the sources of engine (GPL Quake 3 vanilla). Per-Pixel lightning would be very cool. I want to start mapping but I dont want to start on this game because there wont be this my beloved feature. 16:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (Adomas Bosanova

my suggestions

- vertex blending (shader)
- mega texture
- support for dds texture whith bump mapping
- real time shadows
- new editor for map (support for large and complex misc_object)
- effective map editor cooperation with Blender and 3ds (editor recognizes time tags; recognizes objects opacity; ambient; glossien; etc....)
- possibly external editor for bots and other map objects
- files in folders not in pk3
7--Pl777 17:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Per-Pixel lighting, and I also suggest a new sound system with thsee features:

  • No dependence with OpenAL
  • Reverb effect (map-environment-dependent)
  • HRTF
  • Floating-point (with SSE)
  • Delay due to the distance to the sound source

warning: my english may be wrong --Tcpp 11:52, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

You guys seem to be a bit confused about how licensing data files works. Edit

You guys do know that the source code and the data files don't have to be under compatible licenses, right? The code can be GPL and the data files CC, that's fine. You can even have some data files under one license and and others under another. You can't mix incompatible licenses. You can't have a program using code with two different incompatible licenses. You can't have a singular data file with incompatible licenses. GPL is not really designed for data files, and even GNU says you should use a Creative Commons Attribution license. 20:18, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Probably Leileilol knows this, but maybe decided to use a single license to make things simpler. E.g. what would be the license of a screenshot of a program which uses GPL source code ad CC textures? Using only one license makes clear it's gpl! Anyway, I'm just guessing, because I wasn't here when the project started! Another guess: maybe years ago CC wasn't available: wikipedia started with GFDL because CC-BY didn't exist at the time... they had to make a strange license to relicense everything from GFDL to CC-BY-SA (relicensing was allowed during a specific period of time only... and it was from existing GFDL stuff, not GPL stuff). --The Gig (Contact me) 22:11, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
I like to enforce open source so it can be maintained. If I can't maintain, for example, a bad quality CC-licensed player model because there's no source provided with it, then it's as good as being removed. Also, there's a lot of untrusted carelessness and stingyness when it comes to CC sources as i've seen (i.e. sound ideas sounds). There's also the annoying requirement of having a text file per asset to describe the license in case there is a license mix. It would also lead to multiple pk3 files, separated by the licensed involved, which would complicate building and make maintenance messy. OA will not go CC. Leileilol 02:26, April 28, 2012 (UTC)