Talk:Freedoom

NOT a separate game

It is an attempt to alter all sprites/sounds in a DOOM2 IWAD with free ones. It is an IWAD, not a separate game/remake.

Sorry, but no, that's incorrect. Freedoom as a game is completely independent and separate from the original Doom IWAD files and does not depend upon them. That has always been the case, and the intention of the project from its outset. fraggle (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that Freedoom only has the assets and not the game engine, and thus why the unsigned comment argues it isn't a standalone game. 2604:6000:1509:C143:7100:EF22:8FE4:C8C1 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Article rework

I just made a couple of edits to rework this article, as it contained some pretty egregious factual errors. I feel I ought to declare that I am one of the main developers of the project and I hope this doesn't give any perception of impropriety: I have made my changes as good faith attempts to improve the article.

There were a few things in particular that I wanted to correct:

• Naming of the Phase 2 IWAD as "The Complete Freedoom" - a name that appears to be entirely invented and the project has never used to describe that IWAD file.
• Description of the Freedoom IWADs as "based on" the original Doom games. "Based on" might be interpreted to mean "derived from", which is not true: Freedoom is an entirely original work and everything the project distributes is made from scratch.
• The false assertion that the Freedoom IWADs use the same storyline as the original game. This is factually incorrect: Freedoom has from the start deliberately sought to avoid this, and for exactly this reason includes a patch that replaces the original Doom storyline, and level and monster names.

Fragglet (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Freedoom's license

@Shaddim: Freedoom is not a source port distribution of Doom. It doesn't really care what source port it runs under, as long as it's compatible (currently, limit removing). Sure, all(?) of the Doom source ports are based on the GPL release from id Software. But in the end, Freedoom doesn't distribute any source code under the GPL. Any source code (not just the works of art that make the game), including the GENMIDI tools, are under BSD 3-clause license. It is inaccurate to state the "source code" to be under GPL.

In addition, "BSD license" is ambiguous and can mean any of the following:

• 4-clause BSD
• 3-clause BSD
• 2-clause BSD
• OpenBSD license

These vary greatly. Freedoom is under a 3-clause BSD, and should be explicitly stated to avoid ambiguity. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is: if someone distributes the binary full game Freedoom, it would be GPL due to copyleft. You disagree that the full whole game Freedoom is more under the GPL than the Bsd? Shaddim (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

ok I looked at the github page: indeed it seems Freedoom is not a full game, but content for a game enigne.... which makes the usage of the infobox quite ackward, and more complicated to explain to readers. Shaddim (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: as side-note we have now even a 0-BSD, see toybox ;) Shaddim (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Can Freedoom be considered notable only on the basis that it's based on Doom a free replacement for Doom's works of art, a notable project? (That'd be self-referencing.) I'm doubting not, but also couldn't find significant coverage outside of fan-sites. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC); edited 19:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• If {{Third-party}} is more appropriate, feel free to replace the {{Notability}} tag. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • well, maybe a complete Freedoom (with binaries) included in Debian or other distros is than a notable Doom fork/variant... Shaddim (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Not all software needs or deserves its own Wikipedia article. Not all software included in Debian GNU/Linux or other distributions have their own article on Wikipedia. This could be merged into some article as an extensive section, if WP:GNG is not satisfied. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, but we know how it will end: as extensive section it will not survive. I think it is better represented as own article on its own, and notability-... well, the criterias are not that well formualted & reasonable for many case like FOSS software (and content). I would argue as part of being many linux distros it impacted the life of thousands and is therefore relevant and notable. Reach and usage establishes notablity: in another FOSS game TripleA, it was "ruled" that with over 1 million users /downloads it might reach notability.... in 14 years of existnece Freedoom has achieved that. Shaddim (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
        • also I believe there are sources but just hard to find: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/open-source-video-games/
          • No encyclopedic notability for MakeUseOf, unfortunately. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MakeUseOf.) 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
            • which is again, I think, a mistake: I guess this page was terminated as being user created content. UCC is not a reason for non-notability, while it is often mistakenly handled like that in WP. Shaddim (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
        • https://www.wired.com/2012/09/gameception-doom-iphone/ http://www.pcgamer.com/brutal-doom-v20-footage-shows-yet-more-gore/ https://www.gamestar.hu/hir/brutal-doom-v20-freedoom-source-port-update-158267.html https://www.vg247.com/2016/01/04/free-brutal-doom-hell-on-earth-campaign-mode-download/

          • Wired may be OK, though it's on the edge of trivial mention. I don't read the language of publication at GameStar, but it seems to focus on Brutal Doom with a trivial mention of Freedoom. The VG247 article also has a trivial mention. No significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG clearly, but then again it may not need to be the main topic to satisfy if widely mentioned.

            I'd like to wait longer and see, maybe up until Freedoom 1.0 release or something. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

OFF-TOPIC: @2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1: Why you don't create a account in Wikipedia? you have more than 100 good edits on Wikipedia and seems you are familiar with rules. Editor-1 (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Moved to User talk:2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1

   – 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's exactly this sort of deletionist nonsense that drove me away from participation with Wikipedia years ago. This is a significant component of the Doom user community, and pretending than only pre Information Age 20th Century sources are notable is even more alarmingly atavistic an attitude today than it was when I gave up on dealing with this nearly a decade ago. -- 97.94.196.110 (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, WP is currently stagnating and suffocating due to useless focus on binary reliablity and notability: instead of growing and learning to manage the various shades of reliability of information. But this principle remark aside, I have not given up yet and would work on this page; do you have any good resources available for demonstrating the imapct and reach (e.g. user numbers, scientific uses, educational uses etcetc)? Shaddim (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedoom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170223043302/https://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?postid=1712898 to https://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?postid=1712898
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170217143325/https://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=85134 to https://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=85134

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Platform

Should there be a platform section, seeing as Freedoom only has game assets and no executable code? 2604:6000:1509:C143:7100:EF22:8FE4:C8C1 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Chocolate Doom compatibility

For Chocolate Doom (and its derivative Crispy Doom - which tries to make graphics crisper), FreeDoom is partly compatible - but can be used as grafting stock for any Vanilla-compliant PWAD files. FreeDM is recommended for running Doom 1 content. For Doom 2 content, including Eternal Doom, Phase 2 IWAD is required. 46.173.5.68 (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)