

Id to release Doom3 source code - aqrashik
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36383/Id_To_Release_Doom_3_Source_Code.php

======
sanxiyn
"Note that Doom 3's famous shadow renderer is based on technology patented by
Creative Labs."

This is a very sad situation, given that this technology was independently
rediscovered and popularized by John Carmack. He learned about the patent only
after the fact.

~~~
runevault
To me that whole debacle was one of the biggest examples of the problems with
the patent system today. For all intents and purposes Creative patented a
mathematical formula.

~~~
commandar
It's worse than that, really. Creative _bought_ a company (3D Labs) that
patented a mathematical formula. Creative wasn't even directly responsible for
coming up with the technique.

~~~
bryanh
I don't think most people take issue with the fact that patents are
purchasable or otherwise transferable.

If I create a valid, useful (non-software) patent, I should be able to sell or
license it in any way I see fit.

The issue is software patents, at least in these circles.

~~~
slowpoke
>I don't think most people take issue with the fact that patents are
purchasable or otherwise transferable.

I do, because I object to the absurd concept of ownership over ideas. Software
patents just take the absurdity to the utter and bizarre maximum. There is no
benefit for humanity to be gained through patents, they merely hinder our
technological advancement.

~~~
rcfox
> There is no benefit for humanity to be gained through patents, they merely
> hinder our technological advancement.

I disagree. There are three alternatives (that come to mind) to patents:

1) Make all information freely accessible to anyone. This is the one we'd all
like everyone to do. However, there's very little (economic) incentive to
innovate when you do all of the heavy thinking and anyone else can just come
along and beat you to the implementation.

2) Stop innovating. If you can't protect your ideas, you might as well just
stop trying.

3) Hide your information. Only you can benefit from the information if no one
else knows about it. (You can't license information and keep it a secret at
the same time!) There are laws to help protect you, but you also have to do a
lot of work to protect yourself. You can also keep your information secret
indefinitely.

By filing a patent, you're telling the world how to do something (allegedly)
new. In 20 years, (or longer/shorter, depending on the country) everyone is
freely able to use the idea.

~~~
rgoddard
The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and
solving problems. If you were to do so, you open yourself for further
liability down the road. Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers
the same solution independently, even though, your patent did not help them in
anyway.

~~~
rcfox
> The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and
> solving problems.

Tell that to the generic-brand pharmaceutical companies. ;)

> Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers the same solution
> independently, even though, your patent did not help them in anyway.

In the old way, where you had to actually present an implementation of the
patented idea, I imagine this would have encouraged inventors to innovate more
rapidly. The current system is very broken, and allows patents for things like
the perpetual motion machine. (I'd try to provide a link, but engineers
shouldn't be looking at patents.)

"Oh, you're trying to genuinely improve our lives? Too bad I already came up
with the idea in the shower one day and wrote it down before you did! But I'm
willing to let you go ahead and try for $40 million."

~~~
burgerbrain
If it can be shown that you can show that you have a history of reading
patents, then it can be argued that you wilfully infringed. It certainly makes
defense much harder. Patent lawyers generally recommend that engineers NOT
read patents for that reason.

~~~
ars
What about reading only expired patents?

~~~
burgerbrain
I don't know, I'm not a patent lawyer myself.

I suspect however, that they would advise you this is a risky activity.

------
aninteger
This article is almost a month old now. I'd guess we will see a release around
December like they have done in the past. I wouldn't expect anything before
October. This will be the first id software release in c++ and it will be
interesting to see what subset of the c++ language they used.

~~~
barrettcolin
You can get a pretty good idea from looking at the mod sdk code, which is
available from here: <http://iddevnet.com/doom3/>

There's quite a lot available in the game code; the physics system at least,
maybe also the script interpreter? I haven't looked in a while.

------
empika
I'm sure Carmack says alot more about the patent issues and open sourcing the
engine in the keynote. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zgYG-_ha28>

~~~
spdy
It is amazing how technical his talk is it`s really intressting if you have a
progamming background.

And it just so different to any other keynote for a game i have ever seen.

edit: 5 mins to the end he talks about the doom3 opensource

------
hiena03
I hope they include the changes to the engine made for ET:QW. I'm particularly
interested in megatexture. But they say "Doom3 source code" not Id tech 4, so
they probably won't.

------
shabble
There's a nice writeup of someone going through the original quake code:
<http://fabiensanglard.net/quakeSource/index.php>

Seems to turn up in most threads about iD engine source/dev - I'll do it this
time :)

~~~
aw3c2
And if you want to follow an experienced programmer's quest to make a fast and
stable DirectX9, C++ Quake engine then follow <http://mhquake.blogspot.com/>

------
DuqE
I know nothing about game development, I just play them, but would be
interested in seeing the source code of this game.

~~~
dmaz
Carmack has released id's previous engines, they're pretty interesting to
read, and folks are still maintaining them. The technology ioquake3[1] is 10
years old now, but well-maintained as an open-source project. Darkplaces[2] is
a heavily-updated Quake I engine that maintains backwards compatibility with
Q1 while using fairly modern game programming techniques. Google ported
Darkplaces to NaCl a while ago, and it has renderers in OpenGL, Direct X, and
OpenGL ES now.

[1] <http://svn.icculus.org/*checkout*/quake3/trunk/README> [2]
<http://git.xonotic.org/?p=xonotic/darkplaces.git;a=summary>

------
a3_nm
No mention of license, though.

~~~
fserb
previous games were released under GPL, this one should probably follow.

~~~
coob
yes but which version :)

~~~
burgerbrain
Almost without question v2. That is what they used in the past and this time
there are patent issues to boot.

------
yason
I must say that, unlike with Doom I and II, it will certainly be more exciting
to wade through the source code and learn tricks than actually play the game
and wade through the endless monotonic, boring action.

~~~
aw3c2
Doom 3 is actually a very nice if somewhat cheesy horror shooter.

------
ScaryPlotter
August 4, 2011 ?

