@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ In the great debate of copyleft vs permissive free licenses we, as technological
- By adopting copyleft one is **embracing and supporting the copyright laws and perpetuating the [capitalist](capitalism.md) ways** ("marrying the lawyers") because copyleft relies on and uses copyright laws to function; to enforce copyleft (prevent "disallowed" use) one has to make a legal action (while with permissive license we simply basically give up the rights to make a legal action). Copyleft chooses to play along with the capitalist bullshit [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md) game and threatens to [fight](fight_culture.md) and use force and bullying in order to enforce *correct* usage of information.
- In a way it is **[bloat](bloat.md)**. Copyleft introduces **legal complexity**, [friction](friction.md) and takes programmers' [head space](head_space.md) (every programmer has to study a bit of copyright law nowadays due to such BS), especially considering that copyleft is also probably largely ineffective as **detecting its violation and actual legal enforcement is difficult, expensive and without a guaranteed positive outcome** ([FSF](fsf.md) encourages programmers to hand over their copyright to them so they can defend their programs which just confirms existence and relevance of this issue). The effort spent on dealing with this is a wasted human time. Sure, corporations can probably "abuse" permissive (non-copyleft) software easier, but we argue that this is a problem whose roots lie in the broken basic principles of our society ([capitalism](capitalism.md)) and so the issue should be addressed by improving our socioeconomic system rather than by bullshit legal techniques that just imperfectly and many times completely ineffectively try to cure the symptoms while strengthening the system's mechanisms.
- **The scope of copyleft is highly debatable, introducing doubt/uncertainty** (which is why we have different kind of copyleft such as *strong*, *weak*, *network* etc.). I.e. it can't be objectively said what exactly should classify as violation of copyleft AND increasing copyleft scope leads to copylefted software being practically unusable. You may say "so what", but in law clarity is extremely important, it may also discourage people because they don't really know what they sign up for, commercial use may also be discouraged by this for the same reason which may have a similar effect to a non-free license that downright disallows commercial use. Consider this **example**: [Linux](linux.md) is copylefted which means we can't create a proprietary version of Linux, nevertheless we can create a proprietary operating system of which Linux is part (e.g. [Android](android.md) in which its proprietary app store makes it de-facto owned by [Google](google.md)), and so Linux is effectively used as a part of proprietary software -- the copyleft is bypassed. One might try to increase the copyleft scope here by saying *"everything Linux ever touches has to be free software"* which would however render Linux unusable on practically any computer as most computers contain at least some small proprietary software and hardware. The restriction would be too great.
- **Copyleft drags people into activism, leaving less place for actual creativity** -- one of the best examples is [Richard Stallman](rms.md) and his [GNU](gnu.md) project, who were quite active in programming at their beginning but soon turned more or less just into a into a political activist group, spending time on petitions, propaganda, certifications ([RYF](ryf.md), ...) and generally just the same kind of bullshit [fights](fight_culture.md) that capitalists like (often attacking even those who make free software, e.g. the *GNU boot* project for infringing on the name GNU without permission). Stallman himself said "he no longer programs because he has more important things to do". Maybe you say this has nothing to do with copyleft, but it's not a coincidence, copyleft is a mindset of constantly having to "protect" (as opposed to "letting go", the permissive mindset), for example once web applications appeared, the GNU people were suddenly all about having to make new licenses such as [AGPL](agpl.md) to [update](update_culture.md) to the newest trends in technology and society. Any time a new technology or kind of legal abuse emerges, they have to update their licenses. Choosing copyleft really means choosing to be this kind of warrior and guard of right and wrong, which of course takes away some of your creative potential, with many people just giving in completely.
- **Copyleft licenses have to be complex and ugly** because they have to strictly describe the copyleft scope and include lots of legal [boilerplate](boilerplate.md) in order to make them well defendable in court (copyleft is really about preparing for a legal war) -- and as we know, complexity comes with bugs, vulnerabilities, it makes it incomprehensible to common people and imposes many additional burdens. Indeed, we see this in practice: the only practically used copyleft licenses are the various versions of GPL of which all are ugly and have historically shown many faults (which is again evident from e.g. looking at GPL v1 vs v2 vs v3). This introduces great license compatibility issues, headaches for programmers who should rather be spending time programming and other similar bullshit. Permissive licenses on the other hand are simple, clear and well understandable, they aren't as much preparing for a court battle as trying to give other hackers a peace of mind and make them free of legal worries.
- **Copyleft prevents not only inclusion in proprietary software but also in permissive FREE software.** I.e. as a consequence of denying code to corporations collateral damage is done by also denying code to ethical free software that wishes to be distributed without copyleft conditions. Similarly to how proprietary software forces free software programmers to reinvent wheels by rewriting software as free, copyleft forces permissive free software programmers to reinvent wheels and rewrite copylefted code as permissive. In this way copyleft [fights](fight_culture.md) not only proprietary software, but also other kinds of free software.
@ -16,10 +16,14 @@ Doom was followed by Doom II in 1995, which "content-wise" was basically just a
## Doom Engine/Code
Doom source code is written in [C89](c.md) and is about 36000 [lines of code](loc.md) long. The original system requirements stated roughly a 30 MHz [CPU](cpu.md) and 4 MB [RAM](ram.md) as a minimum. It had 27 levels (9 of which were shareware), 8 weapons and 10 enemy types. The engine wasn't really as flexible in a way "[modern](modern.md)" programmers expect, many things were hard coded, there was no general scripting or whatever, new games using the engine had to usually modify the engine internals.
Doom source code is written in [C89](c.md) and is about 36000 [lines of code](loc.md) long. The original system requirements stated roughly a 30 MHz [CPU](cpu.md) and 4 MB [RAM](ram.md) as a minimum. It had 27 levels (9 of which were shareware), 8 weapons and 10 enemy types. The engine wasn't really as flexible in a way "[modern](modern.md)" programmers expect, many things were hard coded, there was no [scripting](script.md) or whatever (see? you don't fucking need it), new games using the engine had to usually modify the engine internals.
The game only used [fixed point](fixed_point.md), no [float](float.md)!
The **Doom engine** was revolutionary and advanced (not only but especially) video game graphics by a great leap, considering its predecessor [Wolf3D](wolf3D.md) was really primitive in comparison (Doom basically set the direction for future trends in games such as driving the development of more and more powerful [GPUs](gpu.md) in a race for more and more impressive visuals). Doom used a technique called **[BSP rendering](bsp.md)** that was able to render [realtime](realtime.md) 3D views of textured environments with distance fog and enemies and items represented by 2D [billboards](billboard.md) ("sprites"). No [GPU](gpu.md) acceleration was used, graphics was rendered purely with [CPU](cpu.md) (so called [software rendering](sw_rendering.md), GPU rendering would come with Doom's successor [Quake](quake.md), and would also later be brought to Doom by newer community made engines, though the original always looks the best). This had its limitations, for example the camera could not tilt up and down and the levels could not have rooms above other rooms. The geometry of levels was only static, i.e. it could not change during play (only height of walls could), because rendering was dependent on precomputed BSP trees (which is what made it so fast). For these reasons some call Doom "[pseudo 3D](pseudo3d.md)" or 2.5D rather than "true 3D". Nevertheless, though with limitations, Doom did present 3D views and internally it did work with 3D coordinates (for example the player or projectiles have 2D position plus height coordinate), despite some dumb YouTube videos saying otherwise. For this reason we prefer to call Doom a **primitive 3D** engine, but 3D nonetheless. Other games later used the Doom engine, such as Heretic, Hexen and Strife. The Doom engine was similar to and competing with [Build](build_engine.md) engine that ran games like [Duke Nukem 3D](duke_3d.md), Blood and Shadow Warrior. All of these 90s shooters were amazing in their visuals and looked far better than any [modern](modern.md) shit. Build engine games had similar limitations to those of the Doom engine but would improve on them (e.g. faking looking up and down by camera tilting, which could in theory be done in Doom too, or allowing sloped floor and dynamic level geometry).
The **Doom engine** was revolutionary and advanced (not only but especially) video game graphics by a great leap, considering its predecessor [Wolf3D](wolf3D.md) was really primitive in comparison (Doom basically set the direction for future trends in games such as driving the development of more and more powerful [GPUs](gpu.md) in a race for more and more impressive visuals). Doom used a technique called **[BSP rendering](bsp.md)** (levels were made of convex 2D sectors that were then placed in a BSP tree which helped quickly sort the walls for rendering front-to-back) that was able to render [realtime](realtime.md) 3D views of textured (all walls, floors and ceilings) environments with primitive lighting (per-sector plus diminishing lighting), enemies and items represented by 2D [billboards](billboard.md) ("sprites"). No [GPU](gpu.md) acceleration was used, graphics was rendered purely with [CPU](cpu.md) (so called [software rendering](sw_rendering.md), GPU rendering would come with Doom's successor [Quake](quake.md), and would also later be brought to Doom by newer community made engines, though the original always looks the best). This had its limitations, for example the camera could not tilt up and down and the levels could not have rooms above other rooms. The geometry of levels was only static, i.e. it could not change during play (only height of walls could), because rendering was dependent on precomputed BSP trees (which is what made it so fast). For these reasons some call Doom "[pseudo 3D](pseudo3d.md)" or 2.5D rather than "true 3D". Nevertheless, though with limitations, Doom did present 3D views and internally it did work with 3D coordinates (for example the player or projectiles have 2D position plus height coordinate), despite some dumb YouTube videos saying otherwise. For this reason we prefer to call Doom a **primitive 3D** engine, but 3D nonetheless. Other games later used the Doom engine, such as Heretic, Hexen and Strife. The Doom engine was similar to and competing with [Build](build_engine.md) engine that ran games like [Duke Nukem 3D](duke_3d.md), Blood and Shadow Warrior. All of these 90s shooters were amazing in their visuals and looked far better than any [modern](modern.md) shit. Build engine games had similar limitations to those of the Doom engine but would improve on them (e.g. faking looking up and down by camera tilting, which could in theory be done in Doom too, or allowing sloped floor and dynamic level geometry).
Doom also has a [deterministic](determinism.md) [FPS](fps.md)-independent physics which allows for efficient recording of [demos](demo.md) of its gameplay and creating [tool assisted speedruns](tas.md), i.e. the time step of game simulation is fixed (35 tics per second). Such demos can be played back in high quality while being minuscule in size and help us in many other ways, for example for verifying validity of [speedruns](speedrun.md). This is very nice and serves as an example of a well written engine (unlike later engines from the same creators, e.g. those of [Quake](quake.md) games which lacked this feature -- here we can see how things get progressively shittier in computer technology as we go forward in time).
Indexed ([palette](palette.md)) mode with "only" 256 colors was used for rendering. Precomputed color tables were used to make dimming of colors faster.
Doom also has a [deterministic](determinism.md) [FPS](fps.md)-independent physics which allows for efficient recording of [demos](demo.md) of its gameplay and creating [tool assisted speedruns](tas.md), i.e. the time step of game simulation is fixed (35 tics per second). Such demos can be played back in high quality while being minuscule in size and help us in many other ways, for example for verifying validity of [speedruns](speedrun.md). This is very nice and serves as an example of a well written engine (unlike later engines from the same creators, e.g. those of [Quake](quake.md) games which lacked this feature -- here we can see how things get progressively shittier in computer technology as we go forward in time).
There is no [antialiasing](antialiasing.md) in the engine, i.e. aliasing can be noticed on far-away textures, but it is suppressed by the use of low-res textures and dimming far-away areas. There is also no edge smoothing (kind of misledingly known as "antialiasing") in the geometry rendering, the engine is [subpixel](subpixel.md) accurate in rendering of the top and bottoms of the walls, i.e. the line these boundaries form may result in rasterizing slightly different pixels even if the start and end pixel is the same, depending on the subpixel position of the start and endpoint -- this feature doesn't much help in static screenshots but makes animation nicer.
Jesus Christ (also Jesus of Nazareth, about 4 BC to 33 AD) was a carpenter preacher that was said to be the son of [God](god.md), whose life along with supposed miracles he performed is described by the [Bible](bible.md) (specifically its New Testament), and who is the center figure of [Christianity](christianity.md), the world's largest religion; as such he is probably the most famous of all men in [history](history.md) (probably followed by [Hitler](hitler.md), kind of his opposite). In fact we count our years more or less from his birth. He gained many followers as he preached that God has decided to change his laws a bit and accept all "well behaved" people into his heaven kingdom (i.e. not just [jews](jew.md) as was the case until then). For causing a great social disturbance by this he was later crucified, as he himself predicted -- according to the Bible he sacrificed himself by this to redeem the sins of all people, was resurrected after death and came up to the heaven to dwell by the God's side. Without subscribing to any mass religion or even having to believe in [god](god.md), our [LRS](lrs.md) is greatly aligned with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ, especially that of [non violence](non_violence.md), [love](love.md) of all people (even one's "enemies"), modesty, frugality etc.
Jesus Christ (also Jesus of Nazareth, about 4 BC to 33 AD) was a [jewish](jew.md) carpenter preacher that was said to be the son of [God](god.md), whose life along with supposed miracles he performed is described by the [Bible](bible.md) (specifically its New Testament), and who is the center figure of [Christianity](christianity.md), the world's largest religion; as such he is probably the most famous of all men in [history](history.md) (probably followed by [Hitler](hitler.md), kind of his opposite). In fact we count our years more or less from his birth. He gained many followers as he preached that God has decided to change his laws a bit and accept all "well behaved" people into his heaven kingdom (i.e. not just [jews](jew.md) as was the case until then). For causing a great social disturbance by this he was later crucified, as he himself predicted -- according to the Bible he sacrificed himself by this to redeem the sins of all people, was resurrected after death and came up to the heaven to dwell by the God's side. Without subscribing to any mass religion or even having to believe in [god](god.md), our [LRS](lrs.md) is greatly aligned with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ, especially that of [non violence](non_violence.md), [love](love.md) of all people (even one's "enemies"), modesty, frugality etc.
As perhaps the most influential man in history whose image has been twisted, used and abused over the centuries, we have to nowadays distinguish two separate characters:
