Looks pretty good. Lighting in particular shows a lot of attention, which you mention in the
file 'some_notes'. Anybody who goes to the trouble to get 'natural' light sources
to work gets extra props from me. Also, I like the scale better than the scale of, say, the PAD maps.
The GPL thing isn't as hard as it looks. You've done some good work, and since it
looks like you'd like for the OA project to accept it, and I think the project would
like to have it, would you mind doing a little more so that foxhill2 can be GPL v2?
If so, please make a pk3 without the music file. Also, have your model maker,
hyp3rfocus, release his models under GPL v2. You and hyp3rfocus should
each create a notice file like the first example under
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#TOC4. Of course, a
map and its assets aren't a program, so the line
"one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does."
would be, for your work, the name of the map and a description of
the assets (the other files), along with what it is used for. hyp3rfocus' version of the file
would name the three model files and a short description of what
they're used for.
You could name these files somthing like LICENSE.foxhill2 and LICENSE.md3s
respectively, and put them into the pk3 also. The GPL v2 license itself is
usually in a file named COPYING.txt, which you would also put into the .pk3.
The above would be a good start. The final
decision, however, will be made by the ever-vigilant fromhell.
For other readers, I have described how the map and assets could be
packaged in a 'stand-alone' zip/pk3 file that would fit the requirements
for GPL v2 as I understand them. Perhaps there are different
requirements for the OA project. Pointers to wiki articles, forum posts,
etc. that are relevant would be helpful. The subject of packaging maps
for GPL is a bit fuzzy, seems to me, and now is as good a time as any
to develop a standard for acceptable packaging.