LICENSING AND PLUGINS

About the actual programming of the game.

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby mrout » Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:26 am

Pseudonym wrote:The central issue here is what constitutes a "derivative work". The GPL FAQ has an opinion on the matter which has never been legally tested. No country's copyright act (as far as I'm aware) mentions dynamic linking, static linking, or forking and execing.

One option is to release under the GPL along with a statement that we do not consider plugins which a) can be distributed separately, and b) use only this API as being "derivative works". Another option is to dual-licence (say, GPL and QPL).


Or better, we could release along with the GPL something saying "We agree with all the opinions of the GPL FAQ in relation to plugin licensing, and by using this license you agree to them too." (or something to that effect).
mrout
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby SunShiranui » Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:54 am

mrout wrote:
SunShiranui wrote:One thing I've seen in some Minecraft servers is that they often have some custom server mods with their own gamemode. I thought it was pretty cool as it gave people a reason both to host and play in special servers. I think that we should at least allow for that sort of thing to happen, because I think it would encourage game server hosters to host public Trillek servers. I agree that we should encourage open source software as possible, but we should still allow for things like this.


How does that benefit us? If all the high quality mods are closed source, that removes a massive source of reference material for newer and less experienced potential mod creators to reference.


What happens in Minecraft is that most mods are open source (at least that's what I remember, it could just be they're easily reverse-engineered), but some servers have servers side mods that make their server unique.
The benefit is that since hosting big servers requires good infrastructure, and good infrastructure is pricy, things like this would give server hosters more reason to host trillek servers since they can create a more unique experience and "compete" with other servers in this way.
It's not necessarily what we want, but it's worth thinking about.

IMO that's absolutely what we don't want - people building proprietary games off our engine.

I don't know, I quite like the idea of seeing more games - not necessarily open source ones, which are in general less practical to develop professionally for most devs - based on our engine. What wouldn't be cool is people just taking the game, changing a few things here and there and selling it as closed source. But otherwise I'd like to see both closed source and open source developers contributing to our engine.
SunShiranui
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 2:07 pm

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby mrout » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:02 pm

SunShiranui wrote:
mrout wrote:
SunShiranui wrote:One thing I've seen in some Minecraft servers is that they often have some custom server mods with their own gamemode. I thought it was pretty cool as it gave people a reason both to host and play in special servers. I think that we should at least allow for that sort of thing to happen, because I think it would encourage game server hosters to host public Trillek servers. I agree that we should encourage open source software as possible, but we should still allow for things like this.


How does that benefit us? If all the high quality mods are closed source, that removes a massive source of reference material for newer and less experienced potential mod creators to reference.


What happens in Minecraft is that most mods are open source (at least that's what I remember, it could just be they're easily reverse-engineered), but some servers have servers side mods that make their server unique.
The benefit is that since hosting big servers requires good infrastructure, and good infrastructure is pricy, things like this would give server hosters more reason to host trillek servers since they can create a more unique experience and "compete" with other servers in this way.
It's not necessarily what we want, but it's worth thinking about.


They just have to distribute the source of the mods. They wouldn't be exclusive to that one community, but that's a good thing! That means everyone will have access to them, for learning and for extension. I don't think there's any doubt people will still make custom servers. Things like extra models and stuff won't need to be redistributed.

I just don't think it's worth throwing away the server licensing to have those mods? Maybe others disagree? I'm certainly a lot more flexible on GPL vs. AGPL for the server than I am on LGPL vs. GPL for the engine/core.

IMO that's absolutely what we don't want - people building proprietary games off our engine.

I don't know, I quite like the idea of seeing more games - not necessarily open source ones, which are in general less practical to develop professionally for most devs - based on our engine. What wouldn't be cool is people just taking the game, changing a few things here and there and selling it as closed source. But otherwise I'd like to see both closed source and open source developers contributing to our engine.


More games? Sure, I like that idea. But why would we want them to possibly be closed source?
mrout
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby tecywiz121 » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:23 pm

From what I understand of the two licenses, the AGPL is a stronger version of the GPL that wouldn't allow for non-distributed one-off server mods.

If my understanding is correct, my preference is AGPL.
User avatar
tecywiz121
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby SunShiranui » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:33 pm

mrout wrote:More games? Sure, I like that idea. But why would we want them to possibly be closed source?

We don't want them to be closed source, but realistically, we're going to see more games if we use a non-restrictive license. I doubt that we'll see any games other than some community-ran ones otherwise (which we don't see a lot of, or at least I don't). If we go for something more permissive, we'll see both the community games and the professional ones.
SunShiranui
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 2:07 pm

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby mrout » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:58 pm

Good! I would rather see nobody using the engine than someone making a closed source game with it.
mrout
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby SunShiranui » Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:14 am

I fear that our views here might be unreconcilable, but may I ask why? I personally can't see the problem as long as they release every improvement to the engine itself.
SunShiranui
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 2:07 pm

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby mrout » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:28 am

I already explained: because they're using our work to produce a closed source game.
mrout
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: LICENSING AND PLUGINS

Postby SunShiranui » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:44 am

I see. Let's see what others think about it.
SunShiranui
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 2:07 pm

Previous

Return to Code

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron