There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
licensing for FarCry. As a consequence I've put together a discussion
document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
feedback from the community before we do anything.
"The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a
significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the
decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or
not the license change is right for our community, we'll either
release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0
(CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."
My post to the blog seems to have been lost in the ether (though I suspect it was an invalid captcha);
So, when you say modify the source, I take it that extensions, plugins, and projects count in this instance? Also, where would the source need to be published? I've only got one customer on FarCry Fortress and they're a health care orgination. It's not yet in production, but it was never discussed that there would be a licensing fee to use the product.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything in there that's going to cause any issues should I release the source, but the person that contracted me to do the work wasn't even fond of the idea of putting the code out on cvsdude so that multiple users could work on it. Me, I don't mind sharing code snippets as I have done so in the past here and in my blog.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:52 PM, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
> There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in > licensing for FarCry. As a consequence I've put together a discussion > document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some > feedback from the community before we do anything.
> "The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a > significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the > decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or > not the license change is right for our community, we'll either > release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0 > (CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."
Quick scenario. Most of the FarCry installs that I'll do will likely be to a shared server that is owned by the person that contracted me out as a developer. The owner hosts the sites to the customers that he contracts to. I have created my FarCry site on this server with the presumption being we'll be adding more clients as time goes on. If we provide the source code to the end customer, would this satisfy the wording of the GPL? That would seem satisfy making the programs changes available to the end users. If that's what it would take to comply with the license, that doesn't seem to be as big a deal as releasing the source into the entirety of the public domain.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:52 PM, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
> There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in > licensing for FarCry. As a consequence I've put together a discussion > document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some > feedback from the community before we do anything.
> "The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a > significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the > decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or > not the license change is right for our community, we'll either > release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0 > (CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."
I am a relatively new Far-Cry user and like many was very excited
about the upcoming release of Fortress, this was going to be the first
version of FarCry that I really wanted to sink my teeth into. This
announcement is a shock to the system to say the least as I can't
remember seeing any hint of this on any FC mailing list or preso
recently.
Anyway before I can chime in with some valuable feedback I have a few
questions:
1. Has the new Version 5 been developed entirely by Daemon staff or
does it include code and submissions from other contributors?
2. When D-day for this licencing change/ decision?
3. Under the new licensing what would happen in this situation?
A sole developer uses FarCry to create websites for his clients, he
reports bugs, submits fixes and enhancements to the FarCry team(i.e.
he contributes to the ongoing health of the FarCry project) but his
client websites usually need some degree of customisations.
Thanks, Steve Harris.
On May 7, 9:54 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@geodesicgrafx.com>
wrote:
> My post to the blog seems to have been lost in the ether (though I
> suspect it was an invalid captcha);
> So, when you say modify the source, I take it that extensions, plugins,
> and projects count in this instance? Also, where would the source need
> to be published? I've only got one customer on FarCry Fortress and
> they're a health care orgination. It's not yet in production, but it
> was never discussed that there would be a licensing fee to use the product.
> Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything in there that's
> going to cause any issues should I release the source, but the person
> that contracted me to do the work wasn't even fond of the idea of
> putting the code out on cvsdude so that multiple users could work on
> it. Me, I don't mind sharing code snippets as I have done so in the
> past here and in my blog.
On May 7, 7:52 pm, modius <mod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
> licensing for FarCry. As a consequence I've put together a discussion
> document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
> feedback from the community before we do anything.
First let me reiterate in the strongest terms -- this is not an
announcement of change. This is us discussing a possible change in
advance.
I've amended the blog post to make this even clearer:
"Important: this is something that is up for consideration and does
not constitute a decision by Daemon. We are investigating the
possibility of change, and not announcing a change."
For anyone with a project demonstrably invested in FarCry 5.0
(bleeding edge) do not be alarmed -- in the event of a license change
we would do our best to shield you from any potential license costs by
donating a license or at least only passing on any specific licensing
costs we may incur from potential OEM obligations. (Assuming you
require a Commercial license at all).
Lets discuss this in the context of whether or not it is a good thing
for FarCry, without any fear that existing projects you may have might
be put in jeopardy.
I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice -- I will put this at the
top of every post :)
On May 7, 9:54 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@geodesicgrafx.com>
wrote:
> So, when you say modify the source, I take it that extensions, plugins,
> and projects count in this instance? Also, where would the source need
> to be published? I've only got one customer on FarCry Fortress and
> they're a health care orgination. It's not yet in production, but it
> was never discussed that there would be a licensing fee to use the product.
If the client has an application confined to their own organisation,
any derivative works owned entirely by them, and they choose not to
distribute any code then those modifications are deemed to be private
and would not trigger the GPL.
If we go the GPL route, then anything that shares a memory space with
Core will potentially trigger the GPL license if you choose to
distribute the code. However, we are investigating options for a
"license exception" to allow webskins and templates to be exempt from
the GPL.
Plugins are a little bit more tricky. We'd be interested to hear how
people would like these to be treated.
I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice -- I will put this at the
top of every post :)
On May 7, 10:00 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@geodesicgrafx.com>
wrote:
> Quick scenario. Most of the FarCry installs that I'll do will likely be
> to a shared server that is owned by the person that contracted me out as
> a developer. The owner hosts the sites to the customers that he
> contracts to. I have created my FarCry site on this server with the
> presumption being we'll be adding more clients as time goes on. If we
> provide the source code to the end customer, would this satisfy the
> wording of the GPL? That would seem satisfy making the programs changes
> available to the end users. If that's what it would take to comply with
> the license, that doesn't seem to be as big a deal as releasing the
> source into the entirety of the public domain.
Firstly, if the client purchased a Commercial license they'd have no
headaches, and any other options attached to the license such as
support and prioritised bug fixing etc.
But if they want to go GPL all the way then my understanding is that
as long as their modifications are private to the one organisation,
they are not obliged to do anything. Even if their application is
hosted. Its worth noting that GPL FAQ has an odd clause about not
being able to rent a GPL application as it imposes an additional
restriction -- however, your client might simply be offering paid
hosting and a free application ;)
On May 7, 10:16 pm, "AJ Mercer" <ajmer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So it is the Farcry Framework that may need to be licensed?
> Does the fee include the CMS (and other) Plugins?
If the Core is GPL then it follows that without a special license
exception, all plugins would be derivative works and so GPL. Or rather
dual licensed to retain the option of running under the Commercial
license.
The treatment of plugins is definitely something we'd like to get
feedback on. Given the power of the plugin design, its important we
don't dampen enthusiasm for the creation of plugins by imposing
license restrictions no one is happy with.
-----Original Message----- From: farcry-dev@googlegroups.com [mailto:farcry-dev@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of modius Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:14 AM To: farcry-dev Subject: [farcry-dev] Re: FarCry License Changes
On May 7, 10:16 pm, "AJ Mercer" <ajmer...@gmail.com> wrote: > So it is the Farcry Framework that may need to be licensed? > Does the fee include the CMS (and other) Plugins?
If the Core is GPL then it follows that without a special license exception, all plugins would be derivative works and so GPL. Or rather dual licensed to retain the option of running under the Commercial license.
The treatment of plugins is definitely something we'd like to get feedback on. Given the power of the plugin design, its important we don't dampen enthusiasm for the creation of plugins by imposing license restrictions no one is happy with.
