I need some assistance on chosing a software license
Björn Ritzl
I plan to open source my mobile roguelike Dweller, but I have a hard
time picking a license. Part of it is probably the fact that English is
not my native language, the other is the "legal jargon" and finally the
sheer amount of available licenses to chose from. I have read through
quite a few licenses, checked comparisons on wikipedia etc, but I would
still like some input from people with experience from open source projects.
My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
something I would like to avoid).
Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
So, is there someone who would like to give some input and help me out?
Thanks in advance!
/Björn
Ido Yehieli
> My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
> package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
> something I would like to avoid).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
> Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
> either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
None of the licenses that google code allows can prevent people from
repackaging and selling your code (which would make it not Free
Software according to the FSF's definition).
-Ido.
Jeff Lait
> On Apr 15, 8:41 pm, Björn Ritzl <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
> > package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
> > something I would like to avoid).
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
The lawyers will quickly point out that you aren't supposed to use
that for software because somehow, magically, prose that can be read
by a computer is different than prose that is read by a human.
It is probably the best choice, however. Any machine compilation,
IMHO, must be a derivative work, just like I can't reformat a text
file and then claim that the original license doesn't apply to the
result.
I went with the sampling license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/,
as it allows total-transformations to break free from my code and
other people to extract algorithms from the code.
It nicely prohibits people from making small changes and
redistributing, addressing the "Now with space orks!" concern, but
does allow people to make small changes required to get it to run on
different platforms, so porting remains legal.
If you don't mind people forking Dweller into Dweller++, the plain by-
nc is likely best for your needs.
> > Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
> > either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
>
> None of the licenses that google code allows can prevent people from
> repackaging and selling your code (which would make it not Free
> Software according to the FSF's definition).
It is somewhat odd that the "by" clause, so incredibly required by all
artists so as to not even be an option in the CC world, is enough to
make you anti-free software.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
Ido Yehieli
>
> It is somewhat odd that the "by" clause, so incredibly required by all
> artists so as to not even be an option in the CC world, is enough to
> make you anti-free software.
The clauses that conflict with the FSF's definition are the optional
non-commercial and no-derivatives ones, not the attribution ("by") one.
Walter Landry
> My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
> package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
> something I would like to avoid).
Do you object to someone handing out CD's and charging $1.00 each? If
you use the GPL, no one is going to make very much money.
> Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
> either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
Whatever you choose, it should be GPL compatible
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
Given that, just GPL it and do not worry so much.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
wla...@caltech.edu
Jeff Lait
I was thinking about all the objection to the original BSD license.
The consensus in software seems to have become that one should never
require any form of attribution as doing so is too burdensome.
Jeff Lait
> Björn Ritzl <nos...@nospam.org> writes:
> > My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
> > package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
> > something I would like to avoid).
>
> Do you object to someone handing out CD's and charging $1.00 each? If
> you use the GPL, no one is going to make very much money.
I think he's worrying about someone repackaging for a closed
ecosystem, such as a phone environment. Here the republisher can
happily charge full price and give you the ported source code,
confident you can't publish on that medium yourself due to TPM type
restrictions.
GPL v3, IIRC, tries to close that loop hole. But then you run the
opposite risk of not being able to enter those ecosystems yourself.
You need to effectively keep your code dual-licensed to ensure you
don't lose your own ability to release a locked down version. (Which
you may have to do as a stipulation of being in said ecosystem at all)
A lot of the FLOSS arguments make excellent sense for utilities and
libraries which are natural building blocks or are sensible to extend
in arbitrary directions. They make less sense when your product is a
completed artistic object, such as a game.
And don't get me going on "open engine, closed art content" models for
game development which suggest all the "value" of a game is in the
static content.
> > Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
> > either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
>
> Whatever you choose, it should be GPL compatible
>
> http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
I'm not sure those reasons apply to Bjorn's problem domain.
The aggressive lack of an NC style license for software is rather odd
considering every other artistic medium happily embraces that model.
Look at the pain Angband has trying to go to GPL due to lingering NC
conditions. Which is annoying because the goal of being GPL isn't to
enable commercial work, but merely match FLOSS standards.
> Given that, just GPL it and do not worry so much.
If your intent is merely not to worry, don't license it. Keep full
copyright. Accept all patches as things that roll into your own
copyright. If someone wants to do fork, they can always ask you. And
if you disappear from the 'net forever, no amount of illegality will
prevent your followers from being able to compile the code.
And, if some day, you decide to GPL, or BSD, or whatever? No problem.
Krice
> I plan to open source my mobile roguelike Dweller, but I have a hard
> time picking a license.
The first and obvious question is why do you want to open source it?
If there is a real need for open source release then the license
is really not that important, providing that it's not GPL or any
of that ass-stupid bullshit. In civilized countries (mainly EU) you
can release shit without huge-ass-stupid licenses and you get to
keep the copyright and control to your work anyway. These license
problems come mainly from US, the land of the free. But let's not
care about them, they are lesser people in a less developed country.
Mike Blackney
What on earth are you talking about, you insensitive jackass?
--
mike blackney
mi...@mikeblackney.com
Grillen Verboten!
Paul Donnelly
> On 15 huhti, 21:41, Björn Ritzl <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> I plan to open source my mobile roguelike Dweller, but I have a hard
>> time picking a license.
>
> The first and obvious question is why do you want to open source it?
That was my thought too. If you don't specifically want to enable
forking or solicit contributions from people who only write open-source
software, you can still do a source release, full copyright retained. Is
it because some sites won't host closed-source projects?
Dirk Zimmermann
Here's my personal rundown of the major licenses:
LGPL and BSD-style licenses will enable others to make a lot of money
with your code, GPL restricts that to distribution fees, any CC
license is very clear on that.
That leaves us GPL and CCs in your case. GPL is very well-defined for
source code and executable code, CC is well-defined for assets like
sound/music and pictures. I don't really know how to remix, mashup or
sample source or object code, and I'd wager a judge wouldn't know
either. GPL is very clear on that.
With both you can retain full copyright on your own portions of the
code. E.g. with GPL you can still sell your parts of the code with you
as the single copyright holder to third parties who want to build on
your codebase without making their sources public.
The main downside of GPL in your case are those distribution fees. I
guess you could interpret that as making money from your work, though
you can imitate the same steps any time with the same effort or less
(if it required some code changes/porting ...).
In the end I think that with GPL you will attract more developers and
invite more forks and ports since it's so well-defined for source
code.
// Dirk
Patric Mueller
>
> Here's my personal rundown of the major licenses:
>
> LGPL and BSD-style licenses will enable others to make a lot of money
> with your code, GPL restricts that to distribution fees, any CC
> license is very clear on that.
That's incorrect. The GPL doesn't restrict the selling price of the
compiled runnable product to distribution fees.
"Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you
should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that
you should charge as little as possible - just enough to cover the
cost. This is a misunderstanding."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
> With both you can retain full copyright on your own portions of the
> code. E.g. with GPL you can still sell your parts of the code with you
> as the single copyright holder to third parties who want to build on
> your codebase without making their sources public.
As the original developer of the code he is not bound by the license
he put his code under. The license is only important to others. So
this is not a feature of the GPL itself.
Bye
Patric
--
NetHack-De: NetHack auf Deutsch - http://nethack-de.sf.net/
NetHack for AROS: http://sf.net/projects/nethack-aros/
UnNetHack: http://apps.sf.net/trac/unnethack/
Patric Mueller
>>
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
>
> The lawyers will quickly point out that you aren't supposed to use
> that for software because somehow, magically, prose that can be read
> by a computer is different than prose that is read by a human.
Do you have a link for that? This is not obviously clear to me why.
I know of the problems about using the GNU FDL for prose (see what
pain the Wikipedia had to endure because they used it and how
difficult it was to change), but for the CC-BY-NC?
> It nicely prohibits people from making small changes and
> redistributing, addressing the "Now with space orks!" concern, but
> does allow people to make small changes required to get it to run on
> different platforms, so porting remains legal.
I find the racism against space orks in the roguelike development
community and therefore the lack of many SF-themed roguelikes highly
disturbing.
Patric Mueller
>
> I was thinking about all the objection to the original BSD license.
> The consensus in software seems to have become that one should never
> require any form of attribution as doing so is too burdensome.
Yes, but it's only a problem because it's too burdensome not because
it would make the license non-free.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD
Björn Ritzl
That is a valid question. I would like to make the Dweller code base
publicly available for two reasons:
1 To increase the quality of the code (by receiving patches and code
reviews)
2 To get help porting to new Java based platforms where I do not have
the hardware and or knowledge to port and test myself
Other stuff like being able to host it on SF or Google Code is also a
plus since I get a lot of stuff free (version control, bug tracking,
release management etc)
I'm not sure about branching off to make a variant. It's not super
important that it is possible or prohibited because of the license. As
long as a bracnhed version/variant isn't sold for profit.
/Björn
Björn Ritzl
> Björn Ritzl<nos...@nospam.org> writes:
>> My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
>> package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
>> something I would like to avoid).
>
> Do you object to someone handing out CD's and charging $1.00 each? If
> you use the GPL, no one is going to make very much money.
Do people still distribute small projects like Dweller that way? I
prefer digital distribution myself, and can't see the point in
distributing Dweller in any other way.
>> Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
>> either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
>
> Whatever you choose, it should be GPL compatible
>
> http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
>
> Given that, just GPL it and do not worry so much.
>
> Cheers,
> Walter Landry
> wla...@caltech.edu
/Björn
Perdurabo
Use the MPL.
Googlecode/Sourceforget etc accept it happily, and it doesn't have the
murkiness that comes with the GPL when you try to use it with modern
software tools and techniques in terms of libraries, linking and 3rd
party components (and yes, I've had guidance from the FSF on this and
its still as clear as mud)
It also doesn't have the virality that the GPL has - the MPL has no
stipulations that anything you link or build into your program has to
be MPLed also, or that you can only link or build with exclusively
MPLed apps - the only thing that has to be MPLed is your own code.
You can also dual-license your code with the GPL if you really want
to.
Best,
P.
Björn Ritzl
> On Apr 15, 7:41 pm, Bj�rn Ritzl<nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I plan to open source my mobile roguelike Dweller, but I have a hard
>> time picking a license. Part of it is probably the fact that English is
>> not my native language, the other is the "legal jargon" and finally the
>> sheer amount of available licenses to chose from. I have read through
>> quite a few licenses, checked comparisons on wikipedia etc, but I would
>> still like some input from people with experience from open source projects.
>>
>> My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
>> package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
>> something I would like to avoid).
>>
>> Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
>> either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
>>
>> So, is there someone who would like to give some input and help me out?
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>
> Use the MPL.
I read the license now and feel a bit stupid. I don't see where in the
license it say that it is not allowed to repackage my code and sell it
for profit. Could you point out what section I should read?
>
> Googlecode/Sourceforget etc accept it happily, and it doesn't have the
> murkiness that comes with the GPL when you try to use it with modern
> software tools and techniques in terms of libraries, linking and 3rd
> party components (and yes, I've had guidance from the FSF on this and
> its still as clear as mud)
>
> It also doesn't have the virality that the GPL has - the MPL has no
> stipulations that anything you link or build into your program has to
> be MPLed also, or that you can only link or build with exclusively
> MPLed apps - the only thing that has to be MPLed is your own code.
>
> You can also dual-license your code with the GPL if you really want
> to.
>
> Best,
> P.
/Bj�rn
Ido Yehieli
That's a very sensational way of putting it.
It's hardly the consensus. The BSD license is considered GPL
compatible by the FSF and you would find very few (albeit loud) people
advocating against it.
-Ido.
Ido Yehieli
> GPL v3, IIRC, tries to close that loop hole. But then you run the
> opposite risk of not being able to enter those ecosystems yourself.
> You need to effectively keep your code dual-licensed to ensure you
> don't lose your own ability to release a locked down version.
You do not face that risk if you are the only copyright holder. You
can GPL version n and release version n+1 as closed source - although
you won't be able to retroactively un-GPL version n, and you won't be
able to port changes other people did to it to n+1 without their
explicit consent.
If we are talking one-man projects like Dweller and POWDER it's a lot
less messy than e.g. NetHack or Angband (where you'd have track down a
ton of people who contributed along the years in order to change the
license).
Ido Yehieli
>
> > Use the MPL.
>
> I read the license now and feel a bit stupid. I don't see where in the
> license it say that it is not allowed to repackage my code and sell it
> for profit. Could you point out what section I should read?
>
It doesn't say that, MPL is similar to LGPL.
Note that you can also just take an existing license (like MIT/BSD)
and just add a "may not be used commercially" clause, e.g.:
----
Copyright 2010 Björn Ritzl. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are
permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of
conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list
of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
3. Redistributions must be free of charge and not used for
commercial purposes.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY BJÖRN RITZL ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
BJÖRN RITZL OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation
are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as representing official
policies, either expressed
or implied, of Björn Ritzl.
Patric Mueller
Jeff was talking about the *original* BSD license. The "4-clause BSD
license", the one with the advertising clause.
That original BSD license is *not* GPL-compatible as the FSF says so
themselves on their site:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
There are two other so called BSD licenses that are GPL compatible.
The Wikipedia has nice overview over all and what differences they
have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
Jeff Lait
> Ido Yehieli <ido.yehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 3:20 am, Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I was thinking about all the objection to the original BSD license.
> >> The consensus in software seems to have become that one should never
> >> require any form of attribution as doing so is too burdensome.
>
> > That's a very sensational way of putting it.
>
> > It's hardly the consensus. The BSD license is considered GPL
> > compatible by the FSF and you would find very few (albeit loud) people
> > advocating against it.
>
> Jeff was talking about the *original* BSD license. The "4-clause BSD
> license", the one with the advertising clause.
Thank you for clarifying. I was referring to the original BSD. I'm a
big fan of the modified BSD and release all my 7DRLs under it.
I think the original BSD went too far with attribution, but in the
resulting backlash there has been a "all attribution is too
cumbersome" Which seems odd considering we're dealing with computers
that could easily auto-collate some meta data to build the relevant
contribution info.
Jeff Lait
> Walter Landry skrev 2010-04-16 01:33:
>
> > Björn Ritzl<nos...@nospam.org> writes:
> >> My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
> >> package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
> >> something I would like to avoid).
>
> > Do you object to someone handing out CD's and charging $1.00 each? If
> > you use the GPL, no one is going to make very much money.
>
> Do people still distribute small projects like Dweller that way? I
> prefer digital distribution myself, and can't see the point in
> distributing Dweller in any other way.
I doubt anyone would distribute Dweller that way. But what if Dweller
is added to the latest Ubuntu release? And the resulting CD set is
sold for $1 each? Would this then be commercial exploitation of
Dweller, even though the marginal value of Dweller is $0?
Jeff Lait
> Paul Donnelly skrev 2010-04-16 08:02:
>
> > Krice<pau...@mbnet.fi> writes:
>
> >> On 15 huhti, 21:41, Björn Ritzl<nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >>> I plan to open source my mobile roguelike Dweller, but I have a hard
> >>> time picking a license.
>
> >> The first and obvious question is why do you want to open source it?
>
> > That was my thought too. If you don't specifically want to enable
> > forking or solicit contributions from people who only write open-source
> > software, you can still do a source release, full copyright retained. Is
> > it because some sites won't host closed-source projects?
>
> That is a valid question. I would like to make the Dweller code base
> publicly available for two reasons:
>
> 1 To increase the quality of the code (by receiving patches and code
> reviews)
>
> 2 To get help porting to new Java based platforms where I do not have
> the hardware and or knowledge to port and test myself
These can be fulfilled without any licensing.
> Other stuff like being able to host it on SF or Google Code is also a
> plus since I get a lot of stuff free (version control, bug tracking,
> release management etc)
>
> I'm not sure about branching off to make a variant. It's not super
> important that it is possible or prohibited because of the license. As
> long as a bracnhed version/variant isn't sold for profit.
Well, GPL is a pretty big poison pill for selling for profit. It
doesn't prohibit it. But it makes it very impractical. You can
always demand their branch version of the source and then re-release
at $0. I'd make sure it is v3 so it has the TPM protections.
I think GPL might be your best bet. The only other question is if you
intend to be able to close-source at your option in the future. If
so, you should make that clear so people who submit patches understand
that the patched code base can be de-GPLified. (Without, of course,
affecting the copies already in the wild)
Jeff Lait
> Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
>
> > The lawyers will quickly point out that you aren't supposed to use
> > that for software because somehow, magically, prose that can be read
> > by a computer is different than prose that is read by a human.
>
> Do you have a link for that? This is not obviously clear to me why.
It is not at all clear to me, either :>
> I know of the problems about using the GNU FDL for prose (see what
> pain the Wikipedia had to endure because they used it and how
> difficult it was to change), but for the CC-BY-NC?
By "prose that can be read by a computer" I meant computer programs.
Not books. CC-BY-NC is quite useable on books, no one doubts that.
It is whether you use it on computer programs that people say you
can't.
I don't understand. Apparently something about "objects" makes it not
tenable. Which to me is inane - object files and binaries are just a
side effect of a computer parsing your code. Or is CC-BY-NC valid for
scripting languages and invalid for compiled languages? Or the
ambiguity of what "mashing up" a computer program means - it means
pretty much the same as "mashing up a novel" where the text of the
novel is the text of the computer program.
Walter Landry
> Walter Landry skrev 2010-04-16 01:33:
>> Björn Ritzl<nos...@nospam.org> writes:
>>> My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
>>> package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
>>> something I would like to avoid).
>>
>> Do you object to someone handing out CD's and charging $1.00 each? If
>> you use the GPL, no one is going to make very much money.
>
> Do people still distribute small projects like Dweller that way? I
> prefer digital distribution myself, and can't see the point in
> distributing Dweller in any other way.
There are people who distribute complete Linux distributions. For example,
I know that they used to show up at trade shows. If you put in an
annoying "No $" clause, it makes their job harder for no appreciable
benefit.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Walter Landry
> On Apr 15, 7:33 pm, Walter Landry <wlan...@caltech.edu> wrote:
>> Björn Ritzl <nos...@nospam.org> writes:
>> > My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
>> > package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
>> > something I would like to avoid).
>>
>> Do you object to someone handing out CD's and charging $1.00 each? If
>> you use the GPL, no one is going to make very much money.
>
> I think he's worrying about someone repackaging for a closed
> ecosystem, such as a phone environment. Here the republisher can
> happily charge full price and give you the ported source code,
> confident you can't publish on that medium yourself due to TPM type
> restrictions.
>
> GPL v3, IIRC, tries to close that loop hole. But then you run the
> opposite risk of not being able to enter those ecosystems yourself.
> You need to effectively keep your code dual-licensed to ensure you
> don't lose your own ability to release a locked down version. (Which
> you may have to do as a stipulation of being in said ecosystem at all)
The problem here is that you want to make things asymmetric: you want to
do things with other people's code that you will not let them do to your
code. It is hard to have much sympathy for this position. It is true
that some of these environments have pretty draconian developer
agreements (e.g. Nintendo does not allow GPL'd code on the Wii). Those
environments also tend to require a rather large outlay of cash to
legitimately get your game on it. So I do not know how much of a real
problem this is. Judging by Björn's followup, I do not think this is
the problem he is envisioning.
> A lot of the FLOSS arguments make excellent sense for utilities and
> libraries which are natural building blocks or are sensible to extend
> in arbitrary directions. They make less sense when your product is a
> completed artistic object, such as a game.
Many games have parts that could be interesting for others to use. That
is the whole basis of Angband and variants. Also, I did not think that
any of these games are ever "completed". Even POWDER is fun to play,
even though you never seem to finish it ;)
> And don't get me going on "open engine, closed art content" models for
> game development which suggest all the "value" of a game is in the
> static content.
>
>> > Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
>> > either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
>>
>> Whatever you choose, it should be GPL compatible
>>
>> http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
>
> I'm not sure those reasons apply to Bjorn's problem domain.
It is still nice to reuse GPL'd code. For example, another game might
have an implementation of Fringe Saving A* that you like.
> The aggressive lack of an NC style license for software is rather odd
> considering every other artistic medium happily embraces that model.
> Look at the pain Angband has trying to go to GPL due to lingering NC
> conditions. Which is annoying because the goal of being GPL isn't to
> enable commercial work, but merely match FLOSS standards.
Not just that. The Angband license did not even allow $1.00 CD's.
>> Given that, just GPL it and do not worry so much.
>
> If your intent is merely not to worry, don't license it. Keep full
> copyright. Accept all patches as things that roll into your own
> copyright. If someone wants to do fork, they can always ask you. And
> if you disappear from the 'net forever, no amount of illegality will
> prevent your followers from being able to compile the code.
That is not the most polite thing to do. I mean, this is just a
roguelike. Why make people's life harder? The GPL will prevent pretty
much all of the bad behavior.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Jeff Lait
> Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > A lot of the FLOSS arguments make excellent sense for utilities and
> > libraries which are natural building blocks or are sensible to extend
> > in arbitrary directions. They make less sense when your product is a
> > completed artistic object, such as a game.
>
> Many games have parts that could be interesting for others to use. That
> is the whole basis of Angband and variants. Also, I did not think that
> any of these games are ever "completed". Even POWDER is fun to play,
> even though you never seem to finish it ;)
Poor choice of words on my part, I don't think artistic projects are
ever completed so much as abandoned :>
I was trying to get to the idea of a moral right. Utilities and
libraries are less likely to generate a sense of a moral right with
the author. I know I have no objections to how someone would abuse
randomm3u. But games are, at least for me, a personal expression of
creativity that lives outside of the code itself. As such, I
understand well Thomas Biksup's position re: ADOM forks. And hold a
similar sort of anti-fork policy for POWDER. I am willing to concede
this may be due to some selfish/meanness of my character, but I'm not
willing to apologize for it.
I do agree that there are parts of a game that are interesting for
others to use! That actually is a strike against the GPL, IMHO,
because if someone wants to use my LOS algorithm they are forced to
GPL all their code. LOS is a really tiny small part of a roguelike,
so I think it is unfair for me to make such a demand in exchange for
such a trivial amount of code.
This is why I prefer the BSD licenses for my 7DRLs so people can cut
and paste freely. With POWDER, where I have similar commercial
concerns as Bjorn, I went with the Sampling Plus license since it
allows you to "sample" the source code, ie, pull out an algorithm here
ore there, without imposing any licensing other than attribution.
In any case, opening up a closed source project is a scary prospect.
I hope Bjorn doesn't let the usual license flamewars deter him. I put
off releasing POWDER's source code for years due to these sort of
license issues. I am happy to say that, now, having released it for
two years, doing so was a good thing.
If nothing else, release with no license (ie, full copyright
retained), since that would gain you most of the advantages and you
can always add a license later.
Ido Yehieli
> On Apr 16, 9:10 am, Patric Mueller <bh...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > Jeff was talking about the *original* BSD license. The "4-clause BSD
> > license", the one with the advertising clause.
>
> Thank you for clarifying. I was referring to the original BSD. I'm a
> big fan of the modified BSD and release all my 7DRLs under it.
Oh, sorry - my bad.
David Damerell
>I do agree that there are parts of a game that are interesting for
>others to use! That actually is a strike against the GPL, IMHO,
>because if someone wants to use my LOS algorithm they are forced to
>GPL all their code.
Only if you insist! You could permit - either by dual-licensing or when
people ask - sampling of the LOS code.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Saturday, April - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Sunday, April - a weekend.
Ray
> LGPL and BSD-style licenses will enable others to make a lot of money
> with your code, GPL restricts that to distribution fees, any CC
> license is very clear on that.
Hrm. "distribution fees" is not a limitation in price, it's just what
people *call* the price. In practice, it doesn't go very high because
there is near-perfect competition among the resellers and their costs
approximate the cost of the distribution media plus a (somewhat less
than fair) wage for handling. But there's no legal restriction against
resellers making a profit if they can.
If you want your program ever to be included in (say) a linux distribution
you pretty much have to let people put it on a disk, possibly along with
a bunch of other stuff, and charge money for the disks. The Angband
license until a year or two ago forbade selling Angband, and as a result
it could not be included on distribution disks. Finally they managed
to contact all the contributors and got permission to relicense it GPL.
Björn Ritzl
No, if Dweller would be added to the latest Ubuntu release I would not
object as my contribution to the relase as a whole would be minimal.
This is really tricky. I mean, if Dweller would be distributed on
mini-SD, MMC, memory stick micro or similar mem cards and sold with only
a very tiny margin I would somehow feel "robbed", even though I would
probably never set up a similar way of distributing Dweller myself. And
if Dweller would be pre-installed on handsets (as if that would ever
happen in a million years!) I would definitely want to have a say.
> --
> Jeff Lait
> (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
/Björn
Björn Ritzl
> On Apr 16, 9:59 am, Walter Landry<wlan...@caltech.edu> wrote:
>> Jeff Lait<torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
> In any case, opening up a closed source project is a scary prospect.
> I hope Bjorn doesn't let the usual license flamewars deter him. I put
> off releasing POWDER's source code for years due to these sort of
> license issues. I am happy to say that, now, having released it for
> two years, doing so was a good thing.
Your answers have been very helpful so far! I've toyed with the idea of
opening up Dweller for quite some time now, but the whole license issue
kept me from doing so.
> If nothing else, release with no license (ie, full copyright
> retained), since that would gain you most of the advantages and you
> can always add a license later.
Yeah, I might do that. Although GC or SF would not support it.
> --
> Jeff Lait
> (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
/Bj�rn
Ido Yehieli
I believe BitBucket will let you host your sources without any license
restriction.
E. Liddell
> Hey guys,
>
> I plan to open source my mobile roguelike Dweller, but I have a hard
> time picking a license. Part of it is probably the fact that English is
> not my native language, the other is the "legal jargon" and finally the
> sheer amount of available licenses to chose from. I have read through
> quite a few licenses, checked comparisons on wikipedia etc, but I would
> still like some input from people with experience from open source
> projects.
>
> My main concern is that I do not want someone else to take the code,
> package, sell and make money out of it (not very likely but still it's
> something I would like to avoid).
>
> Second, is that I would like to find a license that is available on
> either Sourceforge or Google Code (perferably Google Code).
>
> So, is there someone who would like to give some input and help me out?
There's a minor license called the AFPL (Aladdin Free Public License)
that probably meets your no-commercial-repackaging criterion, but by
definition a license that restricts commercial reuse won't be allowed on
Sourceforge, and Google Code only allows a small number of very popular
licenses, so you would have to find other hosting. The AFPL isn't GPL-
compatible, isn't considered a Free Software License by the FSF, and has
never been very popular. Ultimately, you may be better off just letting
the commercial-reuse thing slide.