Things About Legal and Licences that You Should Know

Last edited by ido66667 on Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:49 pm; edited 11 times in total

Now, First...

Free Liceses Types:
Copyleft: When you modify or redistrbute the work, You have to keep the license of the orginal work, And all Modifications will have to use the same terms.
Permissive: You don't have to keep the orginal work license, You can change it.
Copyfree: Only direct Modifications are required to keep the orginal work license.

Why I think we should use the GPL/LGPL?
We are using GPL/LGPL, Becuase we to protect the project Against Abusers...
We will use GPL for the Program itself, and LGPL for the Libs that we may create if we need one.

If you ask "Why GPL/LGPL"?
There was an other option for a licence... "Creative commons share alike"...
In the creative commons, Things like source code or linking form source code were not mantioned, As the Lisence was not orginaly created for Software.
There is also the BSD, Scroll down to see about it.
The GPL/LGPL were created Mostly for software.
Here is a little explantion:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/243196/what-is-the-difference-between-creative-commons-and-gpl-licensing

And if you ask "Does it give us any other stuff?"
We will have some Buddies... Like:
http://gpl-violations.org/
That will help us if someone abused the game and infringed our Rights.
You know, everybody need buddies, Like Developers need google.

A little task for the developers:

To protect our code... Post the following in every source file:

Code:: /*
This file is a part of thrive, An RTS game.
Copyright (C)
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see .
/*

Or at least post the copyright file and where the full GPL can be found.
Remeber to include the text version of the GPL in the Game Dictationary and Installtion GUI... I mean, When you install the game the installtion also unpacks a Text file too, that contains the GPL, And When the users runs the Installtion GUI, Or maybe A console/Terminal installtion, He is asked to accept the Terms of the GPL before he installs the game.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

For the libs I don't find how to add the LGPL In a clear Instactions... We can also use the GPL, But It will deny linking to Property (Property, NOT Commercially!) devs, But that Sciocont's Decision, I would like to know what he thinks.

The BSD Licences:

I myself don't want to use one of the BSD Licences, I think it will not protect us, The BSD Licence is Permissive, One can modfiy the source and change to another licence, That means that he don't have to keep it open source, It may not really effect the project, But if someone does a game based on our code, he can basicly start selling it without giving out the source code.

Not sure why Roadkill want to use it... It may be easy to read an short, But that does not mean anything!

Here is some stuff on the BSD Licences:
There are more than one Versions of it.
It is Permissive.

This is the First one, It is very old:

Code:: Copyright (c) .
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
advertising materials, and other materials related to such
distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
by the . The name of the
University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

4-clause license, known as the old BSD or the Ad clause, as it reqiures authors that do ads for their to include an acknowledgment of the orginal source code they used for their work, in the ads.

Code:: Copyright (c) ,
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. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the .
4. Neither the name of the nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ''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 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 3-Clause BSD Licence, Known as The new BSD licence, It is compatible with the GNU GPL and The OSI (Open Source Initiative) also acknowledged it.
It alows unlimited redistribution as long you keep the copyright notice and The no warranty part, it also restrics use of contributors names for endorsement a derived work if you don't have permission.

Code:: Copyright (c) ,
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 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.
* Neither the name of the nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "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 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 2-clause license known as FreeBSD Licence or the Simple BSD Licence, as it is a simplefied version of the BSD Licence, and it is used in the FreeBSD Operating system.
It is compatible with the GPL.

Code:: Copyright (c) ,
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.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "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 THE COPYRIGHT OWNER 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 the FreeBSD Project.

The MIT License:

The MIT Licence is also permissive.

Here is the Common from of it:

Code:: Copyright (C)

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

The Apache License:

The Apache license is a permissive license, used by the ASF (Apache Software Foundation), Mostly for ASF Software, But can be used for non - ASF software...
It is FSF and OSI approved, and also GPL compatible.

Here is Apache License 2.0

Code:: TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION

1. Definitions.

"License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.

"Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the copyright owner that is granting the License.

"Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.

"You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License.

"Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files.

"Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types.

"Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below).

"Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.

"Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."

"Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently incorporated within the Work.

2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:

You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and

You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and

You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and

If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License. You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.

5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.

6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.

7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.

8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

For any other questions just ask, And I will edit this Topic.

P.S.
Sciocont, Can you make this post Sticky?

Last edited by roadkillguy on Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:49 pm; edited 3 times in total

Can someone tell me why the licensing for the game has been discussed exclusively by non-developers? I personally dislike the GPL, and prefer BSD-style licensing. Specifically, FreeBSD.

Who even decided on open-source anyway?

roadkillguy wrote:: Can someone tell me why the licensing for the game has been discussed exclusively by non-developers? I personally dislike the GPL, and prefer BSD-style licensing.

Who even decided on open-source anyway?

open source was agreed on ever since the beginning I believe. As for who is discussing licensing, you can say something at anytime.

Don't worry this is something ido has been doing a lot of recently. He likes to take charge of things and decide upon things on others' behalf, something he tried to do on the programmer discussion thread.

roadkillguy wrote:: Can someone tell me why the licensing for the game has been discussed exclusively by non-developers? I personally dislike the GPL, and prefer BSD-style licensing. Specifically, FreeBSD.

Who even decided on open-source anyway?

It was open source always like that!

Bro, We don't one a premmsive licence in all of the game!
Maybe only the libs.
BTW, You did not listen, Me and Scio talked On public.

NickTheNick wrote:: Don't worry this is something ido has been doing a lot of recently. He likes to take charge of things and decide upon things on others' behalf, something he tried to do on the programmer discussion thread.

Me and Scio talked about it, A long time ago, In one of my threads, You did not payed attention.

BTW, Like you don't do it.

I gave arguments, and he said "Than GPL/LGPL it is".

Well, You need to read the "legal" forum before you whine!

ido66667 wrote:: Bump!

BTW, Here is why we should not use Creative commons:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/243196/what-is-the-difference-between-creative-commons-and-gpl-licensing

Basicly, Creative commons was not orginaly for Software, So, there is no mantion of stuff like source code, Or linking from code with anothe licence, The LGPL was Orginaly for stuff like librarys, as it allows you to link from a diffrent Licence code...
I think we should use a GPL and LGPL hybrid, I mean, For the librarys we can use LGPL, and for all the Other stuff we can use GPL.

scicont wrote:: Ok. GPL/LGPL it is.

Now, Nick... I would like to ask you a question: Problem officer?

There is one key difference between the GPL and BSD open source licenses.

When using a BSD license, those who use your code can do whatever with it, so long as they mention it's from you.

When using a GPL license, those who use your code MUST release their code as open-source as well as mention it's from you.

Therefore, I find the BSD license to be more "free" than GPL.

The thing is, any decent programmer knows how to implement a license. We know what's what. We know what to put where.

Quote :: Bro, We don't one a premmsive licence in all of the game!
Maybe only the libs.

What does that mean? You know what a library is, right?

I don't care what was "made official." Neither of you have written any sizeable amount of code necessitating a license.

Yeah, I'm being an Belgium, but I'm only trying to expose what's fundamentally wrong here.

roadkillguy wrote:

There is one key difference between the GPL and BSD open source licenses.

When using a BSD license, those who use your code can do whatever with it, so long as they mention it's from you.

When using a GPL license, those who use your code MUST release their code as open-source as well as mention it's from you.

Therefore, I find the BSD license to be more "free" than GPL.

The thing is, any decent programmer knows how to implement a license. We know what's what. We know what to put where.

Quote :: Bro, We don't one a premmsive licence in all of the game!
Maybe only the libs.

What does that mean? You know what a library is, right?

I don't care what was "made official." Neither of you have written any sizeable amount of code necessitating a license.

Yeah, I'm being an Belgium, but I'm only trying to expose what's fundamentally wrong here.

I know what is premisive and what is copyleft.

I tried to raise the awareness a couple of times, Only to be ignored!
Your suggestion is great, But I am kind of grumpy cus people like nick ignored me before, But now, they come back with no suggestion.

I think I shall consider this suggestion and will talk with scio, Also, Do you want to do a education thread about legal stuff, As I see you know and instrested in that too!

My comment was sarcastic I knew about this already I had read your chat with Scio. Open source is one of the foundations of this project.

NickTheNick wrote:: My comment was sarcastic I knew about this already I had read your chat with Scio. Open source is one of the foundations of this project.

Oh okay, Than never mind my grumpy comment.

Also, I will try to be less bossy.
And, Please note that I tried to rise the Awareness about the Licences a few times, Only to be ignored.
At least this thread revived the disscution!

ido66667 wrote:: Oh okay, Than never mind my grumpy comment.

Also, I will try to be less bossy.
And, Please note that I tried to rise the Awareness about the Licences a few times, Only to be ignored.
At least this thread revived the disscution!

No worries. In retrospect my sarcasm was uncalled for, but I though it was obvious we are open source. I hadn't noticed your previous legal threads, but I agree this is a very important issue. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if we had a ton of code on the forums and then someone just comes and takes them.

Right, this seems to have resolved itself, guys. Remember, this is why we need to keep threads hanging around so people can read them and the conclusions that we have not yet enacted but are currently using can be as transparent as possible. We also need to try and use simple language - sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, especially since several of our members are already dealing with reading and writing in this forum in their second or third language.

Back on Topic,

Roadkill makes some points about the BSD license giving more freedom to people who want to reverse engineer the game. I believe that we should get some more programmers who are experienced in licensing their work in here to talk about how they usually do it so that more people can learn the differences between the different licenses. Only, of course, when it's convenient to the team, as I see that they're being very productive right now. As far as determining what license to use, we've discussed it before, without the insider input of anyone who's actually used them in their own work, which makes me think it deserves to be discussed again, especially since at least one of the licensing threads I remember got sidetracked into correcting the misapprehension that any of us are ever going to make money off this game.

(If you contributed to the discussion at an earlier time [such as another thread] and have licensing knowledge that I don't know about a) sorry for generalizing b) let's bring it up now.)

I don't know a lot about licences myself, which is why I've been hesitant to assert one as the liscence we'll be using. GPL seemed to me to be a better choice than creative commons share alike, and ido was really pushing it, so I made a call that it was ok to adopt it, since I do know that it's written with free software as a focus. Now that you have entered the discussion, roadkill, we do have someone with more knowledge and expertise. If you'd rather use the BSD licence, I'd like to discuss using that, since you have presented it as another option.

~sciocont wrote:: I don't know a lot about licences myself, which is why I've been hesitant to assert one as the liscence we'll be using. GPL seemed to me to be a better choice than creative commons share alike, and ido was really pushing it, so I made a call that it was ok to adopt it, since I do know that it's written with free software as a focus. Now that you have entered the discussion, roadkill, we do have someone with more knowledge and expertise. If you'd rather use the BSD licence, I'd like to discuss using that, since you have presented it as another option.

I will add an BSD Explantion!

Edit: Added it, Do you need anymore explantions?

Edit: Tell you what, Maybe we will use it in the libs to replace the LGPL, and keep the GPL on the source, I think it is better than the LGPL, It is premisive too, but simpler, and easier to read.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:: Right, this seems to have resolved itself, guys. Remember, this is why we need to keep threads hanging around so people can read them and the conclusions that we have not yet enacted but are currently using can be as transparent as possible. We also need to try and use simple language - sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, especially since several of our members are already dealing with reading and writing in this forum in their second or third language.

Back on Topic,

Roadkill makes some points about the BSD license giving more freedom to people who want to reverse engineer the game. I believe that we should get some more programmers who are experienced in licensing their work in here to talk about how they usually do it so that more people can learn the differences between the different licenses. Only, of course, when it's convenient to the team, as I see that they're being very productive right now. As far as determining what license to use, we've discussed it before, without the insider input of anyone who's actually used them in their own work, which makes me think it deserves to be discussed again, especially since at least one of the licensing threads I remember got sidetracked into correcting the misapprehension that any of us are ever going to make money off this game.

(If you contributed to the discussion at an earlier time [such as another thread] and have licensing knowledge that I don't know about a) sorry for generalizing b) let's bring it up now.)

I added the whole explanation on every version of the BSD Licence... Now, if you need any more explanition, feel free to ask, and I will do my best.

P.S.
I got Team lead, yay... I will just keep in here, Upgrade threads, And be less bossy in other places.

Thanks, Sciocont!

For the love of god stop bumping this. I've been on forums where bumping was outlawed.

On topic, I still recommend a bsd-style license for simplicity's sake.

Last edited by ido66667 on Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

roadkillguy wrote:: For the love of god stop bumping this. I've been on forums where bumping was outlawed.

On topic, I still recommend a bsd-style license for simplicity's sake.

Simple = good and protective?

I am bumping this so people will have a chance to help, You yourself complained about this!

I think that people like Microsoft can abuse the BSD Licenses, I mean, hoping that no one will do it, is kind of naive, Right?

Yes, I know it is good for the programers, But You really want to risk someone basicly taking your work, selling it, or not giving the source code?

Over bumping bugs me more.

A BSD-styled license guarantees credit where credit is due. Why should you force other people to release open source? Not that anyone's going to use your code.

roadkillguy wrote:: Over bumping bugs me more.

A BSD-styled license guarantees credit where credit is due. Why should you force other people to release open source? Not that anyone's going to use your code.

Because, One of the core aspects of this project is open source, To show that even a small volunteer group can make a game that is even better than propetry one!
And you never know, Maybe someone will use our code...

Also, I am bumping that so people will not complain about me not giving them a chance to join.

Don't bump.
I don't even give a Belgium about open-source restricted/not restricted. What's important is that we get credit. Right now, I'm leaning towards BSD, simply because I like being the nice guy who hands modders a way to make a buck if they want to.

~sciocont wrote:: Don't bump.
I don't even give a Belgium about open-source restricted/not restricted. What's important is that we get credit. Right now, I'm leaning towards BSD, simply because I like being the nice guy who hands modders a way to make a buck if they want to.

Do you aware of the diffrence bettween Commercly and propetry?

You can sell source code, As long as you give out the source code, so people can mode it.

Also, The modders you are talking about maybe can corparates like EA, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Activistion, They will just use our code (If they will) and give a small Credit in their "About" Section...
Yes, In the BSD License even a single sentence in some place that no one looks at in the "About" Is called "Credit".
If you call one Belgiumian sentence "Credit where it is due", Than fine.

I would like to use the GPL, But maybe we can meet half way: Copyfree License!

Pitching another two cents in (sorry, Roadkill)

My extremely limited experience with modding and content creation in the sims 2 community makes me lean towards the kind of license that says anyone can mod it or take it apart however they want as long as they're not making a profit off of it. Then again, there are plenty of legal reasons in that environment that nobody modding in that game should be selling content (because it's against the TOU for the actual game, for one,) which I don't think apply here.

Also, coding is a massive thing that is, by necessity, built on stuff that has already been coded. If everybody always had to start from scratch, it would take a lot longer. So I'm okay with other people incorporating bits and pieces of 'our' code into what they make, so long as they're not ripping us off wholesale and making a profit doing it.

If we let people mod and sell it, it might actually get built.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:: Pitching another two cents in (sorry, Roadkill)

My extremely limited experience with modding and content creation in the sims 2 community makes me lean towards the kind of license that says anyone can mod it or take it apart however they want as long as they're not making a profit off of it. Then again, there are plenty of legal reasons in that environment that nobody modding in that game should be selling content (because it's against the TOU for the actual game, for one,) which I don't think apply here.

Also, coding is a massive thing that is, by necessity, built on stuff that has already been coded. If everybody always had to start from scratch, it would take a lot longer. So I'm okay with other people incorporating bits and pieces of 'our' code into what they make, so long as they're not ripping us off wholesale and making a profit doing it.

The GPL Let's people mod!
But with one requst... Keeping it open source...

Scico... I don't know if you aware of this, the GPL does alow people to code, Just keep it open source, YOU CAN SELL OPEN SOURCE. (Sorry for caps, But I am trying to make a point)

Propetary =/= Commercly.

Commercly = You sell the code.

Commerial open source = You sell the software but give the source, There is alot of GNU/linux distros like this.

Propertary = You don't have to sell it and it can be free, But you don't give the source.

Commercial Propertary = You don't give the source, and also sell it...

ido66667 wrote:

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:: Pitching another two cents in (sorry, Roadkill)

My extremely limited experience with modding and content creation in the sims 2 community makes me lean towards the kind of license that says anyone can mod it or take it apart however they want as long as they're not making a profit off of it. Then again, there are plenty of legal reasons in that environment that nobody modding in that game should be selling content (because it's against the TOU for the actual game, for one,) which I don't think apply here.

Also, coding is a massive thing that is, by necessity, built on stuff that has already been coded. If everybody always had to start from scratch, it would take a lot longer. So I'm okay with other people incorporating bits and pieces of 'our' code into what they make, so long as they're not ripping us off wholesale and making a profit doing it.

The GPL Let's people mod!
But with one requst... Keeping it open source...

Scico... I don't know if you aware of this, the GPL does alow people to code, Just keep it open source, YOU CAN SELL OPEN SOURCE. (Sorry for caps, But I am trying to make a point)

Propetary =/= Commercly.

Commercly = You sell the code.

Commerial open source = You sell the software but give the source, There is alot of GNU/linux distros like this.

Propertary = You don't have to sell it and it can be free, But you don't give the source.

Commercial Propertary = You don't give the source, and also sell it...

Why are you so obsessed with open source? You haven't written Belgium. Sure, you can read Wikipedia articles and make an opinion based on those, but experience adds another level of insight.

Let's understand what this so called "modding" is. If someone were to take the source, make changes, and recompile it, it would be an entirely new executable. So long as they credit us as the original authors, what's the big deal if they don't release their source? Ours would still be publicly available.

Sorry, but i am not so much in this licences.
How it is, when somebody build a mod for the games and sells it, can he has the copyright on this kind of mod then? So can somebody other build an identical mod then for the game, or is it the property of the seller, so that this can't be modded from somebody other anymore? This at least could create huge trouble, if commercial concerns take this game to create their "download content" for it, and the ideas are the property of this companies then. This would limit the possibilities for other modders, if the commercial companies are faster.
If this is so, i would prefer the GPL. Personally i think its possible to recreate the mod, if you don't steal the code or take the same objects, names, etc. but i want to be sure about this topic. ^^

Learner Posts : 139 Reputation : 7 Join date : 2012-04-24

ido66667 wrote:

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:: Pitching another two cents in (sorry, Roadkill)

My extremely limited experience with modding and content creation in the sims 2 community makes me lean towards the kind of license that says anyone can mod it or take it apart however they want as long as they're not making a profit off of it. Then again, there are plenty of legal reasons in that environment that nobody modding in that game should be selling content (because it's against the TOU for the actual game, for one,) which I don't think apply here.

Also, coding is a massive thing that is, by necessity, built on stuff that has already been coded. If everybody always had to start from scratch, it would take a lot longer. So I'm okay with other people incorporating bits and pieces of 'our' code into what they make, so long as they're not ripping us off wholesale and making a profit doing it.

The GPL Let's people mod!
But with one requst... Keeping it open source...

Scico... I don't know if you aware of this, the GPL does alow people to code, Just keep it open source, YOU CAN SELL OPEN SOURCE. (Sorry for caps, But I am trying to make a point)

Propetary =/= Commercly.

Commercly = You sell the code.

Commerial open source = You sell the software but give the source, There is alot of GNU/linux distros like this.

Propertary = You don't have to sell it and it can be free, But you don't give the source.

Commercial Propertary = You don't give the source, and also sell it...

I thought Thrive was going to be free, so why open source?

» Potential Legal Problems
» Legal problems for a song
» Keeping up with whats going on....
» It's the little things that count.
» Things that grasp but are not graspers