Things About Legal and Licences that You Should Know

Quote :

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

That people can modify the code how they want, but that the right for the code still stays by the developers. So that commercial companies can't take the code and licence it for themself. Only question is, how this will be handled with the mods, when the game will released with BSD (see last post from me) if this woudn't be a problem, then i will personally be okay with BSD.

roadkillguy wrote:

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.

I do know that, But if you ever noticed, As I said many time One of the Main aspects of this Porject is open source, It was decided in the very beginning, Also, You do know that "Credit" (For the law.) can be anything that mantion us, That can be that: This game was developed from the source of Thrive. Or that This game was developed from the source of the game "Thrive"

Also, In the BSD licenses, Modification Can Be Only one line, Or even making a class that is not used in the game, but you put in one of your cpp "#include "Uselessclass.h" And that could be a legit (For the law) modification of the program.

I am not sure if you ever developed something that a lot of people used, But in planet earth, If you don't protect your stuff, They will get stolen... Also, There is a philosphy behind the game...
Also, If a corparate takes the code, and adds tons of stuff, and makes it crappy, Because, for Corparates, money is the point of making software, That means they may add some "Cool" stuff, But The game itself will lose all what we wanted to make it.

And also, If there will be a crappy modifaction once, that will not include what we wanted, It may steal the "Lights" From thrive, Therefore, Killing the project.

And, I did developed some stuff (A class structure for cells, Not useful for now, But maybe useful, If I will work on it more.)...

Please don't go all like "I am the best developer in the team, My openions are the most importent in the whole project." (That is true, But Don't go all onoxious about it, At least that what I feel you do right now... I mean, You can suggest, but why when you are aguing with me, you are so hostile.)

All the other guys:

Sterling, As I said to roadkill, One can build a mod, That the only diffrence can be one line, and sell it.

PTFace: This is the porject Idology, was decided early on.

Ido, dear, I think we're starting to argue the same point over and over again. I'm having a hard enough time trawling through the legal ideas (I have a science and art major brain) without the typos.

@PT: Free was never the question. The things being objected to are the possibility of people selling content or mods that they made for a free, communally built game for a profit, and the possibility of taking the game, making a minor change (adding a new line of code or a new opening screen or something) and then selling the whole thing for a profit.

Back on topic,

Personally, if people want to take a piece, such as oh, I don't know, the maths that determine biome placement, and incorporate it into their own project, I'm fine whether they try to sell that or no. I'm fine if they decide to hack their game to make solid gold trees or underwater cities. It's okay, it's not my headache or my computer.

The possibility of them making mods and custom content and selling them is something I'm pretty neutral on, given that, the internet being what it is, someone will be hosting the same mods somewhere else for free. And we don't have to mention support or affiliation with any modder, so people who want to use outside content will do so at their own risk. Keep in mind that people make hacks and custom content for other games all the time, and even if it blows up the game, it isn't the original studio or developer's fault. We are not responsible for the stupidity of others.

If someone tries to take our game, and sell it, mostly unaltered, we'll still be here, offering it for free. 99% of the informed internet will be able to figure out who made it first and who has the better deal. Again, we aren't responsible for the people who can't be bothered to look after their own best economic interests.

@ Roadkill: We might be a little clearer if you explained to us what sort of licenses you've used in the past for other projects, since you did point out that you have experience.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Ido, dear, I think we're starting to argue the same point over and over again. I'm having a hard enough time trawling through the legal ideas (I have a science and art major brain) without the typos.

@PT: Free was never the question. The things being objected to are the possibility of people selling content or mods that they made for a free, communally built game for a profit, and the possibility of taking the game, making a minor change (adding a new line of code or a new opening screen or something) and then selling the whole thing for a profit.

Back on topic,

Personally, if people want to take a piece, such as oh, I don't know, the maths that determine biome placement, and incorporate it into their own project, I'm fine whether they try to sell that or no. I'm fine if they decide to hack their game to make solid gold trees or underwater cities. It's okay, it's not my headache or my computer.

The possibility of them making mods and custom content and selling them is something I'm pretty neutral on, given that, the internet being what it is, someone will be hosting the same mods somewhere else for free. And we don't have to mention support or affiliation with any modder, so people who want to use outside content will do so at their own risk. Keep in mind that people make hacks and custom content for other games all the time, and even if it blows up the game, it isn't the original studio or developer's fault. We are not responsible for the stupidity of others.

If someone tries to take our game, and sell it, mostly unaltered, we'll still be here, offering it for free. 99% of the informed internet will be able to figure out who made it first and who has the better deal. Again, we aren't responsible for the people who can't be bothered to look after their own best economic interests.

@ Roadkill: We might be a little clearer if you explained to us what sort of licenses you've used in the past for other projects, since you did point out that you have experience.

You can sell and also give source code, You are aware, right?

I never said you can't sell it, even if we will be on GPL, The only term, "Give the source code."...

ido66667 wrote:

I do know that, But if you ever noticed, As I said many time One of the Main aspects of this Porject is open source, It was decided in the very beginning, Also, You do know that "Credit" (For the law.) can be anything that mantion us, That can be that: This game was developed from the source of Thrive. Or that This game was developed from the source of the game "Thrive"

Also, In the BSD licenses, Modification Can Be Only one line, Or even making a class that is not used in the game, but you put in one of your cpp "#include "Uselessclass.h" And that could be a legit (For the law) modification of the program.

I am not sure if you ever developed something that a lot of people used, But in planet earth, If you don't protect your stuff, They will get stolen... Also, There is a philosphy behind the game...
Also, If a corparate takes the code, and adds tons of stuff, and makes it crappy, Because, for Corparates, money is the point of making software, That means they may add some "Cool" stuff, But The game itself will lose all what we wanted to make it.

And also, If there will be a crappy modifaction once, that will not include what we wanted, It may steal the "Lights" From thrive, Therefore, Killing the project.

And, I did developed some stuff (A class structure for cells, Not useful for now, But maybe useful, If I will work on it more.)...

Please don't go all like "I am the best developer in the team, My openions are the most importent in the whole project." (That is true, But Don't go all onoxious about it, At least that what I feel you do right now... I mean, You can suggest, but why when you are aguing with me, you are so hostile.)

All the other guys:

Sterling, As I said to roadkill, One can build a mod, That the only diffrence can be one line, and sell it.

PTFace: This is the porject Idology, was decided early on.

Name one project that's been stolen. I really don't think anyone would steal this and call it theirs. The fact that they have to credit us makes them look bad, because the BSD license forces them to put the license itself and our copyright into their binary distribution.

But if we're so afraid of code-stealing, why don't we just make it closed source and be done with it? It makes no sense. You're obsessed with the idea of thieves, but you insist on open source. What good will forcing them to release source code do?

roadkillguy wrote:

ido66667 wrote:

I do know that, But if you ever noticed, As I said many time One of the Main aspects of this Porject is open source, It was decided in the very beginning, Also, You do know that "Credit" (For the law.) can be anything that mantion us, That can be that: This game was developed from the source of Thrive. Or that This game was developed from the source of the game "Thrive"

Also, In the BSD licenses, Modification Can Be Only one line, Or even making a class that is not used in the game, but you put in one of your cpp "#include "Uselessclass.h" And that could be a legit (For the law) modification of the program.

I am not sure if you ever developed something that a lot of people used, But in planet earth, If you don't protect your stuff, They will get stolen... Also, There is a philosphy behind the game...
Also, If a corparate takes the code, and adds tons of stuff, and makes it crappy, Because, for Corparates, money is the point of making software, That means they may add some "Cool" stuff, But The game itself will lose all what we wanted to make it.

And also, If there will be a crappy modifaction once, that will not include what we wanted, It may steal the "Lights" From thrive, Therefore, Killing the project.

And, I did developed some stuff (A class structure for cells, Not useful for now, But maybe useful, If I will work on it more.)...

Please don't go all like "I am the best developer in the team, My openions are the most importent in the whole project." (That is true, But Don't go all onoxious about it, At least that what I feel you do right now... I mean, You can suggest, but why when you are aguing with me, you are so hostile.)

All the other guys:

Sterling, As I said to roadkill, One can build a mod, That the only diffrence can be one line, and sell it.

PTFace: This is the porject Idology, was decided early on.

Name one project that's been stolen. I really don't think anyone would steal this and call it theirs. The fact that they have to credit us makes them look bad, because the BSD license forces them to put the license itself and our copyright into their binary distribution.

But if we're so afraid of code-stealing, why don't we just make it closed source and be done with it? It makes no sense. You're obsessed with the idea of thieves, but you insist on open source. What good will forcing them to release source code do?

As I demonstrated, It is legit for the law to put the binary anywhere that is accesable by the user, Like, If you play A game, And there is a small button, somewhere, That says "About", Do you really open it? I think that most players will ignore it.
And, When you put the license inside, The license is there, But it does not affect on your work!

Open source is giving the source code to someone else, But that doesn't mean you don't have to limit the coder... In the case of GPL, It is limited only to keeping it open.

Also, You can never know if someone will, Better safe than sorry, No?

You see, If someone will steal it, and his marketing will be better, Our game will be ignored, Unknown to the rest of the world... It will not make the modder look bad, He can hide it (The user can see it, But it maybe something kind of hidden, hard to notice).
The only thing it will do that we will stay unknown, As there is maybe a more developed propetary game, But with diffrent aims, Like spore.

I can't name you one project, But there is always a chance... Better safe than sorry.

P.S.
If you want a simple license, You can just use creative commons share alike, It is also copyleft.

ido66667 wrote:

Better safe than sorry.

Right, closed source.

roadkillguy wrote:

ido66667 wrote:

Better safe than sorry.

Right, closed source.

Amm, You don't understand the concept of restricted open source?

I said you can modify it, but keep it open.

ido66667 wrote:

roadkillguy wrote:

Right, closed source.

Amm, You don't understand the concept of restricted open source?

Obviously, I haven't a clue. Why, I've never written more than 20 lines of c++ in my life.

ido66667 wrote:

I said you can modify it, but keep it open.

And how does that protect you from this so feared code-thievery?

I agree with both Roadkill and Calli. Now I'm no expert at legal matters, and thus had a hard time reading through your OP. However, can't we just pick a license that let's the project be fully open source? I mean what's the harm of other people modifying and redistributing? The only thing I would worry about is if someone came and stole all of our code and just took our exact game and distributed it themselves without giving credit.

If someone comes and mods our game and distributes their version that doesn't replace our version, it just gives players an option to play the original or the mod. If some big corporation comes and takes our game and copies the code and starts to sell it for money no intelligent person would buy it from them because they will never be able to beat our prices, free!

Now unless there is something I am missing here this is all being made to sound far more complex than it actually is.

NickTheNick wrote:

I agree with both Roadkill and Calli. Now I'm no expert at legal matters, and thus had a hard time reading through your OP. However, can't we just pick a license that let's the project be fully open source? I mean what's the harm of other people modifying and redistributing? The only thing I would worry about is if someone came and stole all of our code and just took our exact game and distributed it themselves without giving credit.

If someone comes and mods our game and distributes their version that doesn't replace our version, it just gives players an option to play the original or the mod. If some big corporation comes and takes our game and copies the code and starts to sell it for money no intelligent person would buy it from them because they will never be able to beat our prices, free!

Now unless there is something I am missing here this is all being made to sound far more complex than it actually is.

Well, modifying it WILL replace it.

I'm going to end this Belgium. This isn't extremely productive, since there's very little difference between the licences. I'd rather just let people do whatever they want.
Using BSD.
[/thread]