Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
  Print  
Author Topic: ENIGMA's Engine Code License - Please Vote  (Read 24907 times)
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #30 Posted on: March 21, 2014, 03:10:09 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1212

View Profile Email
Darkstar2: You keep blowing all of this out of proportion and type very emotionally. So to wrap it up:
1) There is no automatic suing robot. And GPL doesn't mean that a random person can sue you. The only ones who could sue anyone is ENIGMA dev's.

As I mentioned before, I understand that part.

As to blowing things, sorry but since I am very serious about using ENIGMA and have lots in mind, I want to get all my bases covered.  My intentions are to build using ENIGMA from scratch as opposed to simply importing GMS files.  I've already mentioned many times the reasons why I don't like GMS anymore (at least for the things I want done).  To be honest, the things I can do in GMS I will keep doing in GMS.  So far I know people who have sold their games made in GMS and made several hundreds of $ and have not been sued by anyone yet.

Quote
2) As you already said, suing is time and money consuming. So it's virtually impossible that anyone from ENIGMA dev team would be active enough to do so. Only maybe Robert during one of his sissy fits could summon the time (but not money)

I'll keep that in mind about Robert (noted :D)  but he said "some of us are financially independent now" and while we don't intend to sue you, we could do it.  I kinda see where he is going, he is covering his base, the  same way I want to cover mine.

I don't mean to offend anybody by saying this, but when you (meaning the team) decided to make this project open source, you probably knew the pros / cons and that eventually something like this would come.  Perhaps it would have been a better idea not to make it open source but a shareware with limited functionality with a path to upgrade to a PRO version that allows selling, and doing whatever ...  Like I said, I would have gladly paid for something like ENIGMA.

Quote
3) That is why we a trying to choose a license. It's not that if we don't do so in the next 24h the world will explode.

Nobody said that, however, in my opinion, these discussions have been trailing for ages, and GM is gaining grounds right now despite its flaws, again I stress, in my opinion, I think this matter of licensing is not too healthy for ENIGMA.

Quote
The discussions have been massive on the subject and I don't think much more will happen.

:D I don't think so either.  I have never dealt with licensing or distributed software free or paid so forgive my ignorance on the matter, but what if ENIGMA decided to stop becoming open source and simply become a shareware, with possibility of getting a paid version free of all those limits ? Would that be a solution (it would benefit ENIGMA financially to keep working on ENIGMA) and benefit developers without some dodgy license ???

Quote
We basically have two possibilities when thinking about users: MPL and possibly endanger ENIGMA at some point or other license with custom exceptions/custom license which are both a lot riskier (as it normally requires a very expensive legal staff to be done properly).

Exactly, so there is no perfect option and never will be.

Quote
4) That "ENIGMA is dying" or "no one will use ENIGMA" are both stupid statements. I have been

I have never said this myself, but read people mention it here and elsewhere.  To be honest maybe I agree to some extent, as I see more people mention they could not make any games with ENIGMA and lots of issues than people who claimed to have made complete games.    As far as "no one will use ENIGMA" I said it in the context that if there is so many restrictions on what a developer can do with their published games, I don't think people will want to use ENIGMA, in fact nobody would under the current circumstances (by that I mean compile and publish a game).

Quote

here since 2008 (that's 6 years for the mathematically impaired) and I can tell you that nothing has really changed. We work on it as we see fit and at the pace we have time for. It will probably be the same in the next 6 years as well. The leaps in functionality have been tremendous during the past year though. And could be as big this year.

....yet the forums are inactive (same people posting) and I don't hear much about game titles released using ENIGMA.  Sorry for my skepticism though, I think I am entitled to an opinion, but based on what I am seeing, I have some reservations as to whether ENIGMA will gain more grounds.  However I am working hard to trying to do some workarounds and use ENIGMA as much as I can, but with this whole discussion on licensing, it sets me off a little. 

Quote
And almost exclusively does the opposite. I, like Josh, have paid for games that are available for less or even free, because I enjoyed them.

Good for you, but not everyone is like that.  Yes protection when done right can deter piracy to some extent.   When it is badly implemented so much that it interferes with paying customers (hint-hint) then that is not a good thing.

Regarding cracks and piracy, not everyone who buys a game is aware of cracks or where to look.  The whole idea is to make it harder and more challenging as opposed to publishing a title with zero protection that just about ANYBODY could copy.

Quote
game and then even finish the game days before the legit user could. Only because the legit user needed to wait 3 days before DRM servers were back online (happened with AC, Diablo3, Battlefield, COD and so on). In Humbe Bundle you can also see that the ones who pay more are usually Linux users, those who's software are usually free (and GPL'd).

That's true :P  and there are cases where people purchased games and could not even run it due to faulty DRM, many asking their money back or using a crack (UBISOFT anybody ??? :D)   Right, but fact remains piracy is an illegal right for whatever reason.
Of course people who already paid for the game and use a crack as a temporary measure that is another issue, still the law is the law, and illegal is illegal, but in my opinion are one of the more permissive reasons.  I don't recall UBISOFT going after people with cracks when they had problems with some of their past games and DRM, people were openly admitting to using cracks.  In fact if not mistaken even UBISOFT allegedly encouraged it and used it at some point to break their own damn DRM.  lol.

Quote
I for example now buy games almost exclusively from GOG.com. They never have DRM and so I can buy a game, install it and play it within 15minutes. No fuss with DRM's.

Exactly, but it means it has the potential of being copied more.  No protection, anybody can copy.  Protection, limits the damage, because only people who are familiar on how things work or know where to get those cracks, etc. will get through.  Try polling
10,000 PC gamers who buy their games and you'd be surprised that not everyone knows what "CRACKS" is, or where to get them..... Some people simply buy games, install and play and don't have the know how about serials, cracks, etc.

Personally I would not use DRM in my games, however I would use my own encryption and resource system.  YES it's pointless to keep telling me about debuggers and how people can rip my content from memory, I know this already, BUT it will deter most people, as not everyone is familiar or has the knowledge to do so.

BUT release a game with the WAV and graphics file in plain view, and it makes it much easier.

That is the point I'm making. 

Quote
They weren't trying to get back money because the software was free. They were trying to get money back because they were essentially scammed.

You and I both know, but try telling this to a customer who just purchased your game online, only later to find out it was distributed freely because of some GPL license allowed it.... Who do you think the customer will blame...... He/she will blame you and call you the scammer and charge back.

In the case of FlightPro not only were they ripping off people with an inflated price for software that was not their own, but they were selling the entire DVD contents which could be had FREE through download from the authors....  More so the version sold on Clickbank has a wrapper (adware/spyware) - Luckily some people did their researched and started blogging about this and warning people.

Do you want the same happening to your games ?

Not me.

Quote
Those are only children who even make "fake companies" just to have a logo in front of the game.

Sorry but 1) I am not "children" and 2) I have strong principles !  I don't rip software developers, and so I expect mine not to be ripped.  You don't have to be a kiddie to want to protect your games, especially games that are 100% original in all aspects.  Maybe you can laugh at the "kids" who want to protect their catch the clowns, stick figure games and mario clones, but it is only reasonable for a dev who makes an original game to want to protect themselves.
don't you think ?

Quote
AAA games or even Inide devs couldn't give less shits about that. GPL, as far as I know,

How so ? a developer spends years making a game from scratch and they would not care if people were to use their source to make their own shit and sell it ? freely using their content ?

Quote
doesn't even require you to provide other resources. So you can provide the code, but all the other resources could be removed from that.

How ???  Doesn't ENIGMA save the resources inside the 1 EGM file ? so if I am forced to include the EGM with my game, I am automatically including its resources too.

If I use external resources and only code in EGM, then distribute only the EGM, the person opening the EGM would get errors, BUT they would be able to see the custom decryption code and rip my game to pieces.

Quote
If you download any Source engine game, for example, then in the folders there are plain resources for your taking. Same with Unreal, Cryengine and so on.

They already made their money and they get paid big bucks for game companies to license their engine.

Point being if I make a really good game and earning a couple of $ from it, I don't want some wrong doer to be using my shit and making a killing from it. I don't think that is fair.  But anyhow, to each their own.  Cayman islands here I come !  ;D ;D ;D
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) TheExDeus
Reply #31 Posted on: March 21, 2014, 04:37:10 PM

Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1886

View Profile
You type a lot.
Quote
I don't mean to offend anybody by saying this, but when you (meaning the team) decided to make this project open source, you probably knew the pros / cons and that eventually something like this would come.
If the project wasn't open source then it certainly wouldn't have grown and would of have failed years ago. The "team" isn't here from day 1. Only Josh is the one who started this and is still here. While I joined in 2008, my first contribution was in maybe 2011. Robert came here only about a year ago. All of that is possible only because this is free and open source project. If Josh made it "shareware", then he would actually need a company, paid people and so on to function. ENIGMA isn't a company. We don't sell anything and we don't plan to. I might leave the project tomorrow (and I don't need a formal resignation or anything to do so, I can just vanish) and someone else will come in my place sooner or later and that is true for everybody here. Everyone can go to git and make a pull request and that is how that person becomes a part of the dev team.

Quote
simply become a shareware, with possibility of getting a paid version free of all those limits ?
That would mean this wouldn't be community project. It would mean the source would be closed and no new developers would join the project unless we specifically tried to get some (that would imply money, as in salary). And that would also require a company (as that would technically be a commercial enterprise with all things coming with it). So it would probably be an instant death to this project.

Quote
I have never said this myself, but read people mention it here and elsewhere.
I, for example, couldn't care the slightest whether someone uses ENIGMA or not. I (and others) have said this millions (without exaggeration) of times - We don't want to make a commercial product or even a free product that rivals commercial ones. Our development is unguided, with barely any goals and done in spare time. The reason I develop things for ENIGMA is only because:
a) That teaches me A LOT of things. The reason I am kind of proficient in C++ right now is because I helped to make many things in ENIGMA. It was a great learning experience and still is. I only know OpenGL because of ENIGMA.
b) I use it. I used it in my bachelors thesis (made a touchscreen and games/apps were made in ENIGMA), my master thesis (I render 3D point clouds, even animated, in ENIGMA) and school+work stuff in general. I prototype and create stuff for myself in ENIGMA all the time. From petri net simulators to code obfuscator for my bank card.

Quote
....yet the forums are inactive (same people posting) and I don't hear much about game titles released using ENIGMA.
Because we don't actually try to get users. Some have shown initiative, like posting in some forums or whatever. But we don't do that actively. I am actually interested to know how you found ENIGMA.

Quote
whether ENIGMA will gain more grounds.
And I couldn't care less. I actually hope it wouldn't, as then I would have some kind of "responsibility" to fix or implement something. But whether ENIGMA gains ground or not is based on if we find any more active dev's and whether we actually try to publicize it.

Quote
game is aware of cracks or where to look.
If the person know how to Google, I don't see how he wouldn't know that. I can tell from experience, stealing a game (and doing it safely without getting viruses or whatever) is extremely easy. In many cases easier than to getting it legally (and I don't mean a problem with money).

Quote
That is the point I'm making.
But that point is actually contradictory. You are saying how a "regular user" doesn't need to see files while you don't care that others can. But ask yourself, who actually needs those files? Do a regular gamer need your sprite sheet or the .x model? Probably not. The ones who will want to rip your sprites are the ones who want to use them in their game. And that of course means that he is a programmer (or in other ways not a "regular user"). So people who want to rip your resources will always be able to, those who don't need to, won't. That is why I added that "child" thing. When I was 14 and I made games in GM I also was paranoid that others will get my resources. But when you grow up and see that ripping is easy in any case, then you just stop caring about that. Especially if you make a game that you sell. If others get resources from your game, then you have all the rights for copyright infringement. They won't be able to get money from that either way. As I said, even Indie devs don't bother with that anymore. For example, you can rip from Spelunky as easy as from Hotline Miami. I am not saying you shouldn't at least pack them together in one file and do some easy "encryption". Just saying that resource ripping is not considered a big problem.

Quote
They already made their money and they get paid big bucks for game companies to license their engine.
I was reffering to the engines and not the developers of the engines. My point was that every game of the same engine has the resources in the same place and in the same format. So it doesn't matter if you take The Stanley Parable, Dota2 or Postal III. All of them have resources in the same place, same formats and which can be ripped in minutes. And all are from different developers, Stanley Parable is Indie for example, so he didn't have much money before releasing the game.

edit:
Quote
I don't want some wrong doer to be using my shit and making a killing from it.
And this is exactly the point why we can't easily choose a license. A person will always be able to rip resources from your game and use them. If you sell a game, he might create a clone and sell too. You would have to be a legal entity to sell a game (or have a publisher) and so you would be protected by copyright laws. ENIGMA on the other hand wouldn't be. All we are protected by is the license. And that is why we need to choose the right one. So we are having the same problem with ENIGMA, as you are having with your game. But as we are not actually selling ENIGMA, then the problem can be greater, as others could make money directly from our work and we wouldn't have any legal standing to stop that. You would.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 04:49:48 PM by TheExDeus » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #32 Posted on: March 21, 2014, 05:05:33 PM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
So far I know people who have sold their games made in GMS and made several hundreds of $ and have not been sued by anyone yet.

Why would they be sued? YoYo Games gives you a license that allows you to do that with the games you make with GMS. Of course, the license is only granted to you if you sign a contract that puts unjust restrictions on your use of GMS, on top of the already-existing unjust restrictions of copyright. You have to agree not to reverse-engineer GMS, for example.

Perhaps it would have been a better idea not to make it open source but a shareware with limited functionality with a path to upgrade to a PRO version that allows selling, and doing whatever ...  Like I said, I would have gladly paid for something like ENIGMA.

I haven't interacted with this community very much, so I don't know how most people feel about freedom. But let me tell you this: ENIGMA is nowhere near as good in a practical sense as GMS. It's not even unique for being compiled rather than interpreted anymore; GMS added a compiler. But it has two major things going for it: it's free/libre, and it's gratis. If ENIGMA wasn't free/libre, I would think it to be no better than the many other proprietary game engines out there such as Game Maker, and I would refuse to use it on the same grounds that I refuse to use Game Maker.

But ENIGMA is free/libre and shows no sign of changing this, so I recommend it to people as a potential replacement for Game Maker.

Even if ENIGMA was able to be developed into something as good as Game Maker by being just another proprietary program, it wouldn't matter. It would just be yet another proprietary program, and in the end it would be no better than Game Maker. And of course, it would not have the inherent immortality that free/libre software has.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 05:07:52 PM by onpon » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #33 Posted on: March 27, 2014, 05:19:17 AM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Hundreds of views, but only eight votes? Even if you don't want to join in the discussion, please voice your opinion by voting!
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) FroggestSpirit
Reply #34 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 12:18:44 AM

Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 79

View Profile
Can't we have different licensing for ENIGMA itself, and the games made from it? I'm not too knowledgeable on licenses, but I think it'd be fair if one makes a game with ENIGMA, they can:
-sell it
-not have to make it open source
-not have to pay fees
-have the option to say if it was made in ENIGMA or not

As for ENIGMA itself, I think it'd be fair to:
-modify it
-choose whether to distribute modifications of it or not
-not be able to sell it or profit off of it (unless it's a game or software compiled from it)

Does that sound reasonable? and what licenses would those be?
Logged
This isn't easy to say, but…
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #35 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 12:24:03 AM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Ohio, United States
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2925

View Profile Email
That's exactly what we're trying to accomplish, Frogg. I was trying to do it with a custom license, because there is no existing open-source license that separates the product and creations made with it.
Logged
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #36 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 09:36:05 AM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
-not be able to sell it or profit off of it (unless it's a game or software compiled from it)

Absolutely not. A non-commercial-only restriction would be completely unacceptable. I'm sure Josh agrees, or at least understands that this restriction would make ENIGMA a proprietary program.

A lot of artists have a hard-on for non-commercial licenses because they think this puts a leash on big corporations. This is incredibly naive. The leash is on the small man who wants to make a living with his work. Big corporations are used to having to pay for a special license, or just doing the work themselves (because, you know, they have money). It's the people who don't have boatloads of money who are trapped by these licenses.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 09:37:56 AM by onpon » Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #37 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:36:30 AM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 960
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
..except the GCC linking exception, Josh.

That was exactly what FroggestSpirit was saying, onpon.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) FroggestSpirit
Reply #38 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:58:44 AM

Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 79

View Profile
What I'm trying to say, is that I cannot take Enima, add one line of code, call it "Game Engine Maker" and sell it.
I think ENIGMA itself should be open source, and free. That would help influence a community to thrive and develop it rather than people taking it, and selling it, (which would probably branch it off into even more projects rather than this one big one).

I still believe that any avarage joe should be able to use ENIGMA, make a game (or software from it), Hit compile, and redistribute that exe to whomever, with ehatever price tag, and NOT have to give a single line of the game's code, say it was made with ENIGMA, or pay any money to ENIGMA.

What if YYG turned around, took ENIGMA, changed a few things, and bam... Game Maker Studio 2? That'd be heartbreaking.
Logged
This isn't easy to say, but…
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #39 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 11:57:02 AM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Please keep in mind that this vote/discussion is not about putting all of ENIGMA's code under a new license. We're talking about relicensing only the engine portion of the code.

As I understand it, the parser/compiler portion of ENIGMA has very little worth without the engine portion. The opposite should be true as well. The parser/compiler needs the engine to create a working executable. The engine needs the parser/compiler to translate a game developer's code and combine it with the engine code to create a working executable. If this is incorrect, please explain.

1. Isn't it enough to keep the parser/compiler protected with the GPL and change the engine to the MPL?

2. Is either portion of ENIGMA very useful without the other?

3. If someone wanted to make the next GameMaker with ENIGMA, wouldn't they have to modify code or create extensions in both the parser/compiler and the engine?

These are not rhetorical questions and I would appreciate a well-thought out response.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #40 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 12:49:17 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1212

View Profile Email

I still believe that any avarage joe should be able to use ENIGMA, make a game (or software from it), Hit compile, and redistribute that exe to whomever, with ehatever price tag, and NOT have to give a single line of the game's code, say it was made with ENIGMA, or pay any money to ENIGMA.

I agree about the being able to distribute and sell it the way you want it and not having to give your source, however  I completely disagree with also not having to mention the ENIGMA engine.   Remember that with GM your license has to mention YoYoGames because they hold the rights to the runner and engine.
The least one could do is mention ENIGMA, even if your game is compiled, it is still dependent on ENIGMA's engine which makes your game work.

I have no problem mentioning it.  I rather mention ENIGMA engine than "YOYO" anytime.


Quote
What if YYG turned around, took ENIGMA, changed a few things, and bam... Game Maker Studio 2? That'd be heartbreaking.

Heartbreaking,but not in the right way  ;D ;D ;D

They already take open source stuff, break it, restrict it and charge big money !  With their completely fucked up mentality of breaking something then trailing on months on, then removing functions, I think your proposition would be very unlikely.  If they did that they'd "break" ENIGMA..... :P

Don't give them any ideas !
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #41 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 01:19:34 PM

Contributor
Location: Cappuccino, CA
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2983

View Profile
Quote from: Darkstar
The least one could do is mention ENIGMA, even if your game is compiled, it is still dependent on ENIGMA's engine which makes your game work.
I don't want to make people have to do that, I am sure there are plenty of people who would proudly display that anyway. But I don't feel comfortable pushing that on people. And also, less restrictive licensing is one of the features of our project versus theirs.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #42 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 02:42:19 PM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
That was exactly what FroggestSpirit was saying, onpon.

FroggestSpirit was listing that as an acceptable restriction for ENIGMA, saying that it only becomes unacceptable if it applied to games. I said it's not an acceptable restriction.

Quote
What I'm trying to say, is that I cannot take Enima, add one line of code, call it "Game Engine Maker" and sell it.

This is a silly fear. As long as people are getting their deserved copy of ENIGMA's source code under the appropriate license, it shouldn't matter if someone is making money from it; and similarly, if ENIGMA can take back these little changes, these people aren't going to have an unfair advantage over ENIGMA. This is not a danger.

Also, keep in mind that both the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition pointedly include the right to commercial use, like selling copies. A "non-commercial-only" restriction would not be free/libre or open source.

Quote
however  I completely disagree with also not having to mention the ENIGMA engine

Well, relevant copyright headers and license information obviously should stay intact, but games shouldn't be required to display a special pop-up or anything like that. That could easily turn into something like the "obnoxious advertising clause" of the original (4-clause) BSD license.

I think it's better to encourage showing off that something is made with ENIGMA (by making it the default behavior or very easy to add), not enforce it with a license.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 02:56:53 PM by onpon » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #43 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 03:08:04 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1212

View Profile Email
Quote from: Darkstar
The least one could do is mention ENIGMA, even if your game is compiled, it is still dependent on ENIGMA's engine which makes your game work.
I don't want to make people have to do that, I am sure there are plenty of people who would proudly display that anyway. But I don't feel comfortable pushing that on people. And also, less restrictive licensing is one of the features of our project versus theirs.

I'm sure it's the least people would do.  Commercial games always credit their engines, even if they didn't have to.....  You could hard code in the engine so that it displays automatically "This game was made with ENIGMA" with a 60 seconds delay.  (evil grin) :P

Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #44 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 03:12:32 PM

Contributor
Location: Cappuccino, CA
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2983

View Profile
Quote
2) As you already said, suing is time and money consuming. So it's virtually impossible that anyone from ENIGMA dev team would be active enough to do so. Only maybe Robert during one of his sissy fits could summon the time (but not money)
If I sue anybody; it'll be Josh, just for shits and giggles.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
  Print