Also, EEE isn't related to standards, but to features in general. Anyone who can offer all ENIGMA's features (by copying ENIGMA) and additional features on top of that (by doing some closed-source development) poses a risk to the project, as they can continue to feed off of any progress we would make, while giving nothing back. We'd be unable to compete, because our changes would be their changes and their changes would be their changes. The point of stopping ENIGMA clones that stop ENIGMA clones is to ensure that our changes are their changes and their changes are our changes. Mutual benefit, where competition between us benefits both of us and the whole community. If we're being outperformed by a proprietary product in every way, the community doesn't benefit, either.And none of the licenses allow this mutual benefit while still allowing games to be sold? Because I have a feeling we might end up risking it anyway. We want to give the users the possibility to sell their games and if that puts us at risk, then be it.
Which is it ?You can sell your games and not give us source. We don't care the slightest, it's just that we are now trying to make it "official".
They get sued ,but who sues them ?No one. No one has ever been sued by a freeware community project. It seems you don't know how "law" works - as in - nobody automatically sues you just because you didn't release source for GPL licenses software. It's up to the developers - us - and we don't have any reason to do that. When we decide on the proper license, we won't be even able to do that (that is why we are moving toward MPL).
So being sued for several millions and doing jail time..... No thanks !No one can sue anyone for "millions of dollars" because this is a freeware project and you would have to make millions of dollars off of it. Also, I don't think a person has ever been in jail because of software license issues. The worst thing we could technically do is sue you for some of the money you made off of ENIGMA. So if you sold your game for a total of 100$, I don't see how we could legally ask more than that.
if people want your shit for free, they aren't gonna have to payIsn't that a quote from the Futuristic Sex Robotz (http://futuristicsexrobotz.net/)? :D Long live nerdcore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerdcore)!
Also on the topic of being sued.......Do people really get sued ?
Also on the topic of being sued.......Do people really get sued ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSF_vs._Cisco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center#BusyBox_Litigation
No one can sue you except the authors of the code you used. So, only members of the ENIGMA team. But notably, any member of the ENIGMA team who can prove you are using his or her code
. So the odds of someone becoming evil are increased by some 600%, and more so by the fact that some of us are only just becoming financially independent. It's a risk, for users.
But yes, you're at risk of litigation whether you use ENIGMA right now or use GM:S.
If you're playing by the rules of the GPL, there's nothing that we could successfully sue you for. But that means payments for your games would be on the honor system, and you wouldn't have special and exclusive rights to them,
and that's definitely something for us to be concerned with. Petty theft of simple but fun games is more common than you'd think.
Most people with GPL games simply accept donations.
An alternative is to have a purchase page, and offer a free download for users "who have already paid." Of course, they're not obligated to be honest, legally, but it prevents pirates from selling your game for you. You can also do some GPL trolling of your own to ensure that any third-party who is distributing your game is following the license and crediting you in the distribution.
An evil ENIGMA contributor suing you is an unlikely scenario given the overhead of filing a court case, the unlikelihood of being represented by the FSF's lawyers given that the act would be contrary to the spirit of this project, and the statistical unlikelihood of financial payout. But if you are making heaps of money,
that starts to go away, and the odds of someone evil wanting their cut is greatly increased. So users would fear their ENIGMA games growing big while they are violating the GPL.
Regarding FlightGear: That's what allowing you to relicense your game is for. But I would argue that in that case, those who paid SHOULD be upset—from
what I'm hearing, they are successfully selling it only because their brand is more popular,
and it isn't their work to be sold. In your case, however, you are the original author: people shouldn't feel cheated buying your game from you.
I got Cave Story for free on the PC. Nicalis teamed up with Pixel and re-released it for the PC and Wii. I bought a copy, not because I really cared about the special features, but because it was an easy way to show my support. I bought Portal 2 for $50 knowing
But anyway, I am not advocating that all of our users switch to GPL. The GPL is just my personal philosophy. I would encourage it where applicable, but getting it to where users can select there own license is still a priority. I am just trying to make sure that any further proprietary game development environments are not my fault.
Thanks for asking the community about this choice, and taking the time to go through with this.
I thik can feel some of your love for this project and its community now :)
I still like the middle ground, and hope eventual conflicts can be solved.
BTW when this is done, we could go register a trademark :D
copy protection is to deter piracyAnd almost exclusively does the opposite. I, like Josh, have paid for games that are available for less or even free, because I enjoyed them. Look at Humble Bundle for example. Some pay 1000$ for 5 games and in turn that person compensates for 500 who paid only $1. But most pay more. Just like Game Newel from Valve said - Piracy is a service problem. That means if a pirate gives better service, like when a single player games that work without a constant internet connection using a crack, but requires internet connection otherwise, then the user will choose the crack. Many people play with cracked games even though they have legal copies for them. Especially few years back when CD's where mandatory for games - NoCD cracks flourished. There have been many instances when a pirate could get a game, install the game, play the game and then even finish the game days before the legit user could. Only because the legit user needed to wait 3 days before DRM servers were back online (happened with AC, Diablo3, Battlefield, COD and so on). In Humbe Bundle you can also see that the ones who pay more are usually Linux users, those who's software are usually free (and GPL'd).
Trying to make money, but people finding out that our games can be had for free and start charging back...They weren't trying to get back money because the software was free. They were trying to get money back because they were essentially scammed. Another took the source, didn't even add anything to it, and then sold it as their own. I am sure most of the people who bought and enjoyed the software would of easily paid the 40$ to the real dev's. But they were upset that they basically paid a nobody.
People don't want their source stolen or games ripped off.TBH, those are only children who even make "fake companies" just to have a logo in front of the game. AAA games or even Inide devs couldn't give less shits about that. GPL, as far as I know, 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. The thing is though, that resources are extremely easy to get from any game or program. It takes seconds for you to launch a debugger, open a game, and save a texture (that included sprite sheets and so on). As that is very easy, most developers, big and small, don't hide those resources. 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.
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.
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)
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.
The discussions have been massive on the subject and I don't think much more will happen.
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).
4) That "ENIGMA is dying" or "no one will use ENIGMA" are both stupid statements. I have been
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Those are only children who even make "fake companies" just to have a logo in front of the game.
AAA games or even Inide devs couldn't give less shits about that. GPL, as far as I know,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
....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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-not be able to sell it or profit off of it (unless it's a game or software compiled from it)
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.
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.
That was exactly what FroggestSpirit was saying, onpon.
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.
however I completely disagree with also not having to mention the ENIGMA engine
Quote from: DarkstarThe 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.
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.
Quote2) 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.
If I sue anybody; it'll be Josh, just for shits and
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.I still don't understand the issue with what the FroggestSpirit said. He said ENIGMA engine (that is the one running the game itself, so the game is ENIGMA engine + Your game) shouldn't be sellable on it's own. So you can't just take the ENGINE from Git (the engine is basically everything under ENIGMAsystem/SHELL) and sell that. On the other hand if you make some kind of software and then compile, then you should be able to sell it.
1. Isn't it enough to keep the parser/compiler protected with the GPL and change the engine to the MPL?It could lessen any problems and make the whole thing harder to use (as the parser/compiler would have to be written from scratch). Just FIY - we say "compiler" even though we don't actually compile anything ourselves. It's actually just the parser that creates the C++ code and then GCC is used to compile it.
2. Is either portion of ENIGMA very useful without the other?Could be. I guess depends on the one who tries to steal it. Technically you should be able to compile everything without the parser. I could actually try that some time as it's both a good feature (as it means you could code everything in pure C++ without LGM or anything else) and a bad one (as the enigne under a permissive license would make it sellable on its own).
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?Technically they could get rid of the parser part and only use the engine. They wouldn't be able to use GML/EDL it this case, but they could code in pure C++. You can check that yourself. Everything you code gets parsed and then written to "C:\ProgramData\ENIGMA\Preprocessor_Environment_Editable". These are the files that need to be replicated when not using the parser. If you only wanted to use the ENIGMA engine then most of the files here could probably be empty as well.
If I were an American I could sue you for a spelling error you made in an ENIGMA update and I could win ! :DThat really is not how suing works. It can take many years (especially when talking about millions of dollars), many trials (it's not like "Trial is done, Robert won, give Robert money", it's more like "Trial is done, Robert won, If Darkstar doesn't agree with verdict, we can start again") and most people just say "f it" and stops. So you can think whatever you want of ENIGMA or the possibility of Robert suing you, but trials are not something you just take out of your ass. That is why most things actually AREN'T settled in court (even large companies involving many millions of $ settle out of court as it's a lot easier).
ENIGMA engine - Shouldn't be sellable.To do this would require a custom license. I think that's a bad idea with the possibility of legal loopholes. Also, do we really want to restrict people to making just games with ENIGMA? The GameMaker community has made a lot of useful applications with GameMaker; not just games. Do we want to restrict the ENIGMA community to games only? Another problem is how do we define a game in legalese?
ENIGMA engine + Your game - Should be.
It could lessen any problems and make the whole thing harder to use (as the parser/compiler would have to be written from scratch).I agree. Anyone "stealing" ENIGMA would have to create a new parser and add features to the engine to make their proprietary creation profitable. This sounds like more work than most people/companies would be willing to put in. Cooperating with the ENIGMA community would be easier and more productive by comparison. You can't force cooperation, but you can encourage it!
Technically you should be able to compile everything without the parser. I could actually try that some time as it's both a good feature (as it means you could code everything in pure C++ without LGM or anything else) and a bad one (as the enigne under a permissive license would make it sellable on its own).
Technically they could get rid of the parser part and only use the engine. They wouldn't be able to use GML/EDL it this case, but they could code in pure C++.While that's true, it would negate the point of using ENIGMA. If you have the skill to code a game in C++, there are plenty of engines better optimized for that purpose with more permissive licenses. There's very little benefit to using ENIGMA's engine this way (please tell me if I'm wrong). I don't see how selling the engine by itself would be profitable unless it was changed drastically and changes that dramatic would require sharing under the MPL.
Thanks for replying TheExDeus.QuoteENIGMA engine - Shouldn't be sellable.To do this would require a custom license. I think that's a bad idea with the possibility of legal loopholes. Also, do we really want to restrict people to making just games with ENIGMA? The GameMaker community has made a lot of useful applications with GameMaker; not just games. Do we want to restrict the ENIGMA community to games only? Another problem is how do we define a game in legalese?
ENIGMA engine + Your game - Should be.
To do this would require a custom license. I think that's a bad idea with the possibility of legal loopholes. Also, do we really want to restrict people to making just games with ENIGMA? The GameMaker community has made a lot of useful applications with GameMaker; not just games. Do we want to restrict the ENIGMA community to games only? Another problem is how do we define a game in legalese?And that exactly is the problem. Josh thinks a custom license is the only way (and by the requirements we presented it would be), but as already stated, it's a loophole magnet. And of course I just use the terminology "game", while it was meant "ENIGMA + your software", but that again is hard to define. Josh tried that earlier and he had in style of "ENIGMA + parsed output of LGM", but then LGM is involved which is a different project from ENIGMA. So it all creates problems.
I agree. Anyone "stealing" ENIGMA would have to create a new parser and add features to the engine to make their proprietary creation profitable. This sounds like more work than most people/companies would be willing to put in. Cooperating with the ENIGMA community would be easier and more productive by comparison. You can't force cooperation, but you can encourage it!The parser isn't as hard as you might think and companies would sure as hell have the resources to make one. And this means you could make a parser that not only takes EDL/GML, but anything you might want. You could make a parser that takes Python if you wanted to. Or JS (which was actually partly done by Josh for ENIMGAJS project).
While that's true, it would negate the point of using ENIGMA. If you have the skill to code a game in C++, there are plenty of engines better optimized for that purpose with more permissive licenses. There's very little benefit to using ENIGMA's engine this way (please tell me if I'm wrong). I don't see how selling the engine by itself would be profitable unless it was changed drastically and changes that dramatic would require sharing under the MPL.Of course there are many game engines available, but so are game making tools. ENIGMA's engine on it's own isn't a bad one and if could be used without LGM then it would hold merit on its own. At least for 2D games it's very optimized and even advanced. So I think if was very easy, then ENIGMA's engine might be used on its own like any other. But right now that might include more work.
I keep hoping one of ENIGMA's developers will begin contacting the other contributors and persuade them to authorize a license change. Any volunteers?Most ENIGMA devs who are required for license change are in these forums (Josh mentioned this a few posts ago), so it's not that we can't get together. It's that we haven't still chosen a license. MPL is the closest we came to choosing one, but it isn't perfect either. So if nothing better comes out of this, then it might be the one we choose. Then it's up to Josh whether we really use MPL or he thinks of a custom one (and whether its worth it).
Why not say "ENIGMA + parsed output of compiler" like the GCC linking exception, which is probably the most widely used license that happens to do exactly what Josh wants here?Because the GPL, in all it's forms, prevents people from selling their games in the Mac and iTunes App Store. The MPL has no such issue. For example, check out why VLC was pulled from the App Store (http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/01/07/move.said.to.be.related.to.licensing.dispute/) and then came back when relicensed under the MPL. (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/07/vlc-media-player-returns-to-the-ios-app-store-after-30-month-hiatus/)
onpon: I'm not saying I agree with DRM or Apple's policies (I don't), but the license change is a usability issue, not a political one. My goal is to make games and sell them. If my goal was to make political statements, I'd be an activist and not a game developer. Sometimes it's possible to do both, but first and foremost: a man's gotta eat.
QuoteAbsolutely 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.I still don't understand the issue with what the FroggestSpirit said. He said ENIGMA engine (that is the one running the game itself, so the game is ENIGMA engine + Your game) shouldn't be sellable on it's own. So you can't just take the ENGINE from Git (the engine is basically everything under ENIGMAsystem/SHELL) and sell that. On the other hand if you make some kind of software and then compile, then you should be able to sell it.
Basically when you make something ENIGMA you get "ENIGMA engine + Your game".
ENIGMA engine - Shouldn't be sellable.
ENIGMA engine + Your game - Should be.
I think it makes sense. And that is basically what the whole issue is about.Quote1. Isn't it enough to keep the parser/compiler protected with the GPL and change the engine to the MPL?It could lessen any problems and make the whole thing harder to use (as the parser/compiler would have to be written from scratch). Just FIY - we say "compiler" even though we don't actually compile anything ourselves. It's actually just the parser that creates the C++ code and then GCC is used to compile it.Quote2. Is either portion of ENIGMA very useful without the other?Could be. I guess depends on the one who tries to steal it. Technically you should be able to compile everything without the parser. I could actually try that some time as it's both a good feature (as it means you could code everything in pure C++ without LGM or anything else) and a bad one (as the enigne under a permissive license would make it sellable on its own).Quote3. 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?Technically they could get rid of the parser part and only use the engine. They wouldn't be able to use GML/EDL it this case, but they could code in pure C++. You can check that yourself. Everything you code gets parsed and then written to "C:\ProgramData\ENIGMA\Preprocessor_Environment_Editable". These are the files that need to be replicated when not using the parser. If you only wanted to use the ENIGMA engine then most of the files here could probably be empty as well.QuoteIf I were an American I could sue you for a spelling error you made in an ENIGMA update and I could win ! :DThat really is not how suing works. It can take many years (especially when talking about millions of dollars), many trials (it's not like "Trial is done, Robert won, give Robert money", it's more like "Trial is done, Robert won, If Darkstar doesn't agree with verdict, we can start again") and most people just say "f it" and stops. So you can think whatever you want of ENIGMA or the possibility of Robert suing you, but trials are not something you just take out of your ass. That is why most things actually AREN'T settled in court (even large companies involving many millions of $ settle out of court as it's a lot easier).
If someone can't do whatever they want with the game they've created and sell it wherever they want, why would they use this engine over another engine with no restrictions?
If someone can't do whatever they want with the game they've created and sell it wherever they want, why would they use this engine over another engine with no restrictions?
In computer programming, a runtime library is a set of low-level routines used by a compiler to invoke some of the behaviors of a runtime environment, by inserting calls to the runtime library into compiled executable binary.During compilation, ENIGMA's engine code (C++) is being linked with game code (C++). I'm barely a programmer, but the definition of runtime library doesn't seem to fit.
A file is an "Independent Module" if it either requires the Runtime Library for execution after a Compilation Process, or makes use of an interface provided by the Runtime Library, but is not otherwise based on the Runtime Library.Is game code based on ENIGMA's engine code? It depends on your definition of "based on." The game code depends on the the engine code for it to run. That may meet the definition of "based on."
If any part of the GCC Linking Exception needs to be changed, we're heading into custom license territory again.
any exceptions list added to the GNU GPL v3 can be ignored (using only the terms of the GNU GPL)This only further proves my point that using any form of the GPL is a bad idea for the engine code. The goal is to move away from some of the restrictions of the GPL, not back towards it if a license exception doesn't apply or can be ignored.
This only further proves my point that using any form of the GPL is a bad idea for the engine code. The goal is to move away from some of the restrictions of the GPL, not back towards it if a license exception doesn't apply or can be ignored.
I'm done.
If some of the people here can't see why any part of the GPL is bad for ENIGMA's engine code, my arguments won't convince them. I guess it's not enough that I'm in the majority on this issue. The majority of other open source game engines don't use the GPL because it's not a good fit for proprietary game creation. The GPL is not a one-size-fits-all kind of license; no license is. Shoe horning the GPL with special exceptions is not going to make it fit any better. I'm sorry that some of you can't see that.
With the community this divided, I doubt much will ever become of ENIGMA. I don't see this license issue resolving itself any time soon. This whole process has made me tired and depressed. I'd rather be making games instead of arguing a pointless debate.
Good luck.
2. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distributeAnd you can't adapt the license to fit Enigma either
under your own terms, binary object code versions of works based on the
Library.
wxWindows Library Licence, Version 3.1
======================================
Copyright (c) 1998-2005 Julian Smart, Robert Roebling et al
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this licence document, but changing it is not allowed.
Thanks for bringing those 2 very nice examples to our attention.
That wxWidgets exception to GPL is a very nice trick. But wxWidgets is a library.Quote2. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distributeAnd you can't adapt the license to fit Enigma either
under your own terms, binary object code versions of works based on the
Library.QuotewxWindows Library Licence, Version 3.1
======================================
Copyright (c) 1998-2005 Julian Smart, Robert Roebling et al
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this licence document, but changing it is not allowed.
Interestingly, Lazarus license is a workaround to an incompatibility between GPL and the old MPL license.
Such problems that have been solved since the release of MPL 2.0.
That's not how it works. The license is copyrighted; redistributing it is illegal unless you are given permission. You only have that permission if you don't change it.
Of course, if you get permission to distribute your modified license, then you can. But you can't do it without that permission.
The wxWindows Library Licence is essentially the L-GPL (Library General Public Licence), with an exception stating that derived works in binary form may be distributed on the user's own terms. This is a solution that satisfies those who wish to produce GPL'ed software using wxWidgets, and also those producing proprietary software.
It's possible to do basically the same thing, but not by modifying that license, at least not without permission. Ideally, you would use the mechanism that version 3 of the GPL gives to add exceptions (the one that the LGPLv3 uses to work).
The wxWidgets guys must have gotten permission from the FSF to make those license changes.
I will have to read over the wx license, but I suspect it suffers the same problem. The problem is that if you can release an arbitrary binary linked against ours, without source code, you can lock us out and sell an improved ENIGMA binary. While this does not encumber the use of our software directly, it gives this party direct and perpetual competitive advantage, leaving this team with little incentive to continue development, and locking everyone in on a proprietary version of ENIGMA due to addiction to the improvements.
This isn't a problem for wx due to its active developer base. Outdoing the wx devs with their own source code is a lot harder than outdoing us with ours.
2. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distribute
under your own terms, binary object code versions of works based on the
Engine. [color=red]As long as said works are not a similar/competing software, in that case refer to clause 5 (five) of this license.[/color]
5. You may use this software to develop a similar/competing software without written permission of the developers or their legal representatives.
Provided that said software and any and all modifications included in it are made public and are covered by this same license without any
modification except adding your name to the developers list.
That puts us back in legal muddy-water, because now our license isn't Open-Source approved, and may or may not actually hold water, legally. What constitutes similar/competing software, for example? It's possible we could pull from an existing legal definition of "competing," but only a lawyer would know that.
I'm talking about this:
(http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/OSI-Approved-License-100x137.png)
And I am not aware of a place to submit a license for review. If there is a process for that, I'm interested in seeing it. It's likely that your proposal is a great place to start (at least better than the typical LGPL exemption). But I still need to read that over.
For an additional permission on top of the GNU GPL with v3's mechanism to do this, you don't need to worry about approval by the FSF or OSI, because the GPL on its own can be used if someone wants to, and this license has been accepted by both the FSF and the OSI.
The only way you would need to worry about this is if you are actually modifying a license. Which is why the GPLv3+ plus additional permissions is a better choice.
By the way, "LGPL" did originally stand for "Library General Public License", and version 2.1 of the LGPL uses the word "library" rather than "program". The reason it was changed to "Lesser General Public License" is because the FSF didn't want people assuming that the LGPL should be used for all libraries; sometimes the GPL is strategically a better choice.
Atached below three versions of the exception: ;)Consider how a single word in the fairly simple wxWidgets exception to the LGPL could make things unclear
The wxWindows Library Licence has been approved by the Open Source Initiative.
In August 2005, an ambiguity in Clause 2 was removed (replaced "the user's" with "your") and the version bumped to 3.1.
2. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this software give permission for additional uses of the text contained in this release of the software as licensed under the Enigma Engine LicenseText? Do you mean the code? The GPL itself consumes whole paragraphs describing what source code is, and how bytecode is not considered source.
Atached below three versions of the exception: ;)
Atached below three versions of the exception: ;)Consider how a single word in the fairly simple wxWidgets exception to the LGPL could make things unclearQuoteThe wxWindows Library Licence has been approved by the Open Source Initiative.
In August 2005, an ambiguity in Clause 2 was removed (replaced "the user's" with "your") and the version bumped to 3.1.
Writing an exception to the GPL is no small task.Quote2. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this software give permission for additional uses of the text contained in this release of the software as licensed under the Enigma Engine LicenseText? Do you mean the code? The GPL itself consumes whole paragraphs describing what source code is, and how bytecode is not considered source.
Just using the wrong word can lead to troubles.
This is the riskiest way you could attempt to solve the problem, if you ask me.
BTW libGDX, a free/libre game development framework that supports more platforms than Enigma or Studio will ever do, just reached v1.0.
The project started in 2009, and doesn't have many more stable developers than this project has, even though it receives many pull requests on GitHub.
...and it uses Apache 2.0 as its license
http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=3412
Atached below three versions of the exception: ;)
And they're all illegal. You can't just ignore the license that this license is under, slap on false copyright holders, and call it a day.
the gpl itself is copyrighted by the FSF
you can modify any free/libre license that you want but you would have to change the name too; that's why the FSF developed the GPLv3 with the mechanism for you to attach exceptions to it.
As for the copyright holders, if not the developers team then who?
Quotethe gpl itself is copyrighted by the FSF
Correct. Also, the wxWidgets license is copyrighted by the people who wrote it.
Quoteyou can modify any free/libre license that you want but you would have to change the name too; that's why the FSF developed the GPLv3 with the mechanism for you to attach exceptions to it.QuoteIncorrect. You can't modify the GNU GPL because, as you can plainly see, the only license given to you to redistribute the GNU GPL says, "changing it is not allowed". The wxWidgets license has this exact same requirement in the only license given to redistribute it. To distribute modified versions, you have to get permission, as was done with the original Affero GPL.
QuoteAs for the copyright holders, if not the developers team then who?QuoteThe people who actually wrote the license. So, the names that you erased. But this is a moot point, because you haven't obtained permission to modify the license in the first place.
Finally, and please don't take this wrong, why don't you write an exception from scratch, without taking inspiration from anywhere else and propose that?It's been attempted and nobody could agree on it any more than now.
QuoteFinally, and please don't take this wrong, why don't you write an exception from scratch, without taking inspiration from anywhere else and propose that?It's been attempted and nobody could agree on it any more than now.
Enigma Engine License, Version 1.4
======================================
Copyright (c) 2014 Josh Ventura, Robert B. Colton et al
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
ENIGMA ENGINE LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
This software 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 software 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 software. If not, write
to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
EXCEPTION NOTICE
1. Linking the Enigma Engine statically or dynamically with other programs, modules and/or libraries is
making a combined work based on the Enigma Engine. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General
Public License cover the whole combination.
2. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this software give permission for additional uses of the
source contained in this release of the software as licensed under the Enigma Engine License (From now on
referred as the Engine), applying either version 1.4 of the License, or (at your option) any later version of
the License as published by the copyright holders of version 1.1 of the License document.
3. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distribute under your own terms, binary object
code versions of works based on the Engine, even with proprietary software. As long as said works are not a
game development software, in that case refer to clause 6 (Six) of this license.
4. If you copy code from files distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License into a copy of this
software, as this license permits, the exception does not apply to the code that you add in this way. To avoid
misleading anyone as to the status of such modified files, you must delete this exception notice from such code
and/or adjust the licensing conditions notice accordingly.
5. If you write modifications of your own to this software, it is your choice whether to permit this exception to
apply to your modifications. If you do not wish that, you must delete the exception notice from such code and/or
adjust the licensing conditions notice accordingly.
6. You may use this software to develop a game development software without written permission of the
developers or their legal representatives. Provided that:
a) Said software and any and all modifications included in it are made public and are covered by this same license
without any modification except adding your name to the developers list.
b) Said software may not be linked to proprietary software.
7. It's your responsibility to check that any other software your application links to is compatible with the Enigma
and GPL licenses.
8. You must relay a verbatim copy of this license to any recipient of your modifications to the enigma engine.
5. If you write modifications of your own to this software, you must publish them under dual license: GPL and
the Enigma Engine License. Unless said modifications are for your personal use only (will never leave your computer),
in which case you don't have the obligation to make them public.
First, this thread is old, but Josh has been actively trying to contact lawyers for the last year. None of them have responded accurately yet. This could just be because not all lawyers are familiar with software licenses, and so it is difficult to find a good answer for the issue at hand.
But I am confused reading these topics, on ENIGMA's site it does say you are allowed to sell your games.... Which is which ? Most people have no damn clue about licensing and how it works. It should be explained in more simpler terms.The idea is that if you use GPL code (which ENIGMA is using), then you must redistribute whatever you make using that code. GCC is also GPL, but it allows you to create propiatary executables because it has a written exception, which is what Josh has tried to do with ENIGMA (but since he is not a lawyer, it may have flaws and that is why he was trying to consult an actual lawyer).
The idea is that if you use GPL code (which ENIGMA is using), then you must redistribute whatever you make using that code. GCC is also GPL, but it allows you to create propiatary executables because it has a written exception, which is what
Don't you mean redistribute whatever I used to build my game ? So this means I have to redistribute ENIGMA with my games? Do I include the portable zip or do I have to distribute the entire enigma-dev folders (in its installed form). ?Sorry, I worded that improperly. GPL requires whatever you made using that GPL code to be GPL as well. So, you would have the post the source code to your game whenever somebody would request it.
But I am confused reading these topics, on ENIGMA's site it does say you are allowed to sell your games.... Which is which ? Most people have no damn clue about licensing and how it works. It should be explained in more simpler terms.The idea is that if you use GPL code (which ENIGMA is using), then you must redistribute whatever you make using that code. GCC is also GPL, but it allows you to create propiatary executables because it has a written exception, which is what Josh has tried to do with ENIGMA (but since he is not a lawyer, it may have flaws and that is why he was trying to consult an actual lawyer).
Don't you mean redistribute whatever I used to build my game ? So this means I have to redistribute ENIGMA with my games? Do I include the portable zip or do I have to distribute the entire enigma-dev folders (in its installed form). ?Sorry, I worded that improperly. GPL requires whatever you made using that GPL code to be GPL as well. So, you would have the post the source code to your game whenever somebody would request it.
Not exactly true, you may use any GPLed product to develop your product (CodeBlocks + GCC + wxWidgets for instance), and then release it under whatever license you deem apropiate,Using Code::Blocks does not mean you're using GPL code. You're not directly using the code, so it does not affect you. However, GCC and ENIGMA both insert their GPL-based code into whatever you make. This is why GCC needed an exception and why ENIGMA needs one now.
ENIGMA Free Software Licenses
The ENIGMA engine is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License V3 plus a static link exception.
You get the full source code. You can examine the code, modify it, and share your modified code under the terms of the LGPL.
Static linking exception. The copyright holders give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you must extend this exception to your version of the library.
The ENIGMA engine for Commercial Games
The ENIGMA engine is safe for use in closed-source games. The LGPL share-alike terms do not apply to games built on top of the ENIGMA engine.
You do not need a commercial license. The LGPL applies to ENIGMA's own source code, not your games.
Since I don't know where the devs are based this is difficult but:
http://www.mcmillan.ca/pro-bono
http://www.georgialegalaid.org/
http://www.vsb.org/site/pro_bono/resources-for-the-public
Don't you mean redistribute whatever I used to build my game ? So this means I have to redistribute ENIGMA with my games? Do I include the portable zip or do I have to distribute the entire enigma-dev folders (in its installed form). ?Sorry, I worded that improperly. GPL requires whatever you made using that GPL code to be GPL as well. So, you would have the post the source code to your game whenever somebody would request it.
Ok fair enough. Now let's say I use ENIGMA to make a game, but decide NOT to load everything in the IDE and consequently have it compiled in my EXE, but all resources of my game stored in resource files, encrypted, and the handling of that be done by my own C++ engine.
In other words using my proprietary engine/code combined with ENIGMA......In that case the only source code I would need to make available upon request is that of the ENIGMA portion right ? meaning the EGM file for example, and NOT my resource files or the compiled C++ or C++ code of my proprietary engine ? Right?
I don't think the obligation is that you have to redistribute ENIGMA, you just need to accommodate access to and provide information about the program used to make your game or program. Just saying I built this game with ENIGMA, here's the link where you can download it and its source code is suffice.
Additionally what Josh most likely means by you can sell your game, is that you can sell your game and we basically won't give a shit, I go to college I got much better things to do than try to ride someone else's coattails, if you make the next Crappy Bird in ENIGMA and become a millionaire more power to you just don't forget to mention that our engine was used, to do otherwise would be pretty rude. I believe this is pretty reasonable and that any reasonable person would agree with me.
the second option gives anybody involved in the development the assurance of being an official, osi approved license
Let's say, for example, that ENIGMA manages to get a killer feature added that makes everyone want to migrate away from Game Maker. If it's permissively licensed, YoYo Games can just plop it into Game Maker with virtually zero effort. Don't get stuck in the mindset that "companies are going to release contributions anyway". Corporations are, by definition, amoral entities, driven by profit.
Quotethe second option gives anybody involved in the development the assurance of being an official, osi approved license
The GNU LGPL is OSI-approved. Additional permissions don't make a license any less open source.
I just want to summarize some points, because there seems to have been an explosion of misunderstandings over something very simple:
When you dynamically link or otherwise include any GPL'ed code, such as libraries provided by ENIGMA, the entire program must be under the GPL. This doesn't mean you can't sell copies, it just means you need to give users the same freedom you were given. What the GNU LGPL does is allow you to dynamically link to the program under the GNU LGPL and not release the whole under the GNU LGPL.
What Josh wants to do is also allow static linking, rather than just the dynamic linking allowed by the GNU LGPL, so that everything can be put into a single executable on Windows. The problem with this is it could easily be abused if done wrong; imagine someone taking ENIGMA, making improvements, then wrapping that in a very small program that basically just includes the modified ENIGMA and does its job. Going the other way, the copyleft provisions could accidentally be left too strong.
Personally, I think the concern about having DLLs or other shared object files is silly. Sure, Game Maker users are used to having one file, but it's not a common practice in the first place. Even Windows programs more usually use some sort of installer or just a simple ZIP archive, and if it's even possible on GNU/Linux, I've never seen it there. Besides, consider all the libraries released under the GNU LGPL already; I'm not aware of any case where proprietary software developers rejected these libraries because they wanted to statically link and couldn't.
I say, just use the GNU LGPL, and make sure the way ENIGMA compiles the games dynamically links by default.
One last thing: it would be completely retarded to just make it permissively-licensed. I once heard an anecdote that people who do proprietary software development laugh at people who release their code under permissive licenses, because they can take that code, put it in their proprietary software, and give nothing back. It should be taken with a grain of salt, but it makes perfect sense. Let's say, for example, that ENIGMA manages to get a killer feature added that makes everyone want to migrate away from Game Maker. If it's permissively licensed, YoYo Games can just plop it into Game Maker with virtually zero effort. Don't get stuck in the mindset that "companies are going to release contributions anyway". Corporations are, by definition, amoral entities, driven by profit.
I don't think the obligation is that you have to redistribute ENIGMA, you just need to accommodate access to and provide information about the program used to make your game or program. Just saying I built this game with ENIGMA, here's the link where you can download it and its source code is suffice.
Additionally what Josh most likely means by you can sell your game, is that you can sell your game and we basically won't give a shit, I go to college I got much better things to do than try to ride someone else's coattails, if you make the next Crappy Bird in ENIGMA and become a millionaire more power to you just don't forget to mention that our engine was used, to do otherwise would be pretty rude. I believe this is pretty reasonable and that any reasonable person would agree with me.
Damn guys, is this still going on?
This is why I bailed on Enigma 9 months ago. The leads don't seem to have any direction. Which is a bummer for the project.
Damn guys, is this still going on?
This is why I bailed on Enigma 9 months ago. The leads don't seem to have any direction. Which is a bummer for the project.
A less restrictive copyleft license like the MPL is my choice. Changes to ENIGMA's code still have to be shared, but game developers can license their code or keep it proprietary.While it may sound harmless the less informed member will implicitly take that into account.
CheersCorrect, I am sure YoYoGame's license is a lot less volatile and restrictive as the GPL.
Go and continue making loads of money to a company that takes 70% cut from your hard work and labour.
I have to mention that rushing us to force a license on the project doesn't help either, this is something that should be done slowly and be well thought out instead of making rash decisions in the interest of both you the user and we the developers.
I have to mention that rushing us to force a license on the project doesn't help either, this is something that should be done slowly and be well thought out instead of making rash decisions in the interest of both you the user and we the developers. I'll admit that it would best solved by an expert team of lawyers, which I don't have the money for, but only they can sit down and rigorously disseminate all the provisions of various licenses and give the best legal advice because they are the ones trained to do that.
Additionally the community is currently underrepresented, we have plenty of more users but several of them will appear only to post an issue but here on the forums they are not as active, our Twitter account retweets and everything have more of our active users. Further, this poll had confirmation bias to begin with which construes the results.Quote from: SurveyA less restrictive copyleft license like the MPL is my choice. Changes to ENIGMA's code still have to be shared, but game developers can license their code or keep it proprietary.While it may sound harmless the less informed member will implicitly take that into account.Quote from: Darkstar2CheersCorrect, I am sure YoYoGame's license is a lot less volatile and restrictive as the GPL.
Go and continue making loads of money to a company that takes 70% cut from your hard work and labour.
why separate the libs
why separate the libs
Please pay attention. Dynamically linking instead of statically linking by default would allow proprietary programs to use ENIGMA if it were under the GNU LGPL, eliminating the need to write up the legal language required for permitting static linking without leaving a loophole.
Further, this poll had confirmation bias to begin with which construes the results.Quote from: SurveyA less restrictive copyleft license like the MPL is my choice. Changes to ENIGMA's code still have to be shared, but game developers can license their code or keep it proprietary.While it may sound harmless the less informed member will implicitly take that into account.
Straying off-topic a bit. But, I prefer static linking all the way. Less mess, more portable.
Darkstar2 - Yes, I can see how my sudden leaving could be seen as suspicious. But, as I said via PM (in much more detail) it was a bad time in my life, internet wise.
So if you guys are happy to have me back, I am more than happy to contribute to the project. No deleting threads this time round - LOL :)
As I said in the PM, deleting wasn't the right thing to do. I just wanted out of the net - was a crazy time. Wasn't just here,
so don't stress about that. Hard to explain unless you have been there. :)
Now back on topic :)
why separate the libs
Please pay attention. Dynamically linking instead of statically linking by default would allow proprietary programs to use ENIGMA if it were under the GNU LGPL, eliminating the need to write up the legal language required for permitting static linking without leaving a loophole.
I agree with lone on this one, static linking, less messy and more portable.
That's the whole idea started in GM, build games fast and create an executable......not create an executable and dependencies / files requirements.
The only way we can track who is an actual contributor is by using the headers. So we could just crawl them and make a list of who contributed. If someone in that list is no longer a contributor and can't be got hold of, then we could rewrite the necessary parts. Sadly a lot of the code has been rewritten numerous times, yet people in those headers remained. So it's possible that the person didn't have anything to do with the new code.
So what I am saying is that it could be hard to understand who is a contributor and who isn't. What is the practice in this regard?
A good example of this is the recent contributors to LGM, they have not put their name in the (c),You just reminded me of something very important, I forgot to mention that to sorlok and egofree. It's an honest mistake I never added myself to the headers when I first started and I still forget quite a lot to add myself to the copyright headers, in fact, I should have added myself to XLIB main/window headers a while back because I've made significant improvements to those files.
Hello egofree, I am writing to inform you of your rights as a contributor to the LGM/ENIGMA code base. When you sent us a pull request you should have included your name in the copyright headers, usually changing one or two lines does not warrant adding yourself as a contributor but you made substantial changes to several files. The standard is to include yourself on the line with the year you contributed, if the file has not been edited in the previous year you should add a new line with your name and the copyright year. I would like to request that for the protection of your intellectual property and the project that you submit a pull request updating the copyright headers of files you have contributed to so that I may review them and pull them.
This is the topic where I was reminded, I was going to message you at some point but forgot:
http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=1832.msg22334;boardseen#new
Thank you,
Robert
Rezolyze, I'm sorry I may have been a little overly critical, but you can understand where I am coming from. After 8 pages I kind of lost track of what this was all about so I lost sight of the poll's intentions.It's not a problem, Robert. You have a valid point and I wasn't offended. With the discussion about licensing spanning many years and multiple threads, it's tough to keep it all in perspective.
The code in ENIGMA is currently licensed under the GPL3+. This is code contributed by many talented programmers, each individually having their code licensed (or relicensed) to the GPL3+. Relicensing an entire product is not a trivial matter, and even less trivial due to its current license. Relicensing ENIGMA (or LateralGM) would require *every single code contributor* to agree to have their contributions relicensed to the new license. It cannot be done democratically (with a vote). If any single developer does not agree, their code is stuck to the old license, meaning you either have to give up or scrap *all* of their code. Which could potentially leave the product broken, so you'd have to have someone rewrite those code sections from scratch using the new license (or compatible), and it can't be identical to the old code.I completely agree with everything you've written above. The only thing I would add is: We're talking about relicensing ENIGMA's engine code, the code that would be redistributed in executable form with a compiled game. LateralGM and the parser/compiler would and should remain GPL licensed. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
For example, I am a well-known contributor to some of the modules in ENIGMA. You'll see my name appear at the top of some files. I for one intentionally wrote my code with the GPL3+ license (with option for a special exception for the games). I do NOT consent to having my code relicensed to the BSD or MIT licenses. I do not want a permissive license, as I do not want to see a proprietary competitor to ENIGMA stealing ENIGMA's code and not sharing their own improvements (which I think Josh mentioned).
I completely agree with everything you've written above. The only thing I would add is: We're talking about relicensing ENIGMA's engine code, the code that would be redistributed in executable form with a compiled game. LateralGM and the parser/compiler would and should remain GPL licensed. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.That was the other thing I was going to mention to her as well, the only code to relicense is the ENIGMA engine/system.
So are you going to ask your users to start installing dependencies and making sure they have the necessary libs to run your game ?
You just reminded me of something very important, I forgot to mention that to sorlok and egofree. It's an honest mistake I never added myself to the headers when I first started and I still forget quite a lot to add myself to the copyright headers, in fact, I should have added myself to XLIB main/window headers a while back because I've made significant improvements to those files.
So are you going to ask your users to start installing dependencies and making sure they have the necessary libs to run your game ? Perhaps a poll asking what people prefer, a single EXE or dependencies/requirements and a mess.
I guess it's obvious what most people using these tools would use.
They say that changing a license EVERYONE must agree, but if we don't know everyone? How can we be sure? If we change it without a person agreeing, even if we don't know if that person even contributed, then is the "law" on their side?
Really? That's pretty scary.
I have no idea on GNU licensing whatsoever. I would have just assumed that once source is committed to the project, the project would own it.
That's pretty scary.
Was just providing LGM as an example of another GPL project in which relicensing would be difficult. I know you guys never mentioned it, but I did recently get a private message from someone asking if I'd be interested in relicensing LGM. Also, for the record, even though LGM and ENIGMA are separate projects, they do interact together and are used together. In order for this interaction to occur, they require either compatible licenses or licenses that permit this interaction. I don't recall exactly how far this goes, but it could be worth looking into to ensure that you don't have to abandon LGM as the interface just because you chose a more permissive license!The code in ENIGMA is currently licensed under the GPL3+. This is code contributed by many talented programmers, each individually having their code licensed (or relicensed) to the GPL3+. Relicensing an entire product is not a trivial matter, and even less trivial due to its current license. Relicensing ENIGMA (or LateralGM) would require *every single code contributor* to agree to have their contributions relicensed to the new license. It cannot be done democratically (with a vote). If any single developer does not agree, their code is stuck to the old license, meaning you either have to give up or scrap *all* of their code. Which could potentially leave the product broken, so you'd have to have someone rewrite those code sections from scratch using the new license (or compatible), and it can't be identical to the old code.I completely agree with everything you've written above. The only thing I would add is: We're talking about relicensing ENIGMA's engine code, the code that would be redistributed in executable form with a compiled game. LateralGM and the parser/compiler would and should remain GPL licensed. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
If you guys decide to go with MPL2, I'll consider it.For example, I am a well-known contributor to some of the modules in ENIGMA. You'll see my name appear at the top of some files. I for one intentionally wrote my code with the GPL3+ license (with option for a special exception for the games). I do NOT consent to having my code relicensed to the BSD or MIT licenses. I do not want a permissive license, as I do not want to see a proprietary competitor to ENIGMA stealing ENIGMA's code and not sharing their own improvements (which I think Josh mentioned).
I see the MPL v2 as a fair compromise between the GPL v3 and a permissive license like the BSD or MIT license. The MPL is still a copyleft license like the GPL, but it allows for linking non-MPL code to MPL code. It's just as viral as the GPL except where linking is concerned. It was designed with the purpose of being a bridge between copyleft licensed code all other types of licensed/proprietary code.
However, it's not my intention to get into another long-running debate over licenses. I can understand why most people wouldn't want to comb through so many pages of discussion to arrive at a license choice. I've got an idea that should simplify the discussion, but I'll need everyone's help to implement it. I'll post more about it soon.
In order for this interaction to occur, they require either compatible licenses or licenses that permit this interaction. I don't recall exactly how far this goes, but it could be worth looking into to ensure that you don't have to abandon LGM as the interface just because you chose a more permissive license!
In what way? If this wasn't the case, copyleft wouldn't work.
Or are you referring to the ridiculous duration of copyright monopolies?
So are you going to ask your users to start installing dependencies and making sure they have the necessary libs to run your game ? Perhaps a poll asking what people prefer, a single EXE or dependencies/requirements and a mess.
I guess it's obvious what most people using these tools would use.
I certainly prefer single exe all the way. But, if you ask 'those who shalt not be referenced' (ok, YYG :)). The say the former option, pack all of the dependencies in to a big ass installer package.
I 'had it out' with them about this a long time ago, because they pack d3dx9_43.dll with the compiled app but not xinput1_3.dll so gamepad support breaks when you don't have all DX runtimes installed.
So, with your 4 MB game you should 'supposedly' include no less than 100 MB worth of supporting files.
100 MB DX redists, VC2008 redist, oh and you are using a poorly written extension that was built in VC2010 and dynamic links as well? - better add those redists too then. ???
Stuff that. Single executable all the way thanks ;)
Quote from: Darkstar2A good example of this is the recent contributors to LGM, they have not put their name in the (c),You just reminded me of something very important, I forgot to mention that to sorlok and egofree. It's an honest mistake I never added myself to the headers when I first started and I still forget quite a lot to add myself to the copyright headers, in fact, I should have added myself to XLIB main/window headers a while back because I've made significant improvements to those files.
What does "Prevent proprietary fixes or features" mean? You claim that the LGPL doesn't do this, but the way I interpret "proprietary fixes or features" is "make proprietary versions of the library", which the LGPL prohibits.
Here's an example (http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=1719.msg17326#msg17326) of how something like that could happen.
Uh, that's an example of that happening under the MPL, not the GNU LGPL. I'm pretty sure that the GNU LGPL doesn't allow you to link the library to a proprietary program; only the other way around (a proprietary program can link to the library).
Ok, first of all GPL does allow linking with what ever / however you want as long as you don't distribute it, for instance for internal use in a company without the intent to distribute.That's correct, but not relevant to this discussion. All of the proposed licenses allow for private use of the source code and compiled binaries. The primary purpose of ENIGMA is to make games that can be distributed publicly.
LGPL allows linking with propietary code as long as you do it dynamically for sell or in any way for private use.That's partially correct. The LGPL allows dynamic or static linking with any type of code as long as you follow some extra rules for static linking. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic)
MPLv2 allows static linking while protecting your code, (MPL: The copyleft applies to any files containing MPLed code.) This means you can sell your game as long as you make sure the recipients can have access to the MPLd code contained within your game (The engine and any modification you make to it basically), so it's almost like the LGPL with a linking exception.The MPLv2 is similar to the LGPLv3 in a few ways, but it is more flexible when it comes to linking, relicensing MPL code under a GNU license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0) and distribution of a combined work.
See for your self: https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html (https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html)I've read that FAQ a lot over the last few days. I reference it in the License Comparison table. (http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=2270)
So, my question is: What do you, the reader, think about someone selling proprietary features or fixes for ENIGMA's engine?
If ENIGMA's engine code license were changed and someone started legally selling an enhanced version of ENIGMA, would you be upset about that?
What if that someone shared their bug fixes with ENIGMA, but kept the enhanced features proprietary; would that make a difference? Please discuss.
Waiting for SFLC has not proven fruitful....Pity they didn't answer you. Seriously, I expected more from them.
Come on now.
Let's relax a bit.
How many times is the same poll needed? :D
I know I have personally voted atleast 2 maybe 3 times on separate polls on the same thread.
Good thing you guys are not in parliament, hey? Those guys only take a few years to decide on anything. ENIGMA is now 7 years old. ::)