Rezolyze
|
|
Reply #60 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:36:04 pm |
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53
|
Rusky: Part of every game made with ENIGMA would be GPL with the GCC Linking Exception. An ENIGMA game sold on the App Store would be incompatible because of the GPL licensed engine code compiled with every game. All it takes is one person notifying Apple and the game gets taken down. Portions of the GPL are simply incompatible with Apple's Store policy. The GCC Linking Exception doesn't change that. Maybe I just don't understand what you're arguing (that's definitely possible). Maybe the example I pointed to is a bad example, but that's not the point. The many forms of the GPL and DRM don't mix. Having the engine code under any version of the GPL could prevent sales of people's games on stores that use DRM. 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. ENIGMA's developers should ask themselves: Am I creating a useful game engine or a personal crusade? Very hard to do both...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Goombert
|
|
Reply #61 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:39:44 pm |
|
|
Location: Cappuccino, CA Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2993
|
That's not exactly what I meant. It's the way you are arguing.
Apple has a highly restrictive Store Policy, therefore we should change our whole license around to accommodate it.
Which is really just absurd. The better way to argue it is the following.
ENIGMA has a restrictive license, let's try to find ways to give users more rights.
Is the better way to make the argument.
|
|
|
Logged
|
I think it was Leonardo da Vinci who once said something along the lines of "If you build the robots, they will make games." or something to that effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Darkstar2
|
|
Reply #64 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:59:58 pm |
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1238
|
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.
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.
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 ! That 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).
Good, I'm happy you mention the last part, because that is a point I was making before, certain things get settled out of courts, it is sometimes the best interest of both parties, but sometimes certain thing don't and trail forever even if it means endless expenses, it's all about principles and who has a bigger dick at that point. I know trials are not that easy I was kidding sort of, but frivolous lawsuits happen and some people who initiate them win who don't deserve to, some companies will fold and give in to avoid the costly and lengthy battles, this is factual, and well documented, and more common than one can think. In the case of ENIGMA, the initiator of the lawsuit would have a strong case and defendant little argument as a clear violation of license agreement was committed. Here is where I am confused, if say, a developer gets sued by an enigma dev, does the developer receive right away a notice that they are getting sued or a warning that the game they are distributing is not abiding by licensing terms, sort of a S&D and a time delay to remove distribution of such games....... should the dev comply, will he be exempt from legal action ? OR if say Robert finds out someone's game is a huge success and takes legal action to get some or all of the profits, how will he/she/it establish the amount of money that represents profits? In other words, a person using enigma, would they still have a choice and be given time to comply and provide source or remove their game from distribution or is it set in stone that they get sued. Yes I am aware that legal battles are a lengthy and expensive process, so one would assume by logic that it would not benefit Robert or Josh or any enigma developer to just sue someone for not including source code, unless the said compiled game has generated enough profits to warrant a case. Right?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Darkstar2
|
|
Reply #65 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 11:05:55 pm |
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1238
|
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 an ideal world I would agree with you 100%, unfortunately, there are not that many good engines like ENIGMA out there, well there are but they have a steeper learning curve, require coding and might be more restrictive in other areas. Why is ENIGMA good ? for people who used game maker - You don't feel lost when using LGM, the IDE is familiar and so are the actions, commands, etc. + it allows GML, C++, etc. And to be honest I have not seen any worthy GM clone, there are many but most are utter shit ! ENIGMA is by far the best I've seen and used out of the many out there that were crap. Now the developers of ENIGMA also want protection for their work and project much the same way want things. In my opinion, there will never be a license where both parties will have equal protection it will always lean towards one or the other. Besides, if someone wanted to take ENIGMA and make it better and their own it would have happened by now, there are many cheap ass imitations out there that don't even deserve to be called GM clones As far as "custom licenses" those would require legal support, I don't think that is an option they will consider, and doing a custom without this step would be IMO risky.
|
|
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 11:10:54 pm by Darkstar2 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
onpon
|
|
Reply #66 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 11:56:40 pm |
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102
|
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 it's true that weakened GPL, allowing exceptions so that the app can be proprietary, prevents said proprietary apps from getting on the app store, that doesn't mean that the weak variant of the GPL is more restrictive. And about that: I am not very familiar with iOS; but rather than asking for a program that uses a library under something like the GNU LGPL, how about you find one which has been censored for this reason? A proprietary program under the GNU LGPL or similar, or compiled with GCC? Both of us are able to provide evidence here; but such a program currently being up doesn't actually prove anything concretely (Apple might have just not noticed), and searching for such a program is a lot harder than searching for an example of such a program being censored; a lot of programs you might not even think about use weakly copylefted software. I'm completely in favor of giving ENIGMA weak copyleft for this exact reason you mentioned: Game Maker is easily as good as and probably better than ENIGMA, so strong copyleft is just going to steer people toward Game Maker, not convince them to make their software free/libre. But whatever ridiculous policies Apple has in its censored distribution channel should absolutely not factor into this. ENIGMA doesn't need to cater to iOS developers or even work with iOS at all to be successful.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rezolyze
|
|
Reply #70 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 01:35:47 pm |
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53
|
Since the GCC Linking Exception and the GPL 3.0 don't define a "Runtime Library," an outside definition is needed. Wikipedia's definition of a runtime library doesn't seem to apply to ENIGMA's engine code. 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. From the GCC Linking Exception: 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.
|
|
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 01:43:55 pm by Rezolyze »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rezolyze
|
|
Reply #72 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 02:39:33 pm |
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53
|
I realize the GCC Linking Exception isn't a custom license exception, but changing one or more words in it makes it a custom license exception. Such changes would be needed if the ENIGMA engine code doesn't qualify as a runtime library or if game code is "based on" engine code. 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.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|