lonewolff
|
|
Posted on: September 28, 2014, 12:47:10 am |
|
|
"Guest"
|
Hi Guys, Is there anything stopping someone (ok me..) from creating an ENIGMA fork as long as all (fork) source code is kept available to the public, yadda, yadda, yadda? Just seems that the Admin hierachy (anarchy? ) have a totally different vision of the future (or lack thereof) for ENIGMA to what I have. I am obviously a nobody and have no real say as to what the future should be for ENIGMA on this site, and fair enough I respect that. So, the question is can I say 'fork it' and mould ENIGMA to suit my vision (and make the original ENIGMA project look like the retard first cousin or something)? LOL Love to hear your thoughts.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
onpon
|
|
Reply #3 Posted on: September 28, 2014, 07:13:34 am |
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102
|
The only thing you must do is allow us to merge features you implement in your fork.
That's an over-simplification of the requirements of the GNU GPL. It suggests that many forbidden activities are allowed, and it suggests that redistribution in the first place is required when it isn't. What you actually must do, in a nutshell, is: if you distribute your modified version of ENIGMA to anyone, it must be under the GNU GPL version 3 or later (you must keep intact license notices and give them a copy of the GNU GPL), and you must provide full source code to any recipient of a binary at no additional charge. You might want to read the text of the GNU GPL, and you might want to look at this FAQ: https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lonewolff
|
|
Reply #5 Posted on: September 28, 2014, 07:42:24 am |
|
|
"Guest"
|
Just reading through the GPL license FAQ now.
Seems like a massive mess of contradictions and double talk.
Makes closed source more attractive, the more that I read it...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Josh @ Dreamland
|
|
Reply #6 Posted on: September 28, 2014, 09:09:18 am |
|
|
Prince of all Goldfish
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2950
|
Closed-source forking is allowed, but only until a binary release is made public. At that point, you must provide an identically-licensed source bundle to build any binary distributions. This bundle does not have to include your entire development history, but it does have to be human-readable (not minimized, not obfuscated).
By the sounds of it, a fork is not what you want, anyway; it sounds as though what you want is to run your own ENIGMA community (or rather, a community for a fork of ENIGMA). You can try to do that, but I suspect that you will have at most half as many active users as we do—sort of like the Ubuntu and Mint communities. Meanwhile, if your code actually contains modifications that give you an edge, we'll be bombarded with bug reports about general commentary about it, which will be annoying.
I also suspect you'll find that a community whose only facet is stricter moderation run by people less qualified to provide support for the actual software behind the community is, in fact, less likely to draw a crowd. But I could be wrong.
That said, if nothing else, then as a public demonstration of the principles we have already discussed in action, I'd encourage you to go ahead and fork the project.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 28, 2014, 09:11:18 am by Josh @ Dreamland »
|
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
|
|
|
|
Darkstar2
|
|
Reply #8 Posted on: September 28, 2014, 11:58:10 am |
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1238
|
Just reading through the GPL license FAQ now.
Seems like a massive mess of contradictions and double talk.
Makes closed source more attractive, the more that I read it...
LOL ! and you just discovered this now lonewolff ? to address Josh's points: You can try to do that, but I suspect that you will have at most half as many active users as we do
It depends, a significantly better product or different product might attract a crowd. Given the fact that it was said to me that nearly 99% of the GMC are kids/pre-teens, I could see why people have attachment to GM so perhaps a new product, nothing to do with GM, but same ease of use, might attract a different crowd, it all depends on the person running the site. I also suspect you'll find that a community whose only facet is stricter moderation run by people less qualified to provide support for the actual software behind the community is, in fact, less likely to draw a crowd. But I could be wrong.
Excellent point there, who better to get support from, than the original development team, especially when you are working with the same code base. Good point there Josh. Though I disagree with you about the moderation part.....It all depends on your level of moderation. There is a difference between a forum mod by trigger happy kids and stuck up admins, and PROPER moderation - believe it or not it IS possible to be very lenient BUT draw the line on what is acceptable and what cannot be crossed.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 28, 2014, 12:05:33 pm by Darkstar2 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lonewolff
|
|
Reply #10 Posted on: September 28, 2014, 06:28:28 pm |
|
|
"Guest"
|
LOL ! and you just discovered this now lonewolff ?
Seriously, please enlighten me: what "contradictions and double talk" do you see in the GNU GPL FAQ?
This one is a kicker (and contradicts what I have been saying to DS2 via PM all along. Seems he is right. I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) runtime library permitted under the GPL? (#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL)
You may link your program to these libraries, and distribute the compiled program to others. When you do this, the runtime libraries are “System Libraries” as GPLv3 defines them. That means that you don't need to worry about including their source code with the program's Corresponding Source. GPLv2 provides a similar exception in section 3.
You may not distribute these libraries in compiled DLL form with the program. To prevent unscrupulous distributors from trying to use the System Library exception as a loophole, the GPL says that libraries can only qualify as System Libraries as long as they're not distributed with the program itself. If you distribute the DLLs with the program, they won't be eligible for this exception anymore; then the only way to comply with the GPL would be to provide their source code, which you are unable to do.
It is possible to write free programs that only run on Windows, but it is not a good idea. These programs would be “trapped” by Windows, and therefore contribute zero to the Free World.
From this it seems if I have a closed source DLL that interfaces with ENIGMA at runtime (and gets distributed as part of the end compliled game that someone makes), It then forces my closed source 'plug-in' to become open source. If so, that is crazy talk.... Consider this: I make a dll extension for GM:S. ENIGMA is an Open Source clone of GM:S. Someone realises my DLL will work in ENIGMA. They package my DLL with their project (which is fine by me). Suddenly my DLL is required to be GPL3 because of ENIGMA, even though the intention of the DLL was never for ENIGMA in the first place (even though I strongly encourage the use of my DLL in ENIGMA). Crazy shit right there! No way the GPL can change the license of my DLL just because my DLL works with ENIGMA. I'd happily take that one to court any day of the week. (Even though I encorage people to use my extensions in ENIGMA).
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
onpon
|
|
Reply #11 Posted on: September 28, 2014, 07:00:46 pm |
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102
|
From this it seems if I have a closed source DLL that interfaces with ENIGMA at runtime (and gets distributed as part of the end compliled game that someone makes), It then forces my closed source 'plug-in' to become open source.
Huh? Your interpretation is utterly nonsensical. Nowhere in the answer is it even remotely implied that proprietary plugins "become open source". It says that if you distribute a DLL with your program, it doesn't qualify as a system library anymore and is therefore not exempt from the terms of the GNU GPL. So if you can't distribute the source code of the DLL under the terms of the GNU GPL, it simply isn't allowed. I make a dll extension for GM:S. ENIGMA is an Open Source clone of GM:S. Someone realises my DLL will work in ENIGMA. They package my DLL with their project (which is fine by me). Suddenly my DLL is required to be GPL3 because of ENIGMA, even though the intention of the DLL was never for ENIGMA in the first place (even though I strongly encourage the use of my DLL in ENIGMA).
No, you're talking nonsense again. This hypothetical person you're talking about simply isn't allowed to do what you described, because it's a violation of the terms of the GNU GPL. Specifically, it's infringing the copyright of the ENIGMA developers. Again, this nonsensical assumption you're making isn't even remotely implied in the GNU GPL FAQ.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 28, 2014, 07:02:50 pm by onpon »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lonewolff
|
|
Reply #12 Posted on: September 28, 2014, 07:19:03 pm |
|
|
"Guest"
|
How is this nonsense? And how is this not allowed? Who is going enforce this? Who is liable?
GPL/GNU sounds like utter bullshit.
So TKG, is allready violating all of this crap by having his extensions of the GMS marketplace (as his entensions work with ENIGMA).
Is GameMaker: Studio now suddenly forced to be open source, because his extensions 'work with' ENIGMA?
So, what you are saying - look at ENIGMA sideways and your life is open source or I am of risk of being dragged through court for rules that any sane human would laugh at?
[edit] Let me ask in simple terms. Incase I am not understanding correctly.
Someone creates a game in ENIGMA, they use a 3rd party closed source DLL as part of their project. What happens? Has the law been broken?
|
|
« Last Edit: September 28, 2014, 07:23:22 pm by lonewolff »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lonewolff
|
|
Reply #13 Posted on: September 28, 2014, 07:40:59 pm |
|
|
"Guest"
|
[hey DS2 you pulled your post? Hanging me out to dry you bastard! ] This whole mass shit is ridiculous, then who the hell wold want to develop things for ENIGMA ? essentially this means that if you use or develop for ENIGMA you have to share your source, you can't get around this......this would make it impossible for putting these said plugins in the market.....it would also mean someone would be able to modify the ENIGMA plugin to work with GMS......is this a fucked in the arse if you do fucked in the arse if you don't scenario or are we simply retarded and not understand the license because I agree with lone, there is so much legalise and so much ambiguity. And I reckon ages ago I was told that if I did not want to be sued to just stop using ENIGMA, I think it is a farce, now it's all about who's going to sue ! Robert made it clear he has no time nor Josh to go after users, however keeping in mind there are other past contributors that could go after anybody. So basically this is it.
FREE comes with a price, you DONATE your hard work and efforts, whether you make plugins or games, you have to distribute your source.......so want to sell your shite for money ? good luck because anybody can simply take your source and distribute it FREE.
Welcome to OPEN SOURCE lonewolff.
Maybe ENIGMA's biggest downfall is not the forum/community but its fucked up license and this fucked up GNU that fucks developers in the arse with a long stick. Sure ENIGMA devs need protection, but what about developers using ENIGMA ? If I spend 1 bloody year making a plugin that works with ENIGMA, 3rd party, 100% my code, and I want to make some money, I have to release the source so some cunt can distribute my hard efforts FREE ? WOW.
Who the FUCK in their right mind would want to contribute to ENIGMA, let alone use ENIGMA or write plugins for it.......This is RUBBISH.
And to top it all off, Josh is shit scared that a previous dev might sue him for copyright should they decide to retract their work. Hence, this licence thread Josh has been tearing his hear out about all of these years. I mean WTF? Scrap ENIGMA start again, and set out your own licence in your own text. I can't see how GPL can stand up in court, seriously... Has anyone tested it in court? A judge would shake his head and say 'fuck off you geeks!' - LOL
|
|
« Last Edit: September 28, 2014, 07:42:54 pm by lonewolff »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|