GPL?

[serprex]

Here's the issue I'm thinking GPL poses:

GPL is viral. Any code that uses GPL code must be GPL
Enigma is GPL. Any code that uses Enigma code must be GPL
GPL demands source be supplied in a readable manner
Projects are built on top of ENIGMAsystem
ENIGMAsystem is Enigma code is GPL code
One of Enigma's selling points is projects being closed source
Projects that use GPL code must, essentially, be open source

Enigma's security promises are made inept

[RetroX]

The answer is simple.  Don't sell anything made with ENIGMA.

[serprex]

Closed source freeware can still be forced open under GPL

[Josh @ Dreamland]

The nice thing about GPL is that as long as other developers and I don't bitch, it's okay to stay closed source.
Though I was considering writing an exception for official ENIGMA users, frankly I fear I lack the legal prowess to write such an exception and am better off just not forcing anyone to be GPL.

That being the case, I don't mind if anything ENIGMA-made is sold or closed source in general. As long as all the developers agree, which I'm sure they all do considering the circumstances behind GM, we'll be fine.

[score_under]

You could just write in a nice, simple, unambiguously-worded exception and ask KC LC or someone similar to spot a flaw in it.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

My logic course turned into law school for three days. In those three days I learned that you must define EVERYTHING if you want a chance at a license working. I'll do it later.

[notachair]

I don't understand legalese that well, but I'll make an attempt anyway.

I can think of a flaw already though - could someone make a closed source derivative from ENIGMA's code and claim it is fine due to it being compiled from ENIGMA itself?

As an exception, projects which you compile from The Program are not required to be considered as covered works and therefore are not required to be under This License.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

I was intending to have it only exempt *programs* compiled by ENIGMA's officially released compiler (meaning stable version) and the official IDE as listed on ENIGMA's site. That way, no one can just off with a closed source derivative, and it'd be a bit of a bitch to off with an open source one without my approval. (Which somewhat invades the GPL spirit, but there have been incidents in the past that makes me forget all about such a spirit).

[luiscubal]

The nice thing about GPL is that as long as other developers and I don't bitch, it's okay to stay closed source.

Don't be so sure.

[RetroX]

The GCC is GPL-licensed.  Are you allowed to sell things compiled with the GCC?  Yes.

[serprex]

When does GPL force people to sell things?

[RetroX]

When does GPL force people to sell things?

When did I start posting badly?  Fixed.

[The 11th plague of Egypt]

GCC is GPL. Things compiled with GCC don't need to be GPL.

They need to be GPL if they use the SOURCE-CODE of GCC.

So, use the program it as you wish, but don't steal the code that makes the program.

And btw, you can sell GPL licensed programs.

The nice thing about GPL is that as long as other developers and I don't bitch, it's okay to stay closed source.

Don't be so sure.

He's the owner of the code, he could even close the source for future versions. GPL don't take that right from the copyright holder,
it prevents other people from stealing the code without contributing back.

What bothers me is: 'Do the compiled games still have to rely on some kind of Enigma runner?" If so, just use LGPL.
LGPL allows closed source code to wrap the GPLed code. Indeed, it's mostly used for libraries and such.
There are a lot of closed source games using OGG libraries, for example.

The only thing that GPL prevents you to do someone else's code putting it inside your program without anyone knowing it.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

They need to be GPL if they use the SOURCE-CODE of GCC.

The problem with that is that ENIGMA can't compile a GM game without including the GPL'd system. GML is too high level to compile otherwise, so yes, there is a sort of runner, but it's more of a library than a GM-like runner.

Originally, ENIGMA was kept GPL mostly due to competition from similar projects. These projects would be allowed to just grab ENIGMA and run without any sort of collaboration, which would be bad for a number of reasons (In addition to pride, I mean).

I prefer to write an exception rather than totally liberate it, at least until ENIGMA is well on its feet.

[serprex]

& on the topic of GCC compiled code not being GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html