Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - The 11th plague of Egypt

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »
General ENIGMA / Re: All Roads Lead To Rome
« on: December 20, 2013, 03:40:14 AM »
I voted for a complete rewrite.
I was joking.

I'm tired of having the parser rewrote.
Josh was too proud to adopt LLVM, and he failed at delivering his own parser.
Do what must be done. But postpone it if necessary.

Android is first. You can't ignore mobile platforms anymore. You have to support at least Android.

General ENIGMA / Re: LateralGM endorsed to Robert B Colton
« on: December 20, 2013, 03:33:09 AM »
And of course, here we have another propagandist shitpost. Originally I took this news sadly, until reading this topic of course.

This is nothing more than a completely over-dramatized childish rant similar to the one Josh is now giving.
Oh, com'on man!
It's not like you never wrote an emotional post before ;-)

People love their work, and suffer from leaving it.
You got blessed with trust and a warning.

You should be happy for this, not draw more hate.

General ENIGMA / Re: RadialGM
« on: December 13, 2013, 05:41:39 PM »
Good to see documentation flowing.
+1 for using Qt 5.

General ENIGMA / Re: GL3 matrices
« on: October 19, 2013, 02:33:40 PM »
Don't know if it can help.

Here's some fancy stuff for matrices in 3D graphics

Off-Topic / Re: 0 A.D.
« on: October 07, 2013, 12:40:06 PM »

Off-Topic / Re: So uh. . .do I belong here?
« on: September 01, 2013, 02:43:25 PM »
Tried to send you PM Plague, but it was blocked.
Sorry, now I fixed my PM settings. Try again :)

General ENIGMA / Re: Everything Is Good Now
« on: August 31, 2013, 04:12:49 PM »
Lol, this is the funniest discussion on commits breaking things I've ever seen!

It's good to see things discussed in the open. :D

Off-Topic / Re: So uh. . .do I belong here?
« on: August 31, 2013, 02:19:36 PM »
You remember me when I wrote Game Maker Drag&Drop libs.
People liked them anyway because they were easy to use.

But it wasn't easy to make my ideas fit those libs, so I decided to switch to write everything in code.
I figured out advanced concepts, and wrote an engine that was both capable and snappy code.
But so it was more complex, and, even if I made it easy to integrate, much more difficult to use.
So nobody cared.

People want easy to use things and easies to understand tutorials.
That is true of advanced languages and their frameworks as well.

Enigma, compared to GM, is adding complexity in many areas.
It seems indeed to be shifting its attention towards experienced programmers.

I'm curious, in your opinion, what is the area of Game Maker which simplification would benefit you the most?

That Garry Kitchen's Game Maker you mentioned is definitely worth a look as a design concept.
Could you PM me links to download emulators and stuff?

Just want to update everyone we are not only utilizing DirectX for graphics but for input, audio, and other systems/extensions as well to provide maximum native utilization of Windows API's for the platform.
As long as you wrap these native APIs so I can use a single codebase for Windows and Linux, fine.
Otherwise OMG stop!!! :o

That'd give us the same problems we're facing now; we want people to be able to link, but not from a fork project that stole our engine and revamped it with proprietary code we can't use. The license needs to be tailored to only allow linking to it legitimately. We want to allow linking general-purpose libraries, but not libraries specifically written to improve a semi-proprietary fork of ENIGMA.
That would require lots of engineering, as well as licensing.
Like, keeping user code and engine core separed at all times. Before during and after compilation.
Even small things like including header files means merging code to some extent, and that's why the LGPL exists.

The people I contacted about licensing haven't responded. I'm basically giving up on them doing so; I figure I'll ask forthevin to email the people he was talking about earlier. The softwarefreedom people apparently aren't interested. :P
Sorry about that.

My best bet would be the MPL license.
It's similar to the LGPL, but it works by file.

A file that's under the MPL stays under the MPL (modifications of it must be MPL).

A file can link to or include a file that's MPL, without becoming MPL.

If file uses copy-pasted code from a MPL file, it becomes MPL.

So, as long as you keep the user files separed from the Enigma files, you're good to go.

A quote from the FAQ
Broadly speaking, the scope of the MPL, LGPL, and GPL can be summarized this way:

MPL: The copyleft applies to any files containing MPLed code.
LGPL: The copyleft applies to any library based on LGPLed code.
GPL: The copyleft applies to all software based on GPLed code.

Here's an article by the FSF. It talks about compatibility.
The MPL explicitly allows relicensing under the GPL and LGPL.
You can go from MPL to GPL (or to the LGPL), without any problem.
You can't go from the GPL to the MPL, however, without a permit
from the other developers to relicense the code.

Good luck with the legalese. It's not that terrible, btw (Y)

Note: All ENIGMA games which use DirectXTK will have to be closed-source due to intentional licensing conflicts by Microsoft.
Ahem, but can we release our games as closed source without breaking the GLP?

Seems like this topic shows up a lot recently... Any news?

General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 28, 2013, 08:49:50 AM »
You're still assuming I could obtain a patent on any part of ENIGMA. Part of the requirements for obtaining a patent is that you actually have something unique. ENIGMA is a compiler, in the most generic sense. It wouldn't be very patent-worthy even if GM didn't exist.

We've been throwing around the idea of calling in some third-party help for writing this exception, but I'd want to try to request that help in a way that doesn't make this problem look completely petty. To an outside observer, it'd just look like me being a selfish child. A lot of this discussion is myself trying to figure out if that's in fact what I am being.
You would be surprised what they are getting a patent for nowadays. You just need a good lawyer to write it in the right legalese, and you are done.
I've talked to a professor who worked for various companies who used to file patents for their "great" inventions. He said once his workgroup suggested a possible patent.
Once the idea went through the lawyers and the text of the patent came back, they could not even recognize it.

First they grant you the patent, then whoever wants to challenge its obviousness will have to fight you in court.
On the premise that the patent was granted because it was not obvious.

EDIT: you are thinking about others, last time I checked this didn't match the definition of "selfish" xD
Writing an exception to include a runner is not that obvious. The GCC GPL2 classpath exception is short, but very well thought.

General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 28, 2013, 08:17:26 AM »
Sorry, I didn't know the full history of the WINE project.

I do remember that they decided not to switch to the LGPLv3 because "nobody sued us yet, so why should they do so in the future?"
Yeah, they have this kind of "wait until it's too late" approach.

Now, about patents. The GPL2 only had a "Liberty or Death" covering the topic quite implicitly.
Like, grant all the rights the user needs to use the software you distribute under the GPL, or don't distribute your software under the GPL at all.
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason [...]
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

Only the (L)GPL3 has an axplicit grant (the part of clause 10 you quoted and the whole clause 11), which is much better IMHO.

The Apache and MPL licenses are not suited just for the respective foundations.
Especially Apache 2.0 is used for many different projects, such as the Android AOSP project

EDIT: Also, I don't think you are obliged to adopt Apache 2.1 or Mozilla 2.1 automatically if they ever come out.
Maybe you are thinking about contributing code to the Apache or Mozilla foundation directly.
In that case, you have to sign an additional contract to adopt their future licenses.
That's to make their work easier if they have to relicense the code of a big project (like Apache server) without asking every single contributor.

EDIT2: However, you can release your own software under the Apache license without any need to sign that additional contract.
You only need to sign it if you are contributing your code to the foundation, like a patch for the Apache server.
If you are making a project of your own, and want to use the Apache license, then you are not giving your code to the foundation.

GPL itself has an optional saying you can add to license your program under GPLvX and "any later version"...or not.
It's optional. Linux for example was covered by the GPL2, without the "any later version" thing, so it's stuck with GPL2.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Writing an exception to the GPLv3 is quite a task, it's even more complicated than GPLv2.
Have you considered asking for the help at the Software Freedom Law Center?
Maybe they can give you some advice for free (as in beer).

General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 28, 2013, 05:04:54 AM »
Glad you decided to face this topic early. It's the most responsible thing to do.

I recently took a course about those topics at my University, and I had the opportunity to examine a lot of licenses.
I'm fully aware of the differences between the Free Software movement (Stallman) and the Open Source movement (BSD, Apache, etc).

First of all, WINE uses LGPL 2.1, not MIT

The LGPL (Lesser GPL) lets you keep you code closed as long as you only link against the LGPL code.
If you take pieces of LGPL code and put it in your code, then you have to open up your new code as well.
If you distributed a modified version of the LGPL code, you have to open up the changes you made to that code.

So, what do the CrossOver guys really do?
They built a proprietary GUI frontend that all fancy and easy to use.
They use the WINE core by linking against it.
They improve the WINE core and contribute their improvements back to the community.

If WINE was covered by the X11 (MIT) license, or by the BSD, or even by the Apache license,
then they could have made their own proprietary WINE version without contributing back.
But with the LGPL they do contribute back, they just have a closed proprietary frontend.

Want to look for a good source of exceptions?
The new LGPL 3 is built as an exception to the GPL 3, might be worth reading. Also, v3 > v2, because it also covers patents.

Now, what about patents?
You could release your code as open source, but then sue me for using it because you hold a patent on a concept it implements.

By licesing your code under the (L)GPL3 you also license a grant for patents that you hold and that may be necessary to:
- distribute the program
- install the program
- run the code

You do not need to give a grant on any other patents that you may hold and that are not releated to the code you licensed.
People that decide to fork your code will give you a right to use their patents (and will not sue you).

Similar grants are given by many modern licenses (both free and open source).

However, old licenses do not give any such protection. Among those:
- X11 (MIT)
- the various BSD (2, 3 and 4 clauses)
- Apache 1 (which was based on BSD)

I would therefore suggest using Apache 2.0 if you want a "I let your close my code" license. At least it has a "don't sue me for patents" clause.
Apache 2 is a modern license that does a good job covering a lot of new and old topics (patents, copyright, moral rights and trademarks).

Also, what about the Mozilla Public License? It's like the LGPL but it works "on each file".
You can add a proprietary file of your own that links to a file covered by the MPL, and keep it proprietary.
If you create a new file that uses code taken from a file covered by the MPL, you have to release the code of your new file as MPL.
If you modify a file covered by the MPL, you have to release the changes to that file under the MPL.

It was created specifically to open source a codebase that had the code of many authors in it. Namely, the Netscape codebase.
So, you can have proprietary files mixed with open source files. And they can't steal from each other.
Here is a good source of explanations (for Mozilla 1, Mozilla 2 is very similar)

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »