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 - Josh @ Dreamland

661
Issues Help Desk / Re: Problem with instance_deactivate_region
« on: June 22, 2013, 10:40:43 AM »
Nowhere in that entire file does the word "view" appear. It's probably for the wrong game; could you build your game in ENIGMA, then re-upload those files?

662
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 22, 2013, 10:23:48 AM »
The point of a technical definition is to define what is meant by an endorsement. In our case, we would specify that by "endorse," we just mean "permit" or "acknowledge," and then we have to define how we endorse it, eg, by keeping it in a list of endorsed IDEs.

663
General ENIGMA / Re: LGM IDE for android?
« on: June 21, 2013, 10:37:23 PM »
Considering Android is primarily Java, it really should not be difficult. But I don't know how to get Swing working on it. While I don't believe Android supports Swing at all, I believe the format it uses is similar enough that porting LGM should not be a huge problem. My main concern would be in maintainability; we don't want this process to involve a lot of duplicate code (preferably none at all) or prevent compile of LGM on a non-embedded system, but at the same time we want to be able to store the code together.

TGMG probably knows the most about this, but he's AWOL.

664
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 08:28:47 PM »
...

665
Issues Help Desk / Re: Enigma fails to start on Ubuntu 12.04
« on: June 21, 2013, 04:23:03 PM »
Design mode has been missing since R3; I'm not sure why there's still a button for it. Try using "Run" or "Debug" instead.

666
Issues Help Desk / Re: Enigma fails to start on Ubuntu 12.04
« on: June 21, 2013, 02:36:45 PM »
Could you paste the contents of the console, either here or on Pastebin?
That will help us diagnose the problem.

667
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 11:12:15 AM »
Quote
That the exception must only apply to an "official" ENIGMA has never been something I feel is necessary. I see nothing wrong with a $49.99 AMGINE springing up, since its code would have to be GPL, meaning that we (or anyone) could easily copy their changes or fork their product and distribute it for free (once we get our hands on a copy, that is).

My concern isn't that we'll have a $50 GPL AMGINE; it's that we'll have a $50 closed-source AMGINE + exempted-GPL ENIGMA.

Our exception, without that clause, lets you link e-GPL code (the ENIGMA engine) against proprietary code (the user's game). This exception does not in any way discriminate the user's game from team AMGINE's improvements. So, let's say that the instance system has a gaping fault in it that causes segfaults in some common (but intended) case. Team AMGINE writes a replacement instance system, which is either (A) completely original and not licensed as GPL, or (B) based on the old system, and therefore still licensed as exempt GPL.

(A) Original and not licensed as GPL: Their fix is legally indiscernible from user code; we can not (or at least, do not) prevent linking against it while allowing linking against popular third-party libraries and user code. They can distribute their semi-proprietary fixed ENIGMA with the current version of ENIGMA's code, and continue leeching off of us until we rethink our license (after which they'll have to maintain the engine themselves). We'll never have our hands on their fix.

(B) based on the old system, and therefore still licensed as exempt GPL: This case is the easier case for us to leverage. Their code is exempt GPL, but they may have already linked it against proprietary code to create a module; the trick is that their module does not necessarily count as an executable per the conditions of our exception, so they may need to distribute the code as GPL or e-GPL. However, it is their option to distribute it as GPL with a license that excludes us. Basically, they'd do the thing that you don't want me to do. Their exception would allow their users to link against their code, and our exception would allow their users to link against ours. We lose.

So, is what I'm doing a fairly dickish? Yes. But I believe that it's all right to be fairly dickish when granting the right to take rights away, rather than being fairly dickish when granting regular rights.

668
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 09:47:03 AM »
HaRRi:

You can sell anything people are dumb enough to buy. You can put ENIGMA on a disc and sell it for $50, if someone wants to buy it. You can sell downloads of ENIGMA for $50. The GPL just says that if they then ask you for the source, you have to provide it. I could even add a price tag to ENIGMA, but it'd be stupid for people to buy it from here when they can get it for free from you. Stallman used to sell hard copies of Emacs for large sums of money, which people would buy either for convenience or to support the cause.

Users are free to distribute their games without crediting us in the game, by the GPL. But they must make the source available, and the applicable parts of the source will have our names in it. This exception makes it so they do -not- have to distribute the source.

To prevent forks of ENIGMA which do things we don't like—eg, strap on a price tag or implement a closed-source correction for something wrong with ENIGMA—I am tailoring this exception to only allow users to close-source their games if they compiled it with an "official" IDE ("ENIGMA-Endorsed Interface"). This means that if AMGINE wanted to fix something crucial in ENIGMA, and then sell their fixed version of ENIGMA for $50, we could tell them to fuck themselves; all user code (including their fix!) must be GPL.

The key is that GPL doesn't make it hard to sell code; it makes it hard for assholes to sell code. Now, the AMGINE team could distribute a $50 patch for the open-source ENIGMA, but then they'd have to maintain it to work with the latest version at all times. Depending on how bad we want that patch from them, we could decide how difficult to make their lives.

Ideka:

I might drop them a line, if I start feeling important enough to waste anyone's time.

669
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 09:07:18 AM »
Right. This makes sure users can distribute their games without any attribution or royalty to ENIGMA, but that a $49.99 AMGINE will quickly fail, as all user games must be GPL unless we endorse them (which wouldn't happen unless they were paying us sufficiently, and even then, their code would have to be GPL + ENIGMA Exemption, too). Note that they are free to run a completely GPL version without us; they'd just have some politicking to do before they could allow their users to close-source their games, which would mean we'd have to approve of it.

If letting users open-source their games was not a to-do point for them, they could run a completely GPL fork of ENIGMA, though, which we'd be unable to pull without forcing our users to GPL their code. There'd be some political turmoil, there, but we'd get through it.

670
Issues Help Desk / Re: Problem with instance_deactivate_region
« on: June 21, 2013, 07:51:49 AM »
How big is your game? I might ask you to attach ENIGMAsystem/SHELL/Preprocessor_Environment_Editable/IDE_EDIT_objectdeclarations.h. Also, maybe ENIGMAsystem/SHELL/Preprocessor_Environment_Editable/IDE_EDIT_objectfunctionality.h. I fear it might have declared those two variables locally, or is using them locally.

671
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 07:46:30 AM »
You're assuming that the board members are fair. They don't have to be. There is no controlling body to enforce any system you suggest, and you can't just appoint one. The only legal claim to resources here is from the person who pays the server bills, and that's Ism and myself. We are the only people with the legal ability to take control of this website at any time.

There isn't even a structure for more people to have a say in this; at the end of the day, my name is on the bill, so even though Ism shares it with me, if the server goes unpaid, they come after me, and conversely, if I lose control of this server or its domain, I can regain it through them. I don't have the ability right now to divide that power up. So I will always be in a position to override any decision concerning this website, until such a time as I transfer its legal ownership to a new person or entity.

Ism might have a solution to this, as she doesn't believe in any governmental role. I don't have a simple solution.

672
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 07:33:19 AM »
He has website access, which means he could change it. He wouldn't, though.

Shares are not easy to divide. And we don't have a system to ensure that everyone has a say proportional to their share; we don't have a controlling entity. A company has a CEO who can do whatever he wants. Free software projects, in general, do not have that. Though Canonical has Shuttleworth; look how that ended for them. So I guess it's a matter of appointing a hierarchy if we want people's say to be carried out.

Even then, we might need a bigger entity to control succession. We might need to register ENIGMA as an LLC and list server access as an asset, to protect against the unlikely event that Ism, Gary, and I were all hit by a bus before anyone had a chance to pick up the torch.

673
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 07:24:08 AM »
That's the point of defining the terms. The definition needs to give a definite, extremely precise function for determining whether an IDE is officially endorsed. Unfortunately,

(1) ENIGMA is not a registered organization.
(2) The ENIGMA website is controlled entirely by IsmAvatar and myself, and any number of financial or "real-life" factors could cause it to be dropped from our power.

Even in the case of (1), the corporation would require a founder, which would probably be me plus some appointed successors. That being the case, we could easily emulate that behavior without paying to register as a corporation, if that were an ideal behavior according to other developers.

The issue here is that we lack a governing body, unless you count Ism and myself, to impose any kind of democratic vote, and there is no way of giving anyone else a say without giving everyone else the power to choke the exception.

That said, if everyone trusts Gary, Ism, and myself to make these decisions, then the website (or our persons) can be the controlling say in which IDEs are official. Otherwise, we need a better definition.

674
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 05:57:42 AM »
You may notice that I tweaked it slightly so that individual files can be covered by this exception. I also used the terms "Exception", "ENIGMA Engine", "ENIGMA Compiler", and "ENIGMA-Endorsed Interface" without defining them. I am too afraid to attempt to define them right now.

If you want to debate the use of "ENIGMA-Endorsed Interface", do so here.

675
General ENIGMA / Re: License Exemptions
« on: June 21, 2013, 05:53:31 AM »
The linking exception [current draft]:

Quote
As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, permission is granted for additional uses of the text contained in its release of ENIGMA.

The Exception is that, if you link to code contained in the ENIGMA Engine which is covered by this Exception with other files to produce an executable, and do so using the ENIGMA Compiler via an ENIGMA-Endorsed Interface, this does not, by itself, cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. Your use of that executable is in no way restricted on account of linking the ENIGMA Engine code into it.

This Exception cannot and does not, however, invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.

This Exception applies only to the code released in the ENIGMA engine which is exempted in its copyright by this Exception. If you copy code from other releases into a copy of the ENIGMA Engine, as the General Public License permits, the exception cannot be applied to the code that you add in this way, without the express permission of its own author(s).

If you write modifications of your own for ENIGMA, it is therefore your choice whether to permit this exception to apply to your modifications. If you do not wish that, remove the exception from the affected files.