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 - edsquare

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 »
31
General ENIGMA / Re: How to use your license choice as a threat
« on: October 10, 2014, 05:37:53 PM »
edsquare: You really need to stop telling me to read the MPL FAQ. I've read it many times. I'm guessing you haven't read all the references in the License Comparison Table, so here's a quote from one of those references.

Quote
When you receive work under MPL 2.0, you may make a “Larger Work” that combines that work with work under those GNU licenses. When you do, section 3.3 gives you permission to distribute the MPL-covered work under the terms of the same GNU licenses, with one condition: you must make sure that the files that were originally under the MPL are still available under the MPL's terms as well. In other words, when you make a combination this way, the files that were originally under the MPL will be dual licensed under the MPL and the GNU license(s). The end result is that the Larger Work, as a whole, will be covered under the GNU license(s). People who receive that combination from you will have the option to use any files that were originally covered by the MPL under that license's terms, or distribute the Larger Work in whole or in part under the GNU licenses' terms with no further restrictions.

So in the case of the MPLv2.0, it's technically a dual-licensing of both the MPLv2.0 and the GPLv3, but it amounts to the same thing. I was being general in my wording so as to include the other possible license choices. Please stop referencing just the MPL FAQ and consult other sources before making your argument.

And any change you happen to make to those files is also covered under the MPL, as with your post with the comparision table, your wording makes it seem as if can take any MPLed code modify it link it with my larger work and the sell it under a closed licnse and never disclose the changes I made to the MPLed code I'm using.

32
General ENIGMA / Re: How to use your license choice as a threat
« on: October 10, 2014, 03:16:38 PM »
Any changes made to any code covered by the mpl v2 license fall under the same license see the FAQ please!

https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html

Quote

 Q9: I want to distribute (outside my organization) MPL-licensed source code that I have modified. What do I have to do?

To see the complete set of requirements, read the license. However, generally:

    You must inform the recipients that the source code is made available to them under the terms of the MPL (Section 3.1), including any Modifications (as defined in Section 1.10) that you have created.

    You must make the grants described in Section 2 of the license.

    You must respect the restrictions on removing or altering notices in the source code (Section 3.4).


Q10: I want to distribute (outside my organization) an executable program based on MPL-licensed source code that I have modified. What do I have to do?

You must make available the MPL-licensed portions of the source code as described in the previous question, and inform the recipients how they can obtain such source code (Section 3.2).

 Q11: How 'viral' is the MPL? If I use MPL-licensed code in my proprietary application, will I have to give all the source code away?

No. The license requires that Modifications (as defined in Section 1.10 of the license) must be licensed under the MPL and made available to anyone to whom you distribute the Source Code. However, new files containing no MPL-licensed code are not Modifications, and therefore do not need to be distributed under the terms of the MPL, even if you create a Larger Work (as defined in Section 1.7) by using, compiling, or distributing the non-MPL files together with MPL-licensed files. This allows, for example, programs using MPL-licensed code to be statically linked to and distributed as part of a larger proprietary piece of software, which would not generally be possible under the terms of stronger copyleft licenses.


33
Off-Topic / Castle Game Engine FOSS under LGPL with Linking exception
« on: October 10, 2014, 09:07:40 AM »
Just that, I know many if not most of you will hate the language it uses but still you might want to give it a try.

Castle Game Engine is an open-source cross-platform 3D game engine for Object Pascal (FPC/Lazarus). It uses a popular X3D as the main 3D model format, which means that 3D data can be created in any 3D modeling software, and it can be animated, interactive, scripted and so on. Many other 3D formats, like Collada and 3DS are also supported. Rendering is done using OpenGL, with many eye-candy features like shadows, bump mapping, mirrors, shaders, screen effects. 3D sound is well integrated and trivial to use (using OpenAL under the hood). The engine has a nice object-oriented API to easily make 3D games with creatures, items, levels, players and so on, everything can also be easily extended to any 3D or 2D game types.



Full feature list : http://castle-engine.sourceforge.net/engine.php#section_features

Some videos :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JZhrJ4N2Pg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICH3N7OZXx8

                                       Licensing

License Name   Price in $US    Source Code Included?
        LGPL                Free                           Yes

The core engine is available under an "LGPL with static linking exception", which is basically a relaxed LGPL that allows for static linking with closed-source programs.



34
I would agree if people were selling extensions - that is, wholly their own code that isn't in any way related to ENIGMA's code. With extensions I mean stuff inside the Universal_Systems/Extensions. The problem is that in most cases extensions WILL use some part of ENIGMA's engine (like the path extension uses the instance class to add path_start() and path_index functions and variables) or the Particle System extension, which uses draw_sprite() and other graphics functions for drawing. Or GME, which loads a GME sound file, and then uses ENIGMA's sound_add_buffer function to make it a sound resource. On the other hand you could technically write all those extensions without using any of ENIGMA's code, and then require the user to manually do it. Like GME could only return a buffer, and ENIGMA users would have to manually use sound function to add that buffer as a sound. Or particle system could return the position of the particles, and the user would manually draw them.

So in short - You can write an extension which doesn't use any ENIGMA code. Thus I wouldn't mind them selling those extensions. But if they add a feature or a bugfix to ENIGMA (even if it is just required to run their extension), then I would want that to be open source and implementable in ENIGMA. They can sell the feature or bugfix in parallel as well if they wanted. Like GPL doesn't forbid you to sell a binary, it just requires you to supply the source with it.

But under MPLv2 if you use a single line of MPLed code your file becomes MPLed too, and therefore you have the obligation to provide the source.

35
Didn't notice any replies. I must have loaded the page before you posted it, then forgotten to refresh. I could move it over, but you've already posted this, now. :P

LOL :p

On the serious issue at hand: Would a extension/bug fix be considered a larger work?

If the answer is no then there's no way for anyone to make a propietary extension and or bug fix to/for ENIGMA, since the liberty to release under different licenses is only for larger works. For instance if I were to develop an IDE for it and sell the ide along with ENIGMA precompiled on it, I would have the right to release my work (The IDE) under a license of my choice, as long as I granted access to the buyer to ENIGMA's source.

36
Split this to a new topic. Seemed to warrant it.

And in the process you lost my response to that particular post  :(


So, my question is: What do you, the reader, think about someone selling proprietary features or fixes for ENIGMA's engine?

This is why I don't like the feautures/fixes way of putting it, it makes it sound as if anyone could change ENIGMA's code without sharing the changes, and this is not true; under your asumption one would have to change the code in such a way as to allow a bugfix to be developed as an extension (externally in order for me to keep the code closed). I understand how someone could do a (feature?)/extension in such a way as to keep it propietary without breaking the license, but a bug fix? It's not the same and not as easy to do so.

If ENIGMA's engine code license were changed and someone started legally selling an enhanced version of ENIGMA, would you be upset about that?

Even under the GPL you can do this, what you can't do under the GPL, LGPL or MPLv2 is to close ENIGMA's source (You would have to give any buyer the code of your enhanced ENIGMA.), besides that only the engine would be under said license while  other parts of ENIGMA would remain GPL. This has been discussed before.

What if that someone shared their bug fixes with ENIGMA, but kept the enhanced features proprietary; would that make a difference? Please discuss.

I say you're welcome to do so, you should be able to benefit economically from your work

37
General ENIGMA / Re: Please vote for ENIGMA's new license
« on: October 05, 2014, 10:34:40 AM »

So, my question is: What do you, the reader, think about someone selling proprietary features or fixes for ENIGMA's engine?

This is why I don't like the feautures/fixes way of putting it, it makes it sound as if anyone could change ENIGMA's code without sharing the changes, and this is not true; under your asumption one would have to change the code in such a way as to allow a bugfix to be developed as an extension (externally in order for me to keep the code closed). I understand how someone could do a (feature?)/extension in such a way as to keep it propietary without breaking the license, but a bug fix? It's not the same and not as easy to do so.

If ENIGMA's engine code license were changed and someone started legally selling an enhanced version of ENIGMA, would you be upset about that?

Even under the GPL you can do this, what you can't do under the GPL, LGPL or MPLv2 is to close ENIGMA's source (You would have to give any buyer the code of your enhanced ENIGMA.), besides that only the engine would be under said license while  other parts of ENIGMA would remain GPL. This has been discussed before.

What if that someone shared their bug fixes with ENIGMA, but kept the enhanced features proprietary; would that make a difference? Please discuss.

I say you're welcome to do so, you should be able to benefit economically from your work

38
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA's Engine Code - License Comparison Table
« on: October 05, 2014, 12:59:23 AM »
I appreciate that you are trying to contribute, but please be more specific in the future.

I'm looking for replies like: "I think your answer regarding the LGPLv3 in the "Link with code under a different license" column is incorrect. Here's my reasoning and here are some external sources to back up my point."

My example reply tells me exactly where someone has an issue with the table. It tells me which license someone is referring to and which column. Your reply included everything, but the column header. I can only assume that you are taking issue with the MPLv2 answer under the "Prevent proprietary fixes or features" column. That's twice now that someone has questioned the validity of this column, so I'll try rewording the header to be more clear.

Many times throughout the licensing discussion on the forums, someone has suggested a license like the the MPLv2 and been told that such a license would not prevent proprietary fixes or features being implemented through linking. These types of licenses (LGPLv3, MPLv2, etc) are meant to allow linking with code that has a different license. Of course, we want people to be able to legally link their proprietary game code to ENIGMA's engine code.

However, the MPLv2, and other licenses like it, would also allow someone to link proprietary fixes or features to ENIGMA's engine as well. They would probably need to modify some of ENIGMA'S engine code to do it, but the fixes and features would remain proprietary and unshared within their own separate but linked code. To be in compliance with ENIGMA's engine license, they would need to release their changes to the engine code, but their changes would not contain any of their fixes or features. So, in this way, the MPLv2 would not prevent proprietary fixes or features.

Depending on your point of view, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Someone could create an extension that ENIGMA lacked and sell it. It wouldn't directly benefit the ENIGMA project, but it could benefit the game developers that buy the extension and the programmer selling it. Although, I think the major fear is someone creating software like CrossOver which harnesses the power of Wine while adding it's own proprietary features. That's not a fear I share, but some people do.

If you can't follow my example, try this example by The 11th plague of Egypt.

The "Prevent proprietary fixes or features" column is meant to illustrate this issue, but I can see why the column header could be misleading. Hopefully the reworded header will clear up the confusion. I misunderstood the replies from both onpon and edsqure. To both of you, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Sorry for the lack of specifity (Is that a word?), will try to be more specific in the future. But in my defense what I understood was that it allowed modifications to the MPLed code being made propietary.

Now if I understood correctly you say the MPLv2 would also allow someone to create a closed source extension to enigma and sell it, I tend to agree with you in that it allows such a thing but I fail to see why that is bad. As long as the engine's code is safe why should the developers worry about that?

In some cases it would be enough to add an #include and in others the modifications to the engine will help other people to develop a similar extension, hell even by knowing what it does a capable developer (And all the developers involved in this project strike me as very capable) could deduce how it works internally and with time develop an opensource extension to the same efect.

Although I would not mind seing closed source extensions, it would mean the project is mature enough and with a big enough user base to merit so.

Sorry for derailing your post I will not do it again.

39
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA's Engine Code - License Comparison
« on: October 04, 2014, 12:53:09 PM »
While I welcome a discussion on the topic of licensing, this is not the thread for it. I'd like for all replies in this thread to be about changing or adding something in the top post.

edsquare: All the information in your reply is available in my initial post.


Actually no it isn't. (read on to know why I think so)

I'm looking for replies like: "I think your answer regarding the LGPLv3 in the "Link with code under a different license" column is incorrect. Here's my reasoning and here are some external sources to back up my point."

Preciselly what I tried to do but without much succes:

The MPLv2 explicity protects the files (Parts of a library) released under the MPL, and says that any modification to said files should be released under the same license; this in contrast doesn't apply to files with your code only (Files that doesn't contain a single line of MPLed code), and it allows to link in any way with MPLed code even for sale, provided that you give the recipients of your work access to the MPLed code (Which includes any modification you may have done to it).

And yet you say it doesn't prevent taking the code, modifiying it and then closing it.

That is why I put a link to the FAQ of  the MPLv2.

I've done a lot of reading and research to create this table and back up my findings with references, but if I made a mistake, I'd like to know about it. If I left out a license you think is a valid choice, I'd like read about why you think it's valid. If you think the wording of something should be changed for some reason, I'd like to know. I'm looking for suggestions and criticisms regarding my initial post. Please, let's not derail this thread any more. Thank you.

Thank you.

40
General ENIGMA / Re: ENIGMA's Engine Code - License Comparison
« on: October 04, 2014, 01:11:58 AM »
Rezolyze, I really like your topic, it is very informative and this is the best way to approach a license change. I really like this topic, I am thinking about setting it pinned somewhere but I don't know the best place for it. Additionally the information you've provided also helps me because I do not know that much about the various licensing options myself, though I have no problem understanding legal jargon.

I think personally my choice is the BSD license and MPL second. But my primary concern is that I have stated in the past and will reiterate that I do believe users should retain the rights to even sell extensions that would implement things like video functions, other graphics libraries, etc, etc. I just do not want fixes for anything in /SHELL being commercialized, I think this is primarily our biggest concern.

You should read the MPLv2 with care, it allows the linking of the files (Pieces of a library) with your software in any way and under any license, but you must allow the recipient of your software access to the same files (Those of the library not your code) under the same license, not a problem since enigma is of easy access. What this means in short is that any change you do to a MPLed code you must give access to it but not to your code that only links against that MPLed code. It's like the LGPL + Static linking exception all in one!

41
Off-Topic / Re: Windows 10
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:21:25 PM »
No not necessarily - I'm thinking some software in general that are very buggy and poorly tested.

As to YYG let's give them credit when due, they made some very positive changes lately.
Version 1.4 is not officially released, and lots of interesting changes with the IDE that any LGM user would have wet dreams about :P
but with every positive change comes the negatives i'm afraid so yeah, work in progress.....But we should not talk, as ENIGMA is a WIP too lol!

Not a fair comparision, since LGM/ENIGMA is a FOSS and heavily understaffed. A much better comparision would be between :

Autodesk 3ds Max (formerly 3D Studio MAX) / Autodesk Maya vs Blender (if you insist in making it closed source vs FOSS)

Also ENIGMA is not a WIP, it's in Beta stage, when it's in release stage then it would be more of a fair comparision, since any software you sell is supposed to be in this stage.

42
Off-Topic / Re: Windows 10
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:11:56 PM »
Quote from: edsquare link=topic=2262.msg22836#msg22836
From my point of view every version of windows is a beta version (Well okey vista was an alpha version but still . . . ) 

Partially correct.  Vista was pre-alpha :P
the rest, beta and its users as guinea pigs.
I guess one could say the same about other software too.....:D

Did You had in mind ANY company in particular? A Gamming company should we say?  :D

43
Finished Games / Re: Window Styler, Web Browser, and Embed Program
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:09:24 PM »
Quote
confess the murder of Pancho Villa if they so choose
I will confess to that. But python being better than C++? Never!

It's said that once they got an elephant to admit he was the mouse that stole the presidents cheese  :D

44
Finished Games / Re: Window Styler, Web Browser, and Embed Program
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:02:33 PM »
Quote
The world does not evolve around C++
Blasphemy!

Sadly, until they develop a true compiler for Python, Harri is right, the world does evolve and revolve around C++  >:(

It might evolve around C++ but most people you ask probably never heard of C++... and probably think it is a vitamin supplement LOL!

The world at large yes, but I thought we were talking about the software development world.  :(

45
Finished Games / Re: Window Styler, Web Browser, and Embed Program
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:01:40 PM »
Python is bad not because of its speed, it's bad because of its syntax. <Runs away now before nukes drop>

What nukes? I'm sending the PGJ (Procuraduria General de Justicia - A branch of the mexican police famous for getting you to confess the murder of Pancho Villa if they so choose)  :D

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 »