Pages: « 1 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Linking Exception Draft  (Read 10061 times)
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #45 Posted on: March 03, 2014, 03:28:46 AM

Developer
Location: Cappuccino, CA
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3107

View Profile
Rez, what if we agreed to dual license our code, so you can pick your own license like with Qt?
Logged
I think it was Leonardo da Vinci who once said something along the lines of "If you build the robots, they will make games." or something to that effect.

Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #46 Posted on: March 03, 2014, 10:59:58 AM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2949

View Profile Email
To use your example, Rezolyze, no one is going to want anything to do with the plans for my wobbly chair, when they can purchase a non-wobbly chair with arm rests for a nominal fee. Everyone will know my chair as the wobbly one, and everything there was to possibly like about my chair, except the ability to distribute its plans, is available pre-built and with more features from another company. And I know it's easy to say that can't happen because we're free, we're not selling anything. That's why I pay out of pocket to run this place. In the event that you were successfully selling my chair to others with all these improvements I lack time to make, I would not continue to design my chair. Its plans would fall into antiquity. A million free CRT plans will not help you when you can buy a flat panel display for $200, to use an exaggerated example.

The other scenario you describe is the reason that we are trying to hammer this exception out now, rather than later. We want to make it so that anyone can contribute or run their own version of ENIGMA so long as they allow people to do exactly the same. That's the entire principle behind a viral license and the free software movement. We want to allow more ENIGMAs if and only if they in turn allow more ENIGMAs; the complication stems from the fact that we want users to have autonomy with their game's licenses. The MPL is a quick fix for users' needs. It puts us in jeopardy of becoming antique.

And yes, I am very aware that the GPL is not conducive to the app store, and being able to choose a license for combined work that is not free to redistribute is important. That has nothing to do with the license of the original source of the engine, however.

And I don't wish to appear as a protective parent. It isn't that I want my code to be mine, but that I want game engines to be everyone's. This movement was founded on the idea that software should be free. Unlike many who believe in that principle, I can respect the desire to control who can use and distribute your software (eg, people who pay to do so). But I'm not interested in allowing people to control who has the better version of this software. No matter who extends ENIGMA in what way, I want users to be able to make their games in it for free. Knowing a bugfix should not entitle someone to more control over the project than anyone else has.

However, I can see the users' perspective on the issue. It is good for a user to be able to feel comfortable in using the engine for his or her purposes. So maybe when the new compiler is integrated and I can devote more time to ensuring no one gets ahead of us in terms of features and bug fixes, I will embrace the MPL for my own code. I won't promise anything, but I consider it to be an option.
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
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #47 Posted on: March 03, 2014, 02:37:51 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Robert B Colton, Do you mean creating a custom license and using both the custom license and GPL for the engine code? The problem I see with that is hiring a team of copyright lawyers to draft such a license. If you mean dual licensing the engine code under both the GPL and MPL, that wouldn't fix anything. A potential ENIGMA clone maker could just pick the MPL for the engine code. This doesn't concern me as much as Josh, but it seems to be the major concern.

Josh, I see this debate hasn't changed your position, but I'm glad you still consider the MPL as an option.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) daz
Reply #48 Posted on: March 03, 2014, 07:06:08 PM
Contributor
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 167

View Profile
I agree with Josh in that I think the primary concern for licensing is having enigma sold, which I do think is unlikely at this stage in its development but could definitely happen in the future once Enigma gains more traction.

But I would hate to see this end up like the Blender game engine wherein the only way to avoid the GPL is having a bootstrapper to load in your external blend file.

The issue of choosing the dual license / licensing exception should not be done in haste.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #49 Posted on: March 03, 2014, 07:22:22 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
I agree with Josh in that I think the primary concern for licensing is having enigma sold, which I do think is unlikely at this stage in its development but could definitely happen in the future once Enigma gains more traction.

But I would hate to see this end up like the Blender game engine wherein the only way to avoid the GPL is having a bootstrapper to load in your external blend file.

The issue of choosing the dual license / licensing exception should not be done in haste.

Oh God no!  No no no no! No bootstrappers please,
don't give them any ideas  ;D ;D ;D
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) The 11th plague of Egypt
Reply #50 Posted on: March 05, 2014, 06:24:08 AM
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 276

View Profile
Rez, what if we agreed to dual license our code, so you can pick your own license like with Qt?
Double licensing in this case would only make things messier.
As long as you release under MPL, you can always re-release under GPL.
It's just like going from LGPL to GPL, the license allows this, so you can do this without asking anybody.
The opposite (GPL to MPL or GPL to LGPL) is _not_ so easy, it requires explicit permission from all copyright owners.
So it's better to clearly state what is under MPL and what under GPL.

Qt was strict GPL and has been relicensed to a more lenient LGPL, but they could do the jump only because they owned all the copyright.
Then they have a commercial license too, and they are not obliged to release all their code because, again, they own all the copyright.

Enigma does not enforce the single developers who contribute to waive their copyright throught a CLA, so relicensing would be a huge mess.
Then it's just easier to state what's under the GPL and what under the less strict MPL.

But I would hate to see this end up like the Blender game engine wherein the only way to avoid the GPL is having a bootstrapper to load in your external blend file.
Well, this one is a really nice real-life example. Thank for pointing that out!
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 06:26:11 AM by The 11th plague of Egypt » Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #51 Posted on: March 05, 2014, 09:59:03 AM

Prince of all Goldfish
Developer
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2949

View Profile Email
That's the issue; we're gambling on ENIGMA's future. Specifically, how much traction it gains. If it gains none, we can BSD it and be like the other 500 BSD game engines no one uses. If it gains a little, someone can steal it and gain a lot. If it gains a lot, we can be the Mozilla of the game engine world. Or just another LÖVE.

I wouldn't ask contributors to sign away their IP rights. But we couldn't if I wanted to, I believe; we aren't a legal entity.
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
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #52 Posted on: March 05, 2014, 01:24:48 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
It's simple, the future of ENIGMA all comes down to its development and the team managing it.  It CAN gain traction if it provides a reason.  Right now, it seems people are discussing it on some other forums and claiming it has too many issues and some label it as "garbage" or other words, as stated by trolls, here and on the GMC by some game maker devs themselves.....

Perhaps when it is further improved and many issues fixed and a campaign to convince people that ENIGMA can be used to make complete games, perhaps it can gain traction.  Or is it that people are attracted by mobile dev tools and no more windows stuff ???  I know ENIGMA has some issues but would certainly not stop using it, I even tried talking to others about it, and in all cases was met with so much negativity. :P

So the future of ENIGMA depends on its creators, you can shape the future, but of course, the main issue is finding time.
Personally, I think GM dev has slowed down to a damn crawl! I mean they are staffed and all and updates / fixes / replies come out at a snail's pace.....they are messed up and all over the place and have their priorities set wrong......Looking at ENIGMA, despite time constraints it manages to get faster fixes and updates. Go figure.

I hope ENIGMA gains traction, but only its contributors can know that.  In my opinion, assume it will, it's the best option.

Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #53 Posted on: March 18, 2014, 04:09:18 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
The way I see it, some of ENIGMA's developers are creating a paradoxical/catch 22 situation over this licensing issue. They want to wait to change the license until the project gets more traction/has more users and developers/has a larger community around it. The number of people using ENIGMA is unlikely to grow while game developers are forced to share their game code under the GPL. Many other open source engines are licensed under more permissive licenses to avoid this exact situation. If you want people to use this engine, you have to give them several good reasons. The current license is a reason NOT to use ENIGMA. While I agree that a new license shouldn't be chosen in haste, neither should we wait for a year or more to resolve this license problem. Waiting for the community to grow before changing the license is simply foolish. I've posted earlier my reasons why waiting much longer is a mistake that could kill this project.

In an effort to gauge everyone's opinion on this license issue, I've posted a poll: http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=1832.0

I hope that everyone involved in this discussion will cast their vote for the license of their choice. I would also encourage the developers to set a deadline for choosing a license. Coming to a decision and getting all the copyright holders' permission before the end of 2014 sounds reasonable to me.

If you want game developers (commercial or otherwise) to take this project seriously, you need to place ENIGMA's engine code under a license that protects their work. This is a serious matter and should be dealt with sooner rather than later.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 07:31:26 AM by Rezolyze » Logged
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #54 Posted on: April 24, 2014, 01:04:52 AM

Member
Location: The throne of ringworld
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 402

View Profile
As I stated in the poll thread, this has been solved by others before:

http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/

http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/licensing
Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Pages: « 1 2 3 4
  Print