Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ENIGMA's Engine Code License - Please Vote  (Read 36064 times)
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #135 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 07:53:31 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
Finding a skilled lawyer to deal with software licensing issues, pro bono ? Good luck with that.  Note that I stressed the word skilled and accurate in the field.
You CAN sell your games I believe the devs made it clear they have no time to take you to court and siphon your bank accounts  ;D ;D ;D ;D though if you end up making tons of cash from your product most people I would hope, would do the fair thing.  As people stealing from code, erasing copyrights and claiming their own, that's another issue that should be looked and protected against.  Not the poor guy selling his games as face it, I have yet to hear of an Indie game developer who makes millions of $, right, maybe that bird flappy thingy but he bailed out - and maybe the minecraft guy who now sold his soul to Microsoft. :P  Otherwise, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon....and if it does and one makes $10 million from an ENIGMA game, i'm sure they won't mind abiding by Josh/Robert's demands.....one could live on the interest of this kind of money so who's going to argue ! LOL.
Or I could take my $10 million and move to Mexico. :P


Logged
Offline (Male) DaSpirit
Reply #136 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 09:14:02 PM

Member
Location: New York City
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 124

View Profile
I would very like MPL but allowing static linking sounds odd, though, because then you cannot validate when an executable has broke the license rules. I guess we can leave that to morals. MPL got most votes in the poll! I hope something happens with it!
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #137 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 09:14:50 PM

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

View Profile
I don't want to get off topic but I do want to refute your assertion Darkstar2, there has been plenty of studies about how effective Public Defense Attorneys are vs private attorneys and there is only a minimal margin of difference. Usually however other things such as the public defense resources factor in, because a lot of low SES or minority persons can not afford attorneys.
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 (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #138 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 11:12:23 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
I'm sure this can be open for debate and some might disagree, that you'd get the same chance of winning a case with a public defender vs. private attorney, but in terms of legal advice, that might another story.

Also if not mistaken there are requirements in order to qualify for public attorneys aren't there ?

ENIGMA might be able to find some FREE LEGAL advice.....but to proof and make the license legal and official would require a paid service.....nobody will do that FREE.  Having advice is one thing, but legalizing your document is another, and that can be costly...so the other alternative would be to do it on your own and get advice on that !   Or submitting this problem on a crowd sourcing platform and get thousands of feedback.
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #139 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 11:24:34 PM

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

View Profile
Now as far as that goes, Public Defenders as an example are generally criminal defense attorneys, and interns would just be practicing attorneys in any field of law.
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 (Unknown gender) lonewolff
Reply #140 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 11:38:44 PM
"Guest"


Email
@Darkstar2 - sent you a PM, not sure if it went through with this freaky PM system - LOL. ;)
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #141 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 12:42:22 AM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
Yes it did, you have to wait until you get confirmation in green.

Somehow the forum has been slow lately when hitting reply it takes a long time to process.....wasn't like that before, though PM always took a long time.

Welcome back, and like I said, don't blame people for having doubts, there have been many arguments against you and all combined did not look good and you left under very suspicious conditions,
not saying a word, then viewing the forum, etc.  So glad to know you are not a spy, the CIA, the NSA, or the (I was going to write something inappropriate :D) :P :P

You inspired me to write a film and submit it to a production company. I think this could be a box office hit I will PM you about this idea :P

Logged
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #142 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 01:35:04 AM

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

View Profile
@Darkstar2 and Robert :

You can at least try to get said free advice, after all is for an opensource free product, also if you write your own licence and submit it to the OSI and they accept it chances are it is legal and will hold in any court, since that is what they do. Or use the LGPL with a static linking exception or the MPL v2 as it is.

@DaSpirit: Static linking odd? why? many libre projects allow just that, even for comercial/closed-source use.
Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #143 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 01:38:13 AM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
Personally I would rather all libs be linked in the EXE.  Doesn't ENIGMA already do  that, so if it's done then why separate the libs.....The only stuff I don't mind keeping non linked to EXE are large resources, as I will have my own C++ code handling them dynamically in and out of memory as needed. 
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) lonewolff
Reply #144 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 01:55:55 AM
"Guest"


Email
Straying off-topic a bit. But, I prefer static linking all the way. Less mess, more portable.

Darkstar2 - Yes, I can see how my sudden leaving could be seen as suspicious. But, as I said via PM (in much more detail) it was a bad time in my life, internet wise.

So if you guys are happy to have me back, I am more than happy to contribute to the project. No deleting threads this time round - LOL :)

As I said in the PM, deleting wasn't the right thing to do. I just wanted out of the net - was a crazy time. Wasn't just here, so don't stress about that. Hard to explain unless you have been there. :)

Now back on topic :)
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #145 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 06:17:36 AM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
why separate the libs

Please pay attention. Dynamically linking instead of statically linking by default would allow proprietary programs to use ENIGMA if it were under the GNU LGPL, eliminating the need to write up the legal language required for permitting static linking without leaving a loophole.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 06:19:15 AM by onpon » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) lonewolff
Reply #146 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 06:48:33 AM
"Guest"


Email
why separate the libs

Please pay attention. Dynamically linking instead of statically linking by default would allow proprietary programs to use ENIGMA if it were under the GNU LGPL, eliminating the need to write up the legal language required for permitting static linking without leaving a loophole.

I see what you are getting at. So, by dynamic linking we don't need to supply our own source code as it is not a derivative if Enigma as such. Right?
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #147 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 07:26:27 AM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Further, this poll had confirmation bias to begin with which construes the results.
Quote from: Survey
A less restrictive copyleft license like the MPL is my choice. Changes to ENIGMA's code still have to be shared, but game developers can license their code or keep it proprietary.
While it may sound harmless the less informed member will implicitly take that into account.

Each of the statements in the poll were meant to be something that a voter might say. I was attempting to make each choice as neutral as possible, but I can see your point about the bias of this sentence. It's quite possible that my leanings towards the MPL affected what I wrote in the poll. It's also possible that some voters were influenced by the wording of that sentence. Just stating the license name and providing links to each license would have been more appropriate. No bias was intended, but I am biased towards the MPL. I can't argue with you there.

However, it's not like this poll is officially sanctioned by Enigma's developers or the community. I created the poll out of curiosity about the community's opinion on licensing. I didn't and don't expect it will be a a deciding factor for the copyright holders. I might have hoped it would be, but I never expected it. :)

What I want to see eventually, is a poll made by a developer when the time comes to choose a license officially. Robert: If you or any of the other developers create your own poll, I'll gladly close this one and link to the new poll. Bias or not, I think it's clear from the votes here and the numerous discussions on the forums that the majority want a license that's more permissive than the GPL.

Ultimately, it's up to the copyright holders to decide on a new license, but I'm hoping that a community vote on a license will be taken into account.
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #148 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 10:37:26 AM

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

View Profile
Rezolyze, I'm sorry I may have been a little overly critical, but you can understand where I am coming from. After 8 pages I kind of lost track of what this was all about so I lost sight of the poll's intentions. It is good that you stimulated the debate however, it is an important issue in the community. I am for whatever keeps everyone happy, protects all of our rights to the fullest extent, retains a great amount of freedom for both the developers and the user, and stops someone from taking our source code and selling it separately as part of another game making tool. And I think we should not make rash decisions and inform ourselves of the implications to the fullest extent, have you guys even studied any provisions of the various licenses over the last 9 months?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 10:42:08 AM by Robert B Colton » 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 (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #149 Posted on: September 25, 2014, 10:40:02 AM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 886

View Profile Email
I haven't read through this entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

The code in ENIGMA is currently licensed under the GPL3+. This is code contributed by many talented programmers, each individually having their code licensed (or relicensed) to the GPL3+. Relicensing an entire product is not a trivial matter, and even less trivial due to its current license. Relicensing ENIGMA (or LateralGM) would require *every single code contributor* to agree to have their contributions relicensed to the new license. It cannot be done democratically (with a vote). If any single developer does not agree, their code is stuck to the old license, meaning you either have to give up or scrap *all* of their code. Which could potentially leave the product broken, so you'd have to have someone rewrite those code sections from scratch using the new license (or compatible), and it can't be identical to the old code.

For example, I am a well-known contributor to some of the modules in ENIGMA. You'll see my name appear at the top of some files. I for one intentionally wrote my code with the GPL3+ license (with option for a special exception for the games). I do NOT consent to having my code relicensed to the BSD or MIT licenses. I do not want a permissive license, as I do not want to see a proprietary competitor to ENIGMA stealing ENIGMA's code and not sharing their own improvements (which I think Josh mentioned).
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
  Print