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 36065 times)
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #45 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 04:07:05 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
Quote
2) As you already said, suing is time and money consuming. So it's virtually impossible that anyone from ENIGMA dev team would be active enough to do so. Only maybe Robert during one of his sissy fits could summon the time (but not money)
If I sue anybody; it'll be Josh, just for shits and giggles.

Once again forgive my ignorance on this matter but this reminds me of a question might seem crazy, but I'll ask anyway.

What if ENIGMA goes to shit and it is dropped completely, scrapped, removed from the face of the earth, no longer available for download, is there such a thing as de-licensing or prohibiting users from using ENIGMA?  If ENIGMA is gone / scrapped, will people still be allowed to use it to make and sell games ?
Let's say ENIGMA is gone, website, any link to it,
what are people going to link back to ? 

Quote
If I sue anybody; it'll be Josh, just for shits and

You are only human Robert, unless proven otherwise :D  Let's say hypothetically that someone makes $10 million from an ENIGMA game, game is a best seller goes viral and the developer is wiping his ass with all the money he is making !   This could lead anybody to sue...... License or no license, regardless!

Now I don't know what  country you are from, but in America people sue for anything.  If I were an American I could sue you for a spelling error you made in an ENIGMA update and I could win ! :D

People should NEVER take "Oh I will never sue" as written in stone or ASSUME they won't get sued.

Also licenses can be rendered useless unless they are LEGAL binding.  One of the devs could plead insanity when they made the license or that they were drunk :D

Given the costs of such endeavors, let's assume the safest, that  the license issue will always be up in the air........
and by that it's best to be cautious and assume you CAN get sued, regardless of what you use or do.

Sometimes it doesn't take much for something to go viral......  Even a stick figure game or game with blocky sprite or shit game and be potential success.

So everybody who uses ENIGMA and takes the plunge, assume that you can get sued anytime,
very unlikely if you don't make much money, but still a chance, and very likely if you do make it to fame and fortune.

So for example, if my game makes $10 millions, which I'm aiming for (1st month at least :D) Robert will sue me, but he'll probably go home with $1000 (that is if he's lucky.....) and his lawyers with the millions of $.

Who really wins in legal battles, most of the time it's the lawyers!   That's why class action suits are so fucking useless ! :D 

But no worries, i'll just plead insanity and claim
the devil made me do it!   ;D

Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) TheExDeus
Reply #46 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 04:18:14 PM

Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1872

View Profile
Quote
Absolutely not. A non-commercial-only restriction would be completely unacceptable. I'm sure Josh agrees, or at least understands that this restriction would make ENIGMA a proprietary program.
I still don't understand the issue with what the FroggestSpirit said. He said ENIGMA engine (that is the one running the game itself, so the game is ENIGMA engine + Your game) shouldn't be sellable on it's own. So you can't just take the ENGINE from Git (the engine is basically everything under ENIGMAsystem/SHELL) and sell that. On the other hand if you make some kind of software and then compile, then you should be able to sell it.

Basically when you make something ENIGMA you get "ENIGMA engine + Your game".
ENIGMA engine - Shouldn't be sellable.
ENIGMA engine + Your game - Should be.

I think it makes sense. And that is basically what the whole issue is about.

Quote
1. Isn't it enough to keep the parser/compiler protected with the GPL and change the engine to the MPL?
It could lessen any problems and make the whole thing harder to use (as the parser/compiler would have to be written from scratch). Just FIY - we say "compiler" even though we don't actually compile anything ourselves. It's actually just the parser that creates the C++ code and then GCC is used to compile it.
Quote
2. Is either portion of ENIGMA very useful without the other?
Could be. I guess depends on the one who tries to steal it. Technically you should be able to compile everything without the parser. I could actually try that some time as it's both a good feature (as it means you could code everything in pure C++ without LGM or anything else) and a bad one (as the enigne under a permissive license would make it sellable on its own).
Quote
3. If someone wanted to make the next GameMaker with ENIGMA, wouldn't they have to modify code or create extensions in both the parser/compiler and the engine?
Technically they could get rid of the parser part and only use the engine. They wouldn't be able to use GML/EDL it this case, but they could code in pure C++. You can check that yourself. Everything you code gets parsed and then written to "C:\ProgramData\ENIGMA\Preprocessor_Environment_Editable". These are the files that need to be replicated when not using the parser. If you only wanted to use the ENIGMA engine then most of the files here could probably be empty as well.

Quote
If I were an American I could sue you for a spelling error you made in an ENIGMA update and I could win ! :D
That really is not how suing works. It can take many years (especially when talking about millions of dollars), many trials (it's not like "Trial is done, Robert won, give Robert money", it's more like "Trial is done, Robert won, If Darkstar doesn't agree with verdict, we can start again") and most people just say "f it" and stops. So you can think whatever you want of ENIGMA or the possibility of Robert suing you, but trials are not something you just take out of your ass. That is why most things actually AREN'T settled in court (even large companies involving many millions of $ settle out of court as it's a lot easier).
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) The 11th plague of Egypt
Reply #47 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 05:07:24 PM
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 276

View Profile
People please, leaving all rethoric aside, this is not the biggest problem now, it's just icing on the cake.

Of course, it could become a bigger problem if the situation changes, but nobody is going to lose their house in a lawsuit.

Clearly state the license you prefer, and if you are really concerned, try to reach an agreement.

If this topic drowns into the flames of political argument, any possible solution will go down with it.

Reach agreement. Solve problem. Situation better.
Everybody happy.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #48 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 05:09:20 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Thanks for replying TheExDeus.
Quote
ENIGMA engine - Shouldn't be sellable.
ENIGMA engine + Your game - Should be.
To do this would require a custom license. I think that's a bad idea with the possibility of legal loopholes. Also, do we really want to restrict people to making just games with ENIGMA? The GameMaker community has made a lot of useful applications with GameMaker; not just games. Do we want to restrict the ENIGMA community to games only? Another problem is how do we define a game in legalese?

Quote
It could lessen any problems and make the whole thing harder to use (as the parser/compiler would have to be written from scratch).
I agree. Anyone "stealing" ENIGMA would have to create a new parser and add features to the engine to make their proprietary creation profitable. This sounds like more work than most people/companies would be willing to put in. Cooperating with the ENIGMA community would be easier and more productive by comparison. You can't force cooperation, but you can encourage it!

Quote
Technically you should be able to compile everything without the parser. I could actually try that some time as it's both a good feature (as it means you could code everything in pure C++ without LGM or anything else) and a bad one (as the enigne under a permissive license would make it sellable on its own).
Quote
Technically they could get rid of the parser part and only use the engine. They wouldn't be able to use GML/EDL it this case, but they could code in pure C++.
While that's true, it would negate the point of using ENIGMA. If you have the skill to code a game in C++, there are plenty of engines better optimized for that purpose with more permissive licenses. There's very little benefit to using ENIGMA's engine this way (please tell me if I'm wrong). I don't see how selling the engine by itself would be profitable unless it was changed drastically and changes that dramatic would require sharing under the MPL.

Thanks for answering my questions. It seems I can't stay away from this discussion, but at least my responses are somewhat shorter. :)
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) The 11th plague of Egypt
Reply #49 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 05:18:02 PM
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 276

View Profile
Thanks for replying TheExDeus.
Quote
ENIGMA engine - Shouldn't be sellable.
ENIGMA engine + Your game - Should be.
To do this would require a custom license. I think that's a bad idea with the possibility of legal loopholes. Also, do we really want to restrict people to making just games with ENIGMA? The GameMaker community has made a lot of useful applications with GameMaker; not just games. Do we want to restrict the ENIGMA community to games only? Another problem is how do we define a game in legalese?

I'll just comment on the license here.

GPL allows selling, always has and always will.

You can sell LibreOffice on ebay for as much as you want, and nobody can tell you not to try.
It's perfectly legal and allowed by the license.

Though, since the code is available, anybody can freely compile it by himself and redistribute the binary for free.

"Free as in liberty" easily translates to "free as in beer".

Same goes for MPL, Apache, MIT and all other Open Source licenses.
One of the requisites for being eligible to classify as Open Source is actually that you put no restrictions on selling.
"Free Redistribution" is point 1 of the Open Source Definition, look for yourself
http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 05:22:45 PM by The 11th plague of Egypt » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #50 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 05:21:42 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
I don't think the licensing is the biggest problem, but it is a big problem. I think the current license hurts the potential growth of this community. However, this issue has been talked to death here and in other threads.

 I keep hoping one of ENIGMA's developers will begin contacting the other contributors and persuade them to authorize a license change. Any volunteers?

I would, but I doubt it would mean anything coming from me. I've probably just been pissing people off with this constant license debate. Not my intention, but there it is.  :-\
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 05:51:44 PM by Rezolyze » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) TheExDeus
Reply #51 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 07:00:22 PM

Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1872

View Profile
Quote
To do this would require a custom license. I think that's a bad idea with the possibility of legal loopholes. Also, do we really want to restrict people to making just games with ENIGMA? The GameMaker community has made a lot of useful applications with GameMaker; not just games. Do we want to restrict the ENIGMA community to games only? Another problem is how do we define a game in legalese?
And that exactly is the problem. Josh thinks a custom license is the only way (and by the requirements we presented it would be), but as already stated, it's a loophole magnet. And of course I just use the terminology "game", while it was meant "ENIGMA + your software", but that again is hard to define. Josh tried that earlier and he had in style of "ENIGMA + parsed output of LGM", but then LGM is involved which is a different project from ENIGMA. So it all creates problems.

Quote
I agree. Anyone "stealing" ENIGMA would have to create a new parser and add features to the engine to make their proprietary creation profitable. This sounds like more work than most people/companies would be willing to put in. Cooperating with the ENIGMA community would be easier and more productive by comparison. You can't force cooperation, but you can encourage it!
The parser isn't as hard as you might think and companies would sure as hell have the resources to make one. And this means you could make a parser that not only takes EDL/GML, but anything you might want. You could make a parser that takes Python if you wanted to. Or JS (which was actually partly done by Josh for ENIMGAJS project).

Quote
While that's true, it would negate the point of using ENIGMA. If you have the skill to code a game in C++, there are plenty of engines better optimized for that purpose with more permissive licenses. There's very little benefit to using ENIGMA's engine this way (please tell me if I'm wrong). I don't see how selling the engine by itself would be profitable unless it was changed drastically and changes that dramatic would require sharing under the MPL.
Of course there are many game engines available, but so are game making tools. ENIGMA's engine on it's own isn't a bad one and if could be used without LGM then it would hold merit on its own. At least for 2D games it's very optimized and even advanced. So I think if was very easy, then ENIGMA's engine might be used on its own like any other. But right now that might include more work.

Quote
I keep hoping one of ENIGMA's developers will begin contacting the other contributors and persuade them to authorize a license change. Any volunteers?
Most ENIGMA devs who are required for license change are in these forums (Josh mentioned this a few posts ago), so it's not that we can't get together. It's that we haven't still chosen a license. MPL is the closest we came to choosing one, but it isn't perfect either. So if nothing better comes out of this, then it might be the one we choose. Then it's up to Josh whether we really use MPL or he thinks of a custom one (and whether its worth it).
I think most dev's are ready to choose MPL as the lesser evil.
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #52 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 07:01:44 PM

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

View Profile
I'll just sum up my position, if Josh is happy, I'm happy.
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) Rezolyze
Reply #53 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 07:21:57 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
From what Josh has said earlier, I doubt he would be happy with the MPL, but he might go along with the MPL if everyone else decides to use it. Just a guess based on previous discussion.

What we need is a statement of license choice from each ENIGMA contributor. Then at least a more useful discussion could take place. The decision is up to all of the copyright holders, but we haven't heard from everyone of them yet.
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #54 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 07:29:06 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 955
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Why not say "ENIGMA + parsed output of compiler" like the GCC linking exception, which is probably the most widely used license that happens to do exactly what Josh wants here?
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #55 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 07:56:29 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Why not say "ENIGMA + parsed output of compiler" like the GCC linking exception, which is probably the most widely used license that happens to do exactly what Josh wants here?
Because the GPL, in all it's forms, prevents people from selling their games in the Mac and iTunes App Store. The MPL has no such issue. For example, check out why VLC was pulled from the App Store and then came back when relicensed under the MPL.

Using any form of GPL code, distributed with games, is a risk to game developers. I, like many others, want to make games for Mac and IOS. I don't agree with Apple's policy, but that's not the issue. The App Store is the best way to sell software on Mac and the only way to sell software on IOS. (I know ENIGMA doesn't run on IOS, but I'm hoping it will someday.)
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 08:00:41 PM by Rezolyze » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) FroggestSpirit
Reply #56 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 08:36:46 PM

Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 79

View Profile
1) anything the comes out of the compile button should be free to do anything with, Most people say games, but i also say software, because I've used ENIGMA to throw together quick file converters

2)I have no issue showing that I made the game with the ENIGMA engine, but I just feel it shouldn't be forced.

3)Who's to say someone wont compile ENIGMA from the source code inside of ENIGMA? (though this probably isnt something to worry about.

Also... when is the final decision being made?

I strongly suggest having separate licenses for ENIGMA, and any software/game compiled using it
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 08:39:47 PM by FroggestSpirit » Logged
This isn't easy to say, but…
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #57 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 08:37:10 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 955
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Everything on the app store uses those libraries. VLC was a problem because the application itself was GPL.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #58 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 09:23:43 PM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
Frankly, no project should force itself to change licenses to work with Apple's censorship policy enforced by digital restriction mechanisms. Of course, as Rusky pointed out, this has absolutely nothing to do with a library which has had its copyleft weakened so proprietary programs can use it. That shouldn't be a problem with Apple's app store.
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #59 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:31:22 PM

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

View Profile
I'm sorry, but I do have to agree with these guys in that I don't agree with Apple's bullshit. Also, I pretty much hate everything about them. Steve Jobs was an abusive dick who abandoned his daughter, he wasn't very smart, and he wasn't a very kind person at all.
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.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
  Print