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 36165 times)
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #60 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:36:04 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Rusky: Part of every game made with ENIGMA would be GPL with the GCC Linking Exception. An ENIGMA game sold on the App Store would be incompatible because of the GPL licensed engine code compiled with every game. All it takes is one person notifying Apple and the game gets taken down. Portions of the GPL are simply incompatible with Apple's Store policy. The GCC Linking Exception doesn't change that. Maybe I just don't understand what you're arguing (that's definitely possible). Maybe the example I pointed to is a bad example, but that's not the point.

The many forms of the GPL and DRM don't mix. Having the engine code under any version of the GPL could prevent sales of people's games on stores that use DRM.

onpon: I'm not saying I agree with DRM or Apple's policies (I don't), but the license change is a usability issue, not a political one. My goal is to make games and sell them. If my goal was to make political statements, I'd be an activist and not a game developer. Sometimes it's possible to do both, but first and foremost: a man's gotta eat.

ENIGMA's developers should ask themselves: Am I creating a useful game engine or a personal crusade? Very hard to do both...
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #61 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:39:44 PM

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

View Profile
That's not exactly what I meant. It's the way you are arguing.

Apple has a highly restrictive Store Policy, therefore we should change our whole license around to accommodate it.

Which is really just absurd. The better way to argue it is the following.

ENIGMA has a restrictive license, let's try to find ways to give users more rights.

Is the better way to make the argument.
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) onpon
Reply #62 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:47:05 PM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
onpon: I'm not saying I agree with DRM or Apple's policies (I don't), but the license change is a usability issue, not a political one. My goal is to make games and sell them. If my goal was to make political statements, I'd be an activist and not a game developer. Sometimes it's possible to do both, but first and foremost: a man's gotta eat.

Then let me repeat this: GPL plus exceptions to allow proprietary programs to use ENIGMA should pose no problems for your desire to publish proprietary games on Apple's app store.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #63 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:51:11 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
onpon: Please provide links that prove what you're saying, because everything I've read says the opposite. Better yet, how about a link to an app on the App Store that uses the GCC Linking Exception.

I've argued this in so many ways on multiple threads (that apparently no one reads). I'm tired of arguing the same thing over and over again. How can I make people see that a less restrictive license is in this project's best interest?

If someone can't do whatever they want with the game they've created and sell it wherever they want, why would they use this engine over another engine with no restrictions?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 10:52:59 PM by Rezolyze » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #64 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 10:59:58 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
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).

Good, I'm happy you mention the last part, because that is a point I was making before, certain things get settled out of courts, it is sometimes the best interest of both parties, but sometimes certain thing don't and trail forever even if it means endless expenses, it's all about principles and who has a bigger dick at that point. 

I know trials are not that easy I was kidding sort of, but frivolous lawsuits happen and some people who initiate them win who don't deserve to, some companies will fold and give in to avoid the costly and lengthy battles, this is factual, and well documented, and more common than one can think. :)

In the case of ENIGMA, the initiator of the lawsuit would have a strong case and defendant little argument as a clear violation of license agreement was committed.  Here is where I am confused, if say, a developer gets sued by an enigma dev, does the developer receive right away a notice that they are getting sued or a warning that the game they are distributing is not abiding by licensing terms, sort of a S&D and a time delay to remove distribution of such games....... should the dev comply, will he be exempt from legal action ?   OR if say Robert finds out someone's game is a huge success and takes legal action to get some or all of the profits, how will he/she/it establish the amount of money that represents profits?

In other words, a person using enigma, would they still have a choice and be given time to comply and provide source or remove their game from distribution or is it set in stone that they get sued.

Yes I am aware that legal battles are a lengthy and expensive process, so one would assume by logic that it would not benefit Robert or Josh or any enigma developer to just sue someone for not including source code, unless the said compiled game has generated enough profits to warrant a case.   Right?
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #65 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 11:05:55 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
If someone can't do whatever they want with the game they've created and sell it wherever they want, why would they use this engine over another engine with no restrictions?

In an ideal world I would agree with you 100%, unfortunately, there are not that many good engines like ENIGMA out there, well there are but they have a steeper learning curve, require coding and might be more restrictive in other areas.  Why is ENIGMA good ? for people who used game maker - You don't feel lost when using LGM, the IDE is familiar and so are
 the actions, commands, etc.  + it allows GML, C++, etc.  And to be honest I have not seen any worthy GM clone, there are many but most are utter shit !  ENIGMA is by far the best I've seen and used out of the many out there that were crap.

Now the developers of ENIGMA also want protection for their work and project much the same way want things.  In my opinion, there will never be a license where both parties will have equal protection it will always lean towards one or the other.   Besides, if someone wanted to take ENIGMA and make it better and their own it would have happened by now, there are many cheap ass imitations out there that don't even deserve to be called GM clones :D

As far as "custom licenses" those would require legal support, I don't think that is an option they will consider, and doing a custom without this step would be IMO risky.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 11:10:54 PM by Darkstar2 » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #66 Posted on: March 29, 2014, 11:56:40 PM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
If someone can't do whatever they want with the game they've created and sell it wherever they want, why would they use this engine over another engine with no restrictions?

If it's true that weakened GPL, allowing exceptions so that the app can be proprietary, prevents said proprietary apps from getting on the app store, that doesn't mean that the weak variant of the GPL is more restrictive.

And about that: I am not very familiar with iOS; but rather than asking for a program that uses a library under something like the GNU LGPL, how about you find one which has been censored for this reason? A proprietary program under the GNU LGPL or similar, or compiled with GCC? Both of us are able to provide evidence here; but such a program currently being up doesn't actually prove anything concretely (Apple might have just not noticed), and searching for such a program is a lot harder than searching for an example of such a program being censored; a lot of programs you might not even think about use weakly copylefted software.

I'm completely in favor of giving ENIGMA weak copyleft for this exact reason you mentioned: Game Maker is easily as good as and probably better than ENIGMA, so strong copyleft is just going to steer people toward Game Maker, not convince them to make their software free/libre. But whatever ridiculous policies Apple has in its censored distribution channel should absolutely not factor into this. ENIGMA doesn't need to cater to iOS developers or even work with iOS at all to be successful.
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #67 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 02:23:04 AM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 955
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Apple themselves distribute the language standard libraries, which use the gcc linking exception, as part of their toolchain, so literally every app uses that license for that part of its code. Even if you change the ENIGMA engine license, it will still link with those same libraries.

VLC itself was GPL, which is an entirely different story from all the other apps that just link with the standard library under the exception.

Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #68 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 03:18:15 AM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Rusky: I'll just have to take your word for it since I can barely call myself a programmer.

What would be the benefit of using the GCC Linking Exception over the MPL? Can someone offer a comparison of the two licenses?
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #69 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 08:48:29 AM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 955
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
GCC linking exception means the library itself is GPL except that if you link with it using what the license calls an "Eligible Compilation Process" it doesn't apply to your code. "Eligible Compilation Process" is a more flexible definition equivalent to the proposed "generated with LGM" that doesn't restrict which compiler to use, etc.

MPL would allow the same things, but also allow a few further uses of the library without sharing, which Josh has covered previously.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #70 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 01:35:47 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Since the GCC Linking Exception and the GPL 3.0 don't define a "Runtime Library," an outside definition is needed. Wikipedia's definition of a runtime library doesn't seem to apply to ENIGMA's engine code.
Quote
In computer programming, a runtime library is a set of low-level routines used by a compiler to invoke some of the behaviors of a runtime environment, by inserting calls to the runtime library into compiled executable binary.
During compilation, ENIGMA's engine code (C++) is being linked with game code (C++). I'm barely a programmer, but the definition of runtime library doesn't seem to fit.

From the GCC Linking Exception:
Quote
A file is an "Independent Module" if it either requires the Runtime Library for execution after a Compilation Process, or makes use of an interface provided by the Runtime Library, but is not otherwise based on the Runtime Library.
Is game code based on ENIGMA's engine code? It depends on your definition of "based on." The game code depends on the the engine code for it to run. That may meet the definition of "based on."

If any part of the GCC Linking Exception needs to be changed, we're heading into custom license territory again.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 01:43:55 PM by Rezolyze » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #71 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 02:20:01 PM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
If any part of the GCC Linking Exception needs to be changed, we're heading into custom license territory again.

Version 3 of the GNU GPL is specifically designed to allow special exceptions; version 3 of the LGPL is an example of this. This isn't a custom license, and it's not problematic the same way custom licenses are: any exceptions list added to the GNU GPL v3 can be ignored (using only the terms of the GNU GPL), so all such licenses are GPL-compatible.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #72 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 02:39:33 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
I realize the GCC Linking Exception isn't a custom license exception, but changing one or more words in it makes it a custom license exception. Such changes would be needed if the ENIGMA engine code doesn't qualify as a runtime library or if game code is "based on" engine code.

Quote
any exceptions list added to the GNU GPL v3 can be ignored (using only the terms of the GNU GPL)
This only further proves my point that using any form of the GPL is a bad idea for the engine code. The goal is to move away from some of the restrictions of the GPL, not back towards it if a license exception doesn't apply or can be ignored.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #73 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 03:49:47 PM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
This only further proves my point that using any form of the GPL is a bad idea for the engine code. The goal is to move away from some of the restrictions of the GPL, not back towards it if a license exception doesn't apply or can be ignored.

Er... how? All this fact means is that someone can make a strongly copylefted version of the program. Which they can do with a permissively licensed program, or a program licensed under the MPL. And with a permissive license, proprietary versions can be made. Being opposed to copyleft because it can be transformed into stronger copyleft is a bizarre and backwards concern.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #74 Posted on: March 30, 2014, 04:17:55 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
I'm done.

If some of the people here can't see why any part of the GPL is bad for ENIGMA's engine code, my arguments won't convince them. I guess it's not enough that I'm in the majority on this issue. The majority of other open source game engines don't use the GPL because it's not a good fit for proprietary game creation. The GPL is not a one-size-fits-all kind of license; no license is. Shoe horning the GPL with special exceptions is not going to make it fit any better. I'm sorry that some of you can't see that.

With the community this divided, I doubt much will ever become of ENIGMA. I don't see this license issue resolving itself any time soon. This whole process has made me tired and depressed. I'd rather be making games instead of arguing a pointless debate.

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