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 36057 times)
Offline (Male) DaSpirit
Reply #120 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 02:29:27 PM

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

View Profile
Not exactly true, you may use any GPLed product to develop your product (CodeBlocks + GCC + wxWidgets  for instance), and then release it under whatever license you deem apropiate,
Using Code::Blocks does not mean you're using GPL code. You're not directly using the code, so it does not affect you. However, GCC and ENIGMA both insert their GPL-based code into whatever you make. This is why GCC needed an exception and why ENIGMA needs one now.
Logged
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #121 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 02:46:18 PM

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

View Profile
How to get your license approved by the OSI:

http://opensource.org/approval

Static Linking Exception:

Code: [Select]

ENIGMA Free Software Licenses

The ENIGMA engine is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License V3 plus a static link exception.

    You get the full source code. You can examine the code, modify it, and share your modified code under the terms of the LGPL.

    Static linking exception. The copyright holders give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you must extend this exception to your version of the library.

The ENIGMA engine for Commercial Games

    The ENIGMA engine is safe for use in closed-source games. The LGPL share-alike terms do not apply to games built on top of the ENIGMA engine.

    You do not need a commercial license. The LGPL applies to ENIGMA's own source code, not your games.

Alternative? MPL v2 I think its the same as the LGPL + Static linking exception: Pay special attention to question 8  ;)

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


Where can you get pro bono advice:

Code: [Select]
Since I don't know where the devs are based this is difficult but:

http://www.mcmillan.ca/pro-bono

http://www.georgialegalaid.org/

http://www.vsb.org/site/pro_bono/resources-for-the-public
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 03:12:37 PM by edsquare » Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #122 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 02:50:29 PM

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

View Profile
Don't you mean redistribute whatever I used to build my game ? So this means I have to redistribute ENIGMA with my games? Do I include the portable zip or do I have to distribute the entire enigma-dev folders (in its installed form).  ?
Sorry, I worded that improperly. GPL requires whatever you made using that GPL code to be GPL as well. So, you would have the post the source code to your game whenever somebody would request it.

Ok fair enough. Now let's say I use ENIGMA to make a game, but decide NOT to load everything in the IDE and consequently have it compiled in my EXE, but all resources of my game stored in resource files, encrypted, and the handling of that be done by my own C++ engine.
In other words using my proprietary engine/code combined with ENIGMA......In that case the only source code I would need to make available upon request is that of the ENIGMA portion right ? meaning the EGM file for example, and NOT my resource files or the compiled C++ or C++ code of my proprietary engine ? Right?

Right now and to go by the letter of the licence you need to link dinamically.
Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #123 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 03:02:00 PM

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

View Profile
I don't think the obligation is that you have to redistribute ENIGMA, you just need to accommodate access to and provide information about the program used to make your game or program. Just saying I built this game with ENIGMA, here's the link where you can download it and its source code is suffice.

Additionally what Josh most likely means by you can sell your game, is that you can sell your game and we basically won't give a shit, I go to college I got much better things to do than try to ride someone else's coattails, if you make the next Crappy Bird in ENIGMA and become a millionaire more power to you just don't forget to mention that our engine was used, to do otherwise would be pretty rude. I believe this is pretty reasonable and that any reasonable person would agree with me.
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) edsquare
Reply #124 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 03:10:20 PM

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

View Profile
I don't think the obligation is that you have to redistribute ENIGMA, you just need to accommodate access to and provide information about the program used to make your game or program. Just saying I built this game with ENIGMA, here's the link where you can download it and its source code is suffice.

Exactly right, you don't have to distribute anything else but your game.

Additionally what Josh most likely means by you can sell your game, is that you can sell your game and we basically won't give a shit, I go to college I got much better things to do than try to ride someone else's coattails, if you make the next Crappy Bird in ENIGMA and become a millionaire more power to you just don't forget to mention that our engine was used, to do otherwise would be pretty rude. I believe this is pretty reasonable and that any reasonable person would agree with me.

I agree but we plain users need a bit of legal assurance, and ENIGMA needs a license that gives us that while preventing anybody to take it, modify it and then close the source.

Both can be achieved by the LGPL + linking exception or by the MPL v2, the second option gives anybody involved in the development the assurance of being an official, osi approved license.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 03:11:56 PM by edsquare » Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Offline (Unknown gender) onpon
Reply #125 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 03:52:17 PM

Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 102

View Profile WWW Email
Quote
the second option gives anybody involved in the development the assurance of being an official, osi approved license

The GNU LGPL is OSI-approved. Additional permissions don't make a license any less open source.

I just want to summarize some points, because there seems to have been an explosion of misunderstandings over something very simple:

When you dynamically link or otherwise include any GPL'ed code, such as libraries provided by ENIGMA, the entire program must be under the GPL. This doesn't mean you can't sell copies, it just means you need to give users the same freedom you were given. What the GNU LGPL does is allow you to dynamically link to the program under the GNU LGPL and not release the whole under the GNU LGPL.

What Josh wants to do is also allow static linking, rather than just the dynamic linking allowed by the GNU LGPL, so that everything can be put into a single executable on Windows. The problem with this is it could easily be abused if done wrong; imagine someone taking ENIGMA, making improvements, then wrapping that in a very small program that basically just includes the modified ENIGMA and does its job. Going the other way, the copyleft provisions could accidentally be left too strong.

Personally, I think the concern about having DLLs or other shared object files is silly. Sure, Game Maker users are used to having one file, but it's not a common practice in the first place. Even Windows programs more usually use some sort of installer or just a simple ZIP archive, and if it's even possible on GNU/Linux, I've never seen it there. Besides, consider all the libraries released under the GNU LGPL already; I'm not aware of any case where proprietary software developers rejected these libraries because they wanted to statically link and couldn't.

I say, just use the GNU LGPL, and make sure the way ENIGMA compiles the games dynamically links by default.

One last thing: it would be completely retarded to just make it permissively-licensed. I once heard an anecdote that people who do proprietary software development laugh at people who release their code under permissive licenses, because they can take that code, put it in their proprietary software, and give nothing back. It should be taken with a grain of salt, but it makes perfect sense. Let's say, for example, that ENIGMA manages to get a killer feature added that makes everyone want to migrate away from Game Maker. If it's permissively licensed, YoYo Games can just plop it into Game Maker with virtually zero effort. Don't get stuck in the mindset that "companies are going to release contributions anyway". Corporations are, by definition, amoral entities, driven by profit.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Aegar
Reply #126 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 04:09:15 PM

Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 9

View Profile WWW Email
Let's say, for example, that ENIGMA manages to get a killer feature added that makes everyone want to migrate away from Game Maker. If it's permissively licensed, YoYo Games can just plop it into Game Maker with virtually zero effort. Don't get stuck in the mindset that "companies are going to release contributions anyway". Corporations are, by definition, amoral entities, driven by profit.

Theoretically, sure. Practically, it rarely works that way. Software adoption is influenced more by ease of access, level of documentation, quality of community, and social factors. This is why less-than-stellar game engines can have huge userbases while technically superior engines can flop. I have never heard of a permissively-licensed project that was actually damaged by stolen code/features.

On the flipside, there are many permissively-licensed projects that have gained popularity due to said licensing. A lot of modern technology is based on projects that use the BSD, MIT, or Apache licenses.
Logged
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #127 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 04:12:14 PM

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

View Profile
Quote
the second option gives anybody involved in the development the assurance of being an official, osi approved license

The GNU LGPL is OSI-approved. Additional permissions don't make a license any less open source.

I just want to summarize some points, because there seems to have been an explosion of misunderstandings over something very simple:

When you dynamically link or otherwise include any GPL'ed code, such as libraries provided by ENIGMA, the entire program must be under the GPL. This doesn't mean you can't sell copies, it just means you need to give users the same freedom you were given. What the GNU LGPL does is allow you to dynamically link to the program under the GNU LGPL and not release the whole under the GNU LGPL.

Exactly.

What Josh wants to do is also allow static linking, rather than just the dynamic linking allowed by the GNU LGPL, so that everything can be put into a single executable on Windows. The problem with this is it could easily be abused if done wrong; imagine someone taking ENIGMA, making improvements, then wrapping that in a very small program that basically just includes the modified ENIGMA and does its job. Going the other way, the copyleft provisions could accidentally be left too strong.

Therefore the need for a well writen linking exception or a osi approved license that allows static linking while at the same time protects the ENIGMA code, I believe the only license that does this out of the box is the MPL v2.

Personally, I think the concern about having DLLs or other shared object files is silly. Sure, Game Maker users are used to having one file, but it's not a common practice in the first place. Even Windows programs more usually use some sort of installer or just a simple ZIP archive, and if it's even possible on GNU/Linux, I've never seen it there. Besides, consider all the libraries released under the GNU LGPL already; I'm not aware of any case where proprietary software developers rejected these libraries because they wanted to statically link and couldn't.

In the case of games though it may be good to allow static linkung since I could have two different games made with two different versions of the engine and have no problem at all, in windows this is known as dll hell, never heard of it arising on linux but I have heard hellish stories about needing certain librarie and not finding it, or your system didn't allowed you to install it or you broke it while installing it.

I say, just use the GNU LGPL, and make sure the way ENIGMA compiles the games dynamically links by default.

This may be a good idea and it may not, specially under windows (see above comment)

One last thing: it would be completely retarded to just make it permissively-licensed. I once heard an anecdote that people who do proprietary software development laugh at people who release their code under permissive licenses, because they can take that code, put it in their proprietary software, and give nothing back. It should be taken with a grain of salt, but it makes perfect sense. Let's say, for example, that ENIGMA manages to get a killer feature added that makes everyone want to migrate away from Game Maker. If it's permissively licensed, YoYo Games can just plop it into Game Maker with virtually zero effort. Don't get stuck in the mindset that "companies are going to release contributions anyway". Corporations are, by definition, amoral entities, driven by profit.


Agreed, protect the engine while giving the user the liberty to do whatever he wants except stealing the engine's code. I don't think the whole engine gets emmbeded on your games, but still this may be a point in favor of the linking exception since it specifies what you can do with it (games).
Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #128 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 05:17:39 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
I don't think the obligation is that you have to redistribute ENIGMA, you just need to accommodate access to and provide information about the program used to make your game or program. Just saying I built this game with ENIGMA, here's the link where you can download it and its source code is suffice.

Additionally what Josh most likely means by you can sell your game, is that you can sell your game and we basically won't give a shit, I go to college I got much better things to do than try to ride someone else's coattails, if you make the next Crappy Bird in ENIGMA and become a millionaire more power to you just don't forget to mention that our engine was used, to do otherwise would be pretty rude. I believe this is pretty reasonable and that any reasonable person would agree with me.

Thanks Robert your post is really reassuring, lol.  But one should never overlook the importance of a license, both to protect the developers and its users.  I know that you would not come after me for the millions of $ I will make selling my game, maybe Josh because he can afford good lawyers now :P but that's another story.  But in all seriousness, I am fair and decent, I PROMISE YOU, I will not forget either of you if I become a millionaire and if I do forget, please remind me ! lol!  A license is still important to protect against those less well intentioned users whilst at the same time protecting the user as to now discourage people from using said product.

It is important to note, yes one uses ENIGMA, it is an ENGINE.....but that's what it, an engine, it does not "MAKE" games.  You still need to build the game, sounds, resources, story, etc.  ENIGMA, unlike some other turn key engines does not come with prefabs or any pre-made stuff...... So when you mention "made with ENIGMA" certain people might say "oh this is yet another kiddie game making tool where you click and build type" which is far from it.  I like when I make games to brag that I bust my arse making the game (original content) whilst at the same time saying proudly that the game is powered by ENIGMA engine, not MADE by it. but I guess that is open for another debate :D
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) lonewolff
Reply #129 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 05:44:12 PM
"Guest"


Email
Damn guys, is this still going on?

This is why I bailed on Enigma 9 months ago. The leads don't seem to have any direction. Which is a bummer for the project.
Logged
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #130 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 06:19:30 PM

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

View Profile
Damn guys, is this still going on?

This is why I bailed on Enigma 9 months ago. The leads don't seem to have any direction. Which is a bummer for the project.

And in the process you erased your contributions to the forum, very generous of you, they "have no direction", and yet the project moves by steps and leaps, and no thanks to you or the people so eager to criticize those who give their knoledge, hard work and precious time so others can use the resulting product.

I for one am very thankfull of their eforts.
Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #131 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 06:24:47 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
First well said eds !!!!

And those criticisms come from someone with advanced skills he could have been part of ENIGMA and made it better.
but he decided to support a company that has made some questionable decisions and taken a specific direction, all over the place, has its users doing their work and profiting from it.  His choice, his loss.......

Damn guys, is this still going on?

This is why I bailed on Enigma 9 months ago. The leads don't seem to have any direction. Which is a bummer for the project.

9 months already, damn time flies..... :P

Sorry mate but that is your loss...... I understand why license has been trailing for too long, but glad I stuck with ENIGMA, many things were fixed since you left.....Remember the fonts issue, that was a pain in my arse and with Robert's help, and long testing sessions managed to find a patch that worked for all.  The full screen DX9 issue was fixed, I stumbled upon a quick script fix, lead Robert to find the REAL problem which was simple, and lead him to fix lost devices.  Lots have been fixed and improved.  Your departure was nothing short of suspicious in my honest opinion, deleting your traces and posts, but that's another story..... You shared the same concerns about GM and the market place, the very same area you are developing in and helping them, nice.  You chose your side, good for you, in my opinion this product shows more promise, you seemed interested and were a good contributor of thoughts, and yet you have had enough skill to contribute to this project, but didn't...... you had uncanny interest for the video,AND ENIGMA then left SUDDENLY.....Under VERY suspicious circumstances.

Sorry but the whole license thing is an excuse, and I don't believe it is the only reason you left......and you might have had other motives for coming here in the first place, or at least this is the impression I have, maybe wrong, but the deleting posts and trails and social accounts, that sends red flags.

No matter what still see the benefits of using ENIGMA over GM, at least for a windows developer perspective.  BTW, nice initiative on your video extension, that would be a good addition to ENIGMA, since ENIGMA does not have the sandbox restriction, so you could make massive games, encryption, big file resources, resource handling as you wish, where GM still has so many dead ends and limitations.  I think ENIGMA deserves more credit than that.

You've had your pissing match with the devs, many have but then you kissed and made up and moved on, in my opinion, this is the impression I get, this was planned, you showed interest for video
but then left, so were your interests genuine or did you get what you came for and left ?

You made your choice, that's your call....You could have been part of it and helped make it better!!! regardless of your thoughts on the developers......you be your own person, this is an open source, contributor driven stuff, you learn to like the product and  channel out the negativity then you reap its benefits.

Congratulations of becoming a new shareholder of yours truly, said other side of the grass........(evil grin) :P ;) The very same company you had negative criticism about not long before you "abduction", and same for its market place.

Enjoy GameMaker and I hope it meets your needs. And I hope that GMS 2 which is due in 2015, will also meet your expectations....  As to ENIGMA's license, don't hold your breath mate, come back in 10 years and you'll see the same discussions.

But if you cannot see all the fixes and improvements done to ENIGMA since you left, then.......well......let's leave it at that.:D  You seem keen on hanging around the forum, which you have done since leaving, too bad you didn't use that energy for helping make ENIGMA better.

Cheers
Go and continue making loads of money to a company that takes 70% cut from your hard work and labour.

I admit though that I too had thoughts of leaving few times, but sure glad I stayed.  Sure there was some rough patch and few disagreements and tension but that is all past, and we are moving forward.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 07:02:00 PM by Darkstar2 » Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #132 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 06:46:50 PM

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

View Profile
I have to mention that rushing us to force a license on the project doesn't help either, this is something that should be done slowly and be well thought out instead of making rash decisions in the interest of both you the user and we the developers. I'll admit that it would best solved by an expert team of lawyers, which I don't have the money for, but only they can sit down and rigorously disseminate all the provisions of various licenses and give the best legal advice because they are the ones trained to do that.

Additionally the community is currently underrepresented, we have plenty of more users but several of them will appear only to post an issue but here on the forums they are not as active, our Twitter account retweets and everything have more of our active users. 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.

Quote from: Darkstar2
Cheers
Go and continue making loads of money to a company that takes 70% cut from your hard work and labour.
Correct, I am sure YoYoGame's license is a lot less volatile and restrictive as the GPL.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 06:48:50 PM 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 (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #133 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 07:05:22 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
I have to mention that rushing us to force a license on the project doesn't help either, this is something that should be done slowly and be well thought out instead of making rash decisions in the interest of both you the user and we the developers.

Yeah it's important not to "rush" things, but this whole license thing has been trailing too damn much.  What amount of time do you think it requires to get something sorted out, 100 years ? 200 years ? It's really sad that this whole license thing is one vicious circle going round and round and round and round.......Though I disagree with him STRONGLY, that this is an excuse and valid reason for having left the site.

Also Robert, the YYG license does not force you to release or make available your source code to your games.  You are required to use a paragraph in relation to the YoYo Runner and YoYoGames as its IP holder....and there are restrictions when distributing your games through YYG's assistance or by submitting on their store, site, etc......you don't have to take that route, they also restrict on the type of products you can make with GM..... :)



« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 07:09:34 PM by Darkstar2 » Logged
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #134 Posted on: September 24, 2014, 07:21:42 PM

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

View Profile
I have to mention that rushing us to force a license on the project doesn't help either, this is something that should be done slowly and be well thought out instead of making rash decisions in the interest of both you the user and we the developers. I'll admit that it would best solved by an expert team of lawyers, which I don't have the money for, but only they can sit down and rigorously disseminate all the provisions of various licenses and give the best legal advice because they are the ones trained to do that.

Additionally the community is currently underrepresented, we have plenty of more users but several of them will appear only to post an issue but here on the forums they are not as active, our Twitter account retweets and everything have more of our active users. 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.

Quote from: Darkstar2
Cheers
Go and continue making loads of money to a company that takes 70% cut from your hard work and labour.
Correct, I am sure YoYoGame's license is a lot less volatile and restrictive as the GPL.

Who is rushing anybody? the topic has been dormant for months and in my opinion the dev team can take another four years to decide on a license if they need.

I saw the post did some searching and found somethings that may or may not help in solving the issue.

Agreed that the number of posts does not reflect the number of users.

Agreed the poll was a loaded proposition (And in reality not really usefull since the devs are the ones who should evaluate and choose the licence)

Ja! yea sure a propietary licence less restrictive than the GPL, that'll be the day!

In short I agree 100% with all you said and have no rush on any licence, I don't believe I'll have any game worth selling in less that four years maybe more. Further, I believe most users think is better a well thouth licence than a rushed one.

Keep up the good work and who knows, maybe I'll find a lawyer willing to help for free.

Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
  Print