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 36014 times)
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #180 Posted on: October 03, 2014, 11:07:45 AM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Uh, that's an example of that happening under the MPL, not the GNU LGPL. I'm pretty sure that the GNU LGPL doesn't allow you to link the library to a proprietary program; only the other way around (a proprietary program can link to the library).

I realize that MPLv2 code and LGPLv3 code don't link to proprietary code in the same way from a license point of view, but it amounts to the same outcome. Mincing words about which code is linking to which other code is a ridiculous argument. I'll just let one of Josh's earlier posts speak for itself as to why the LGPL won't work for ENIGMA. If you disagree with his interpretation of the LGPL, you can talk to him about it.

EDIT: I understand now what you were saying onpon. I misinterpreted what you meant. Please accept my apology.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2014, 12:27:21 AM by Rezolyze » Logged
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #181 Posted on: October 03, 2014, 01:49:16 PM

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

View Profile
Ok, first of all GPL does allow linking with what ever / however you want as long as you don't distribute it, for instance for internal use in a company without the intent to distribute.

LGPL allows linking with propietary code as long as you do it dynamically for sell or in any way for private use.

MPLv2 allows static linking while protecting your code, (MPL: The copyleft applies to any files containing MPLed code.) This means you can sell your game as long as you make sure the recipients can have access to the MPLd code contained within your game (The engine and any modification you make to it basically), so it's almost like the LGPL with a linking exception.

See for your self: https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html
Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #182 Posted on: October 03, 2014, 10:01:24 PM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
Quote from: edsquare
Ok, first of all GPL does allow linking with what ever / however you want as long as you don't distribute it, for instance for internal use in a company without the intent to distribute.
That's correct, but not relevant to this discussion. All of the proposed licenses allow for private use of the source code and compiled binaries. The primary purpose of ENIGMA is to make games that can be distributed publicly.

Quote from: edsquare
LGPL allows linking with propietary code as long as you do it dynamically for sell or in any way for private use.
That's partially correct. The LGPL allows dynamic or static linking with any type of code as long as you follow some extra rules for static linking.

Quote from: edsquare
MPLv2 allows static linking while protecting your code, (MPL: The copyleft applies to any files containing MPLed code.) This means you can sell your game as long as you make sure the recipients can have access to the MPLd code contained within your game (The engine and any modification you make to it basically), so it's almost like the LGPL with a linking exception.
The MPLv2 is similar to the LGPLv3 in a few ways, but it is more flexible when it comes to linking, relicensing MPL code under a GNU license and distribution of a combined work.

Quote from: edsquare
See for your self: https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html
I've read that FAQ a lot over the last few days. I reference it in the License Comparison table.
Logged
Offline (Male) edsquare
Reply #183 Posted on: October 05, 2014, 10:34:40 AM

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

View Profile

So, my question is: What do you, the reader, think about someone selling proprietary features or fixes for ENIGMA's engine?

This is why I don't like the feautures/fixes way of putting it, it makes it sound as if anyone could change ENIGMA's code without sharing the changes, and this is not true; under your asumption one would have to change the code in such a way as to allow a bugfix to be developed as an extension (externally in order for me to keep the code closed). I understand how someone could do a (feature?)/extension in such a way as to keep it propietary without breaking the license, but a bug fix? It's not the same and not as easy to do so.

If ENIGMA's engine code license were changed and someone started legally selling an enhanced version of ENIGMA, would you be upset about that?

Even under the GPL you can do this, what you can't do under the GPL, LGPL or MPLv2 is to close ENIGMA's source (You would have to give any buyer the code of your enhanced ENIGMA.), besides that only the engine would be under said license while  other parts of ENIGMA would remain GPL. This has been discussed before.

What if that someone shared their bug fixes with ENIGMA, but kept the enhanced features proprietary; would that make a difference? Please discuss.

I say you're welcome to do so, you should be able to benefit economically from your work
« Last Edit: October 05, 2014, 09:19:50 PM by edsquare » Logged
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #184 Posted on: October 07, 2014, 08:44:32 AM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
edsquare's post above is a reply to a post I made. Josh turned my post into a new topic and moved it here.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 07:12:30 PM by Rezolyze » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Rezolyze
Reply #185 Posted on: October 20, 2014, 09:53:02 AM

Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 53

View Profile
The poll has been reset for the reasons mentioned in the topic post. Please cast your vote again. Thanks.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) Darkstar2
Reply #186 Posted on: October 20, 2014, 12:13:36 PM
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1244

View Profile Email
Too much spaghetti too much legal jargon it turns anybody off NOT to read !  Before voting, could you please provide some real world EXAMPLES, not just jargon.....

Examples how it would apply to each vote.......Such as I create a game using ENIGMA, I do this, I do that, this is allowed, this is not, using an example and not just repeating words from the license, so most of us license illiterates can better understand, because I'm pretty sure most people have at one time violated one or more licenses unintentionally, because of the long winded legal jargon that makes you dizzy ! :D

So here is a template:

I use ENIGMA to create my game.
Along with ENIGMA I use other 3rd party open source OR I use my own proprietary code that I embed inside the ENIGMA OR that I call externally...... 

Or how about this, so long as ENIGMA was not modified and integral and used to making your games, your game would not require source availability.  In other words you can license your creation as you want (without having to distribute its source) BUT mentioning ENIGMA used or not or whatever, which license would be best for that....

I recall these long debates light years ago with never-ending debates on down sides of each.
So it's always a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

Perhaps if there were more concrete examples of how this could apply instead of citing back the jargon, it would help the masses. :D

A lot of people violate licenses, every second, thousands of people do......How many get caught is the question......too few......how many worthwhile being perused, again good question.......point being most people don't read licenses, and if they do they are so tangled into the spaghetti and meatballs, that they don't understand a bloody thing.

When you travel and take travel insurance, do you read the 900 page policy ? who does...... DO people read the dozen page software licenses ? you know the fine print that requires 300x zooming so you can barely read ?

Yeah......Licenses indeed. :D

Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #187 Posted on: October 20, 2014, 05:38:11 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 955
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Classpath exception is interesting in that it might work but would also allow ENIGMA derivatives to be full GPL, without allowing closed source games.
Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #188 Posted on: October 20, 2014, 11:07:47 PM

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

View Profile Email
That much is perfectly allowable. The classpath scares me because all it says in its own self-defense is "An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library." That seems incredibly easy to defeat in the context of a project as large as ENIGMA. Last time I talked about Classpath, I believe I said something to the tune of "I could have written a more convincing exception." I stand by that. That said, it's still the biggest contender among any of those licenses, though. :P
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 (Male) Rusky
Reply #189 Posted on: October 21, 2014, 01:21:39 AM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 955
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
I would imagine "derived from or based on this library" is intended to work the same way as the rest of the GPL. So here you may be getting into the semantically ambiguous territory of closed-source libraries for use with ENIGMA vs closed-source libraries to fix/replace ENIGMA.
Logged
Offline (Male) Josh @ Dreamland
Reply #190 Posted on: October 21, 2014, 07:37:06 PM

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

View Profile Email
That's what worries me. And that's where a lawyer would come in. Apparently, I have access to lawyers as a perk, so I'm going to see what I can do with that. I would imagine "derived from or based on this library" is intended to work the same way as the rest of the GPL. So here you may be getting into the semantically ambiguous territory of closed-source libraries for use with ENIGMA vs closed-source libraries to fix/replace ENIGMA. Waiting for SFLC has not proven fruitful....
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) The 11th plague of Egypt
Reply #191 Posted on: October 22, 2014, 02:38:42 AM
Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 276

View Profile
Waiting for SFLC has not proven fruitful....
Pity they didn't answer you. Seriously, I expected more from them.

In the meantime, I couldn't but notice how a little Java framework took the scenes.
http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=3502

It has a small community of developers, been around for a few years.
License is Apache 2, yet nobody stole it.
250k downloads a month.

Come on now.
Let's relax a bit.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 02:48:25 AM by The 11th plague of Egypt » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) DaCEO
Reply #192 Posted on: October 22, 2014, 03:18:05 PM
Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 1

View Profile
Come on now.
Let's relax a bit.

Look at this thread for more paranoia: http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=2296.0
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) lonewolff
Reply #193 Posted on: October 22, 2014, 03:51:12 PM
"Guest"


Email
How many times is the same poll needed?  :D

I know I have personally voted atleast 2 maybe 3 times on separate polls on the same thread.

Good thing you guys are not in parliament, hey? Those guys only take a few years to decide on anything. ENIGMA is now 7 years old.  ::)
Logged
Offline (Male) ZackCDLVI
Reply #194 Posted on: October 23, 2014, 11:40:16 AM

Member
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 5

View Profile
Personally, MPL.
Logged
Stay frosty, Zack
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
  Print