Open Source *Game* Programming License
Do graphics and data files count as "interface definition files"? I really don't know. The general consensus and unopposed practise in the game programming community is that they do not. In any case I would consider it a hole in the GPL if things like essential parts of the user interface (ie graphics) did not need to be made available while the work as a whole was GPLed. If one were to strip off the basic user interface from GPL'd game software and keep that proprietary, that would indeed be a hole. But most game graphics is large world files, and you can run the game software with different versions of these files to visit different worlds/play different games. Such files are somewhere in the middle between the graphics interface of a program, and a file a program like a word processor is used to open, view, and manipulate. Gaming programmers tend more towards the second interpretation, which is of course not touched by any program licenses. The game programming community has another big problem with the GPL: Cheating is much easier when you have the code. This is a nasty problem for internet multiplayer games. When I discussed this with Richard Stallman some years ago, he suggested to keep all important data on a central server. However, this may be too expensive for many open source developers, and it would close the door on infinitely scalable, peer-to-peer games, which are the future IMHO. One method to address this is to keep databases of users with a "trust"-ranking. However, things would be easier and more fun for gamers if game programmers could add a closed source security and encryption layer around multiplayer programs. This would be welcomed by virtually *all* multiplayer gamers and game programmers. The following is an attempt to address the specific problems of the game programming community with the GPL. This is a "dual license" scheme which would have to be complemented by an agreement between the copyright holders and the maintainer of the software. I have some questions after the license text. The text is written to license a program called DungeonMaker by alifegames. Linux Game Programming (LGP) License 1. This software is provided in hopes that it may be useful, but it comes with absolutely NO WARRANTY whatsoever. 2. You are free to run this software any way you want. Enjoy! 3. You can modify and incorporate this software into your own projects under one of the following three licenses: a) Commercial License You can buy a commercial license to the software from the maintainer of this software, who acts on behalf of the copyright holder(s). This entitles you to do whatever you like with the software. In addition to the open source code you will receive support from the maintainer as needed. It is also possible to hire the maintainer as a consultant to adapt this software to your project. b) Free License If you release a single player version of your software under an Open Source license that is approved by the OSI, you can get a commercial license for free in order to allow you to put a closed source layer of encryption and security around your otherwise open source software. c) Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL) This software is released under the GPL. That means basically that you can modify the software and incorporate it into your own project, as long as that is also released under the GPL. 4. If you use the software in your projects or develop new versions of it, we request that for the benefit of all involved you follow these rules: a) Naming Convention: Choose a triplet of letters that is not used by another group that has forked this software, and call your version of the software: DungeonMakerversion you branch fromtriplet of letters chosenyour version number. For instance, if you choose "akf" as your 3-letter-code, your 1.0 release would be called DungeonMaker0.7akf1.0 if you had branched off from version 0.7. b) Central Access: If you release a new version of the software on the web, please send the URL where it can be found to the maintainer of this software. The maintainer will post a map with all known versions on http://dungeonmaker.sourceforge.net c) Artistic Credit: In the credits and/or about box of your game or wherever you deem appropriate, please give the author(s) of this software proper artistic credit by using the line "Random Dungeons created by alifegames::DungeonMakerversion". 5. For all questions arising from this license, for bug reports or support requests, contact the maintainer, currently: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Questions: My understanding of the GPL is that I cannot *require* people who make use of the GPL license release of my software to adhere to point 4, I can only ask - right? Is what I write about the GPL in 3c) a correct wording, and do I still have to include the text of the GPL with the software? Are points 1 and 2 too short for legal comfort? I see other licenses
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming License
Ken Arromdee wrote: On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Henningsen wrote: If one were to strip off the basic user interface from GPL'd game software and keep that proprietary, that would indeed be a hole. But most game graphics is large world files, and you can run the game software with different versions of these files to visit different worlds/play different games. But those files make up a large portion of the game. The game is useless without them. Oh, you could make a new world file, but by that reasoning, couldn't I make a program that needs readline, distribute it without readline, and tell the user to make a new readline function? World files are at least as important to a game like Quake as readline is to a program that uses it. Yes - likewise, a Website is useless without its content, a CD is useless without songs, a cell phone is useless without a service contract. Shall I go on? This is actually a much better illustration of the "Free software vs. free beer" concept than the one Mr. Schmid spent a great deal of bandwidth trying to sell. That reminds me - can I get this list in digest form? My "delete" finger is pretty calloused by now... :) Bryan begin:vcard n:George;Bryan tel;fax:703-883-6708 tel;work:703-883-5458 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.mitre.org org:The MITRE Corporation;Signal Processing Center adr:;;1820 Dolley Madison Blvd., M/S W622;McLean;VA;22102-3481;USA version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Lead Signal Processing Engineer x-mozilla-cpt:;-9184 fn:Dr. Bryan George end:vcard S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming License
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Bryan George wrote: Oh, you could make a new world file, but by that reasoning, couldn't I make a program that needs readline, distribute it without readline, and tell the user to make a new readline function? World files are at least as important to a game like Quake as readline is to a program that uses it. Yes - likewise, a Website is useless without its content, a CD is useless without songs, a cell phone is useless without a service contract. Shall I go on? Service contracts aren't code, or even copyrighted material. As for the other two examples... Web servers and CD players are *typically* used by separately getting the server/player, and the content. Saying "we won't supply any web pages, get them yourself" is a reasonable thing to do because the web server isn't tied to any particular page; users can and do use many different web pages with it. I can go get a different CD for a GPL'ed CD player. I can't get a different set of Quake data for use with my GPL'ed Quake engine (conversions typically require owning the original game). Compare this to the readline situation: as long as the readline library is the only library available for use with the program, the GPL on one requires that the GPL be on the other one too. (Disclaimer: I personally reject the readline reasoning, but my rationale for that rejection does not apply to Quake.)
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming License
From: "Henningsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] The game programming community has another big problem with the GPL: Cheating is much easier when you have the code. Of course, there's another faction in the community who believes that by having the code, work can continuously be done to thwart/foil the hackers; most of whom are able to use the same debugging/profiling tools the developers have and can get at the internals of object-code only releases anyway. Openness is good for gaming just like it is good for cyrptography. Ryan
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
on Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:37:37PM -0400, Henningsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I would like some advice on what to do in my situation. I am developing artificial intelligence modules for computer games, and model games to demonstrate and test them. I would like to do that in an open source environment, and would like my code to be used widely in other open source games. However, the only chance I have of ever seeing my creations in a first class game is if they are picked up by a commercial publisher who then will have to pay about a million dollars largely for graphics to get the game up to AAA standards. If I publish under the GPL (as I have done) or any of the other open source licenses I have seen and understood, a publisher could simply take my work, add modifications to my code (to which I would have access, since they would have to be open source also), add his copyrighted graphics (to which I would not get access to use in my own versions of the game, because graphics that goes with code is not covered in open source licenses), and then he could sell it without giving me either royalties or proper artistic credit (credit in the source files and the Readme file is worthless in a game). I don't think this would be fair, and therefore I will not release my work under a license that makes this possible. This is what free software and the OSD are designed to permit. Your goals are in conflict with these objectives. The type of license I am looking for is one that is basically like the GPL for non-commercial users, but that requires commercial users of my software to acquire a license from me (which implies that I will be paid and get artistic credit). Or else, a license that would force any graphics bundled with my code to become freely available, and that would ensure that I get proper artistic credit. So my questions are simple: See, for example, L. Peter Deutsch's Aladdin Free Software License, described here recently. Deutsch uses a technique I refer to as "delayed public license" (DPL), releasing older versions of his product under the GPL (in part due to a personal pledge to RMS to do so). Under GPL, Deutsch's software is free software / OSD compliant. Under AFSL, it is not, due to the discrimination against commercial use. And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? Read the rationale to definition 6 of the OSD. Consider that the definition of "commercial use" may be arbitrary, inconsistant across multiple licensors, and of wide-ranging impact. What constitutes "commercial use"?: - Inclusion on a CDROM sold for profit. Nix most GNU/Linux distributions, and online resellers such as LinuxCentral, ThinkGeek, etc. - Use within an organization for direct or indirect commercial gain. Nix Yahoo, eToys, Wired's website, etc. - Incorporation within other products distributed as free software. Nix Slash, Scoop, and similar projects based on Perl, MySQL, Apache, etc. I could continue at length. The point you fail to grasp is that, depending on licensing terms, your "commercial coöption" is subject to competitive pressures from other free implementations of the same project, if licensing does allow proprietary distribution terms (e.g.: BSD/MIT), or free appropriation and redistribution in the case of Copyleft-style licenses (GPL, LGPL, MozPL). I think it is perverse to require me to offer my work as a donation to Microsoft and other game publishers just so I can use SourceForge. Remember, the modifications a publisher might make to my code are worth nothing. The graphics is what is valuable. SourceForge is offering something to you for free, in return for a consideration on your part. If you want an online project hosting site, accept the terms of service, or supply your own. If you don't want to share your work, don't. But don't pretend this is free software. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Open Source *Game* Programming?
I would like some advice on what to do in my situation. I am developing artificial intelligence modules for computer games, and model games to demonstrate and test them. I would like to do that in an open source environment, and would like my code to be used widely in other open source games. However, the only chance I have of ever seeing my creations in a first class game is if they are picked up by a commercial publisher who then will have to pay about a million dollars largely for graphics to get the game up to AAA standards. If I publish under the GPL (as I have done) or any of the other open source licenses I have seen and understood, a publisher could simply take my work, add modifications to my code (to which I would have access, since they would have to be open source also), add his copyrighted graphics (to which I would not get access to use in my own versions of the game, because graphics that goes with code is not covered in open source licenses), and then he could sell it without giving me either royalties or proper artistic credit (credit in the source files and the Readme file is worthless in a game). I don't think this would be fair, and therefore I will not release my work under a license that makes this possible. The type of license I am looking for is one that is basically like the GPL for non-commercial users, but that requires commercial users of my software to acquire a license from me (which implies that I will be paid and get artistic credit). Or else, a license that would force any graphics bundled with my code to become freely available, and that would ensure that I get proper artistic credit. So my questions are simple: Is there any open source certified license that meets these criteria? If not, is it possible to write one? Does anyone in the OSI have an interest in addressing these specific problems faced by most open source *game* developers? And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? I think it is perverse to require me to offer my work as a donation to Microsoft and other game publishers just so I can use SourceForge. Remember, the modifications a publisher might make to my code are worth nothing. The graphics is what is valuable. Peter Henningsen alifegames.com
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? I think it is perverse to require me to offer my work as a donation to Microsoft and other game publishers just so I can use SourceForge. Remember, the modifications a publisher might make to my code are worth nothing. The graphics is what is valuable. The graphics issue, which I have never heard before, make this a strange issue. I believe it is within the spirit of open source to permit people who do not want to distribute the source to purchase a license. Cygnus used to follow this policy with regard to open source projects such as eCos and cygwin. Anybody who distributed their own code which used these libraries was permitted to use them under open source licenses. Anybody who did not want to distribute their own code was encouraged to purchase a license from Cygnus. I think Cygnus did sell some eCos licenses; I don't know about cygwin. Of course this tactic is only permissible if you have agreement from all copyright owners; in the cases of eCos and cygwin, Cygnus is the sole author, and requires copyright assignments for all patches. Perhaps you can write a license along the lines of the GPL in which you make clear that any graphics distributed alongside your code do *not* fall under the ``mere aggregation'' clause, and that anybody who distributes your code with graphics must release the source for those graphics. Then you can offer a license buyout for people who do not want to do so. I don't really understand the gaming market, so I don't know if this actually makes any sense. Ian
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
From: "Henningsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there any open source certified license that meets these criteria? No, because a requirement to pay a fee is a restriction against free redistribution of the software. This issue is addressed directly by the OSD FAQ. And a more philosophical question: If it is against the spirit of open source to require commercial users to buy a license, why is that? Because the intellectual heritage of the free software movement assumes a moral right for everyone, not just non-commercial users, to have unrestricted access to the source code running on their computers, and the right to make changes and modifications as they see fit. The people whom the OSD addresses are the end users of the software, not the publishers. The free software vision is that the kid who buys a game using your engine should have an unencumbered right to tinker with it, and release those modifications to the public so long as the same rights are conveyed forward to the next recipient. Remember, the modifications a publisher might make to my code are worth nothing. The graphics is what is valuable. That's a very narrow, and impractical view of the business of selling game software. If anything, it's easier to get good artists than it is to get good programmers. While the sunk costs may be heavily tilted towards the art vs. the code, the technical challenge of bringing the product to market is clearly with the code, not the art. Publishers spend tremendous amounts of money developing, testing and supporting the code base for computer games. The question you have to ask yourself is this: Is it more important to me that my work get wide distribution even if someone else gets wealthy as a result, or is it more important that I know that nobody is making money off my work unless I do too? Ryan S. Dancey Learn about Open Gaming: www.opengamingfoundation.org
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote: IANAL but I think the general reaction would be that the graphics are part of the overall work and said game company would then be obliged to also give away the graphics, which you would then have access to. Doom and Quake have been released as GPL. Graphics and data files have not. By this reasoning, anyone except the creators of Doom or Quake could not distribute those programs at all, since the graphics are necessary to use the program and they are not open source.
Re: Open Source *Game* Programming?
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open Source *Game* Programming? Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:26:04 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Ben Tilly wrote: IANAL but I think the general reaction would be that the graphics are part of the overall work and said game company would then be obliged to also give away the graphics, which you would then have access to. Doom and Quake have been released as GPL. Graphics and data files have not. By this reasoning, anyone except the creators of Doom or Quake could not distribute those programs at all, since the graphics are necessary to use the program and they are not open source. I am quoting from section 3: : The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for : making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source : code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any : associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to : control compilation and installation of the executable.[...] Do graphics and data files count as "interface definition files"? I really don't know. In any case I would consider it a hole in the GPL if things like essential parts of the user interface (ie graphics) did not need to be made available while the work as a whole was GPLed. Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
