 |
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
grumbel
@ 83.135.68.107
on Aug 13 2004 4:57 PM
|
|
| It uses Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0, gives you basically all the same freedoms the GPL gives you, nothing wrong with that. Only thing you can't do is to make money with it, but that shouldn't be to much of a real problem. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
fidlej
@ 147.32.127.204
on Aug 13 2004 5:08 PM
|
|
Is is not so bad.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Only it prevents the game to go in Debian main.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Toddd
@ 195.158.178.139
on Aug 13 2004 5:49 PM
|
 |
| It prevents the game from going into any Linux Distro or any PC Magazins CDs. It prevents the game from being offered on sites like FilePlanet that have banners on them.
It's not GPL-Compatible
They should have just released the game under the terms of the GPL and that's it.
Why making an extra license for the data, anyways? |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Anonymous
@ 138.243.201.2
on Aug 13 2004 6:07 PM
|
|
| GPL is not a good fit for data, hence the Creative Commons licenses.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Toddd
@ 195.158.178.139
on Aug 14 2004 1:58 AM
|
|
| Why is GPL not a good fit for data? |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
grumbel
@ 83.135.66.66
on Aug 14 2004 3:22 AM
|
|
| Because its specific designed for stuff where there is a clear seperation between source and object-code (aka compiled code), that isn't the case for data. With data you often start with some multilayered .xcf file, tweak it, convert to .png and after that start tweaking the .png itself if necesarry, neither the .xcf nor the .png are the real source of the image. Same with rendered images where you often manually tweak the resulting png's. It is basically impossible or at least extremly difficult to keep all the intermediate results of a work available, which itself would form the 'source' of an image. And well, if you can't supply the 'source', you can't really use the GPL.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Toddd
@ 195.158.178.139
on Aug 14 2004 3:41 AM
|
|
| http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLOtherThanSoftware
It's obvious that sound files and images can be treated as their own sources. So that's absolutely no problem. And sometimes it's clear what a source is. For example the source for a Quake map is the .map file while a compiled map has a .bsp ending.
When using the Creative Commons licenses, ppl usuall get temped to use the "non-commercial" and "no derivate works" options wich is a smack into the face of free software |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
grumbel
@ 83.135.66.66
on Aug 14 2004 4:46 AM
|
|
| ### http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLOtherThanSoftware It's obvious that sound files and images can be treated as their own sources.
How is that clear? A flat .png isn't 'source', its 'binary', the work-path by which it was created is the 'source', but that can be anything from a simple .xcf file to a whole lot of a manual copy&paste and manipulation through many applications. Depending on the image, the png itself might be completly useless for any kind of derived work and there is really no source to give out either, since the workpath is just in the artists mind and not written down in a script file. Artwork doesn't work by people sitting down infront of a simple text editor and typing in stuff, starting from zero, artwork is pretty much always work combined of other works, be it photos, rendered images, filtered images, generated fractals or whatever.
How about music that got composed in some non-free application with some non-free-to distribute-seperatlysamples which only allow using them in music, but not as seperate samples? How can the GPL apply to that? It simply can't, any distribution would actually be a violation of the GPL.
### So that's absolutely no problem. And sometimes it's clear what a source is.
Yes, sometimes it is clear, but more often it is absolutly NOT clear what is to be considered 'source' or more exactly there is not even a way to distribute the source without a WHOLE LOT ADDITIONAL work even if you want to.
### When using the Creative Commons licenses, ppl usuall get temped to use the "non-commercial" and "no derivate works" options wich is a smack into the face of free software
Just because some free software folks are a bit close minded and clueless about anything but their C-source-code, doesn't necesarily make it a bad thing.
Artwork and GPL really don't fit together in most cases and thus it would actually be illegal to redistribute the work AT ALL. Luckily nobody really seems to care about that problem, so all games with a GPL in it, but without source for the artwork, still end up in Debian main.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Toddd
@ 195.158.178.139
on Aug 14 2004 7:17 AM
|
|
### the png itself might be completly useless for any kind of derived work
Oh, it's very common to use free base textures and create you own texture from it. And I did not see a texture completely useless for derived work yet.
### How about music that got composed in some non-free application with some non-free-to distribute-seperatlysamples which only allow using them in music, but not as seperate samples? How can the GPL apply to that? It simply can't, any distribution would actually be a violation of the GPL.
Y? You got music track and can create your own music from it. No problem. No really need for seperate samples (they could be an extra, but not neccerarily).
### Yes, sometimes it is clear, but more often it is absolutly NOT clear what is to be considered 'source' or more exactly there is not even a way to distribute the source without a WHOLE LOT ADDITIONAL work even if you want to.
Well, for the Open Quartz guys it's clear and they're doing good a it :-)
### Just because some free software folks are a bit close minded and clueless about anything but their C-source-code, doesn't necesarily make it a bad thing.
Those "close minded" folks have created your OS and the engines to most of the games on this site. The artists for some reason don't want to recreate this success :-)
### Luckily nobody really seems to care about that problem, so all games with a GPL in it, but without source for the artwork, still end up in Debian main.
Maybe that's because they aren't that close-mindest at all and especially not so fuddy-duddy about what a source-file for data is and what not...
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
grumbel
@ 83.135.66.66
on Aug 14 2004 8:21 AM
|
|
| ### Oh, it's very common to use free base textures and create you own texture from it. And I did not see a texture completely useless for derived work yet.
As said, yes, there are cases where the resulting work might still be usefull, but thats not the point, the point is that this DOES NOT work for all artworks. If I prerender some 3d models into some flat pngs, but neither tell you where I placed the camera or the lights or what postprocessing steps I did, you will have a very hard time even if you have the 3d models to modify my work, you can still produce something completly different with the 3d models of course, but if you just want to add a new unit to a RTS game and know nothing about which parameters where used in the rendering process it won't help you much at all. It gets of course much much worse, if you don't get the 3d models in the first place, but just the flat sprites, and that IS the case for a whole lot of GPLed today, thus it is a violation of the GPL to actually distribute them at all.
### You got music track and can create your own music from it. No problem.
Thats almost as realistic as using a hexeditor to modify a binary, sure, it kind works, its just a magnitude more work as if you would have the native format in which the track was created. GPL says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." and a final .ogg file is not the prefered form for modifactions, not even close. This already gets tricky if a game just ships JPEG instead of PNG, since JPEG is lossy and thus already pretty much unuseable for derived works.
### Maybe that's because they aren't that close-mindest at all and especially not so fuddy-duddy about what a source-file for data is and what not...
And that is good exactly how? GPL is all about keeping the source available, if you now start argue about "source doesn't matter", whats the point of pointing to the GPL in the first place?
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Toddd
@ 195.158.178.139
on Aug 14 2004 9:31 AM
|
|
### As said, yes, there are cases where the resulting work might still be usefull, but thats not the point, the point is that this DOES NOT work for all artworks. If I prerender some 3d models into some flat pngs, but neither tell you where I placed the camera or the lights or what postprocessing steps I did, you will have a very hard time even if you have the 3d models to modify my work, you can still produce something completly different with the 3d models of course, but if you just want to add a new unit to a RTS game and know nothing about which parameters where used in the rendering process it won't help you much at all. It gets of course much much worse, if you don't get the 3d models in the first place, but just the flat sprites, and that IS the case for a whole lot of GPLed today, thus it is a violation of the GPL to actually distribute them at all.
Well, and when you make a foto of a car, the source is the car or what?
### Thats almost as realistic as using a hexeditor to modify a binary, sure, it kind works, its just a magnitude more work as if you would have the native format in which the track was created.
Well, my audio-editor has a button wheren I can change the speed of the file. Does your hex-editor have a button that makes your program run faster? :-) In case of music, the Bastard Pop "pirates" also created new songs from current ones without having the "sources". How many people do you know that created their own versions of microsoft word using a Hex Editor?
### And that is good exactly how? GPL is all about keeping the source available, if you now start argue about "source doesn't matter", whats the point of pointing to the GPL in the first place?
Well, all the other rights the GPL grants. And when you define "source" proberly, that's not a problem at all.
Of course, Creative Commons Share Alike 1.0 and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike would do the trick. But combined with the GPL for the code that would be 2 licenses for one game... |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
grumbel
@ 83.135.66.66
on Aug 14 2004 10:14 AM
|
|
| ### Well, and when you make a foto of a car, the source is the car or what?
Yes and thats exactly why the GPL for artwork is heavily problematic. You simply CAN'T provide source, even if you like too for many works of art.
### How many people do you know that created their own versions of microsoft word using a Hex Editor?
Lots of people added trainers and other stuff back to games. Bug fixes from foreign sources are also not that uncommon for games. It far from impossible to tweak a programm even if you just have the executable and no source, its just a whole lot more complicated. Machinecode is after all just another programming language, which just is a bit less human-readable then well commented C code.
### But combined with the GPL for the code that would be 2 licenses for one game...
So what? The data and the game executable in most cases don't build up an unsperatable entity, so different licenses aren't such a bad idea, especially since the GPL is, as explained, above not that good appliable to other stuff as executables and sourcecode.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
mrhollow
@ 64.42.155.57
on Aug 14 2004 10:32 AM
|
|
| I have to say honestly that I hadn't realized that the CC license would cause so much controversy.
GPL'd code makes perfect sense to me, but it didn't seem to fit for the artwork in the same way, which is why I picked the CC license. For the reasons listed above.
I will do some more research and consider releasing the art and sound under a more compatible license.
Cheers,
Aaron
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
grumbel
@ 83.135.66.66
on Aug 14 2004 10:57 AM
|
|
| The only problem with Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 is really just the 'NonCommercial' aspect of it, which might exclude the game from some distros, beside that the CreativeCommon License itself should be fine. So just switching to Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ should make everybody happy.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Anonymous
@ 62.212.114.68
on Aug 14 2004 11:48 PM
|
|
> The only problem with Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 is really just the 'NonCommercial' aspect of it
No, it isn't. The last analysis to date appears to show *all* CC licenses still have subtle problems. I would advise against using them (but you would be welcome to ask creativecommons.org if they intend to work on that. Apparently, the Debian developers failed to elicit much answers).
Besides, I do not really understand why the GPL couldn't be used for data files. The author is not bound by the terms of the GPL, so he can distribute whatever he sees fit. The recipients have to abide by the GPL, but they cannot be responsible for not redistributing a “source” they haven't got (or doesn't exist) in the first place. I see really no problem, and it's a lot simpler to have a single license. I vote for GPLing everything.
On a lighter note, the requirements on the homepage include a 900 MHz CPU. Hell, Sonic the Hedgehog was fast on a 7 MHz CPU. What happened to optimization ? :-)) |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Toddd
@ 195.158.178.139
on Aug 15 2004 1:46 AM
|
|
I don't like version 2 of the Creative Commons licenses anyways since it forces you to choose the attribution option even if you don't want to.
Creative Commons Share Alike 1.0 ist still the only free license by the creative commons and my choice of licensing stuff if I don't license GPL. I hope they will make a version 3 soon where you don't need attribution anymore.
### The author is not bound by the terms of the GPL, so he can distribute whatever he sees fit. The recipients have to abide by the GPL, but they cannot be responsible for not redistributing a “source” they haven't got (or doesn't exist) in the first place. I see really no problem, and it's a lot simpler to have a single license.
Well, if you choose to release your program as GPLed software, you are bound by the terms of the GPL of course. So you MUST give ppl the sources if they aquired binaries of the program.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCRedistributedBinariesGetSource
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCModifiedJustBinary
When we speak about data, it's just a definition term what the sources are (see the conversation above).
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Anonymous
@ 62.212.114.68
on Aug 15 2004 4:04 PM
|
|
> Well, if you choose to release your program as GPLed software, you are bound by the terms of the GPL of course.
No, I know this is counter-intuitive, but the _original author_ is _NOT_ bound by the GPL. Please read this section of the GPL FAQ for more information. The only people who are bound by the GPL are those who received the program under the GPL and no other license. The original author has unlimited rights on his creation, and is thus never bound by a license he gave to others. You can perfectly release a binary stream under the GPL and claim that's the “source”, in fact some peripheral makers did just that with some driver firmware.
Anyway, I think that for an image or sound file, the developer can legitimately say that the preferred form for modification is the image or sound itself. Hence, I'm inclined to think this is a non-issue. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
mrhollow
@ 64.42.155.57
on Aug 15 2004 8:12 AM
|
|
### On a lighter note, the requirements on the homepage include a 900 MHz CPU. Hell, Sonic the Hedgehog was fast on a 7 MHz CPU. What happened to optimization ? :-))
I was a little disappointed about the requirements too, but expected them. Python is probably not the best choice for performance in a game.
This project started as a learning exercise for python and a way for me to try out all aspects of game making -- I think for single screen games, python would be a fine choice -- though, the problem may also be my code ;P
---------
As for license; So far it seems as though the GPL would be the most acceptable license for the widest distribution. Arguably it would work just fine in this case without real worry for some of the scenarios presented above, because I think it unlikely that there will be any great mod scene surrounding this game. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
grumbel
@ 83.135.67.163
on Aug 15 2004 4:26 PM
|
|
| ### I was a little disappointed about the requirements too, but expected them. Python is probably not the best choice for performance in a game.
Its not really Pythons fault, but the fault of 2d software rendering, which is always extremly slow and eats up pretty much all CPU. On resolutions larger than 640x480 it basically gets unusable if you want a decent framerate. Solution is to 'abuse' OpenGL to do the 2d rendering, which gives you MUCH better performance, ClanLib or SuperTux can do rendering with OpenGL. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
Anonymous
@ 80.233.245.36
on Aug 15 2004 5:08 AM
|
|
| Where source code is defined as the favorite form for modification. The favorite form for modification of the media should be included in an open source game anyway. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: Stupid licensig choise
posted by
grumbel
@ 83.135.67.163
on Aug 15 2004 5:19 AM
|
|
| If you just include the 'source', download size could easily skyrock and go up from 5mb to something like 500mb depending on what stuff was used in the making. So including that stuff directly in the tarball would be a pretty bad idea, seperate download would be needed. But yep, it would be nice if more people would provide the 'source' to the data, but I can for sure understand why they don't, it just adds a whole heap of additional work to get all the random data into a release ready state, let alone that modem-users will have a hard time just uploading it in the first place.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
A simple side scrolling game
