Java-Gaming.org Hi !
Featured games (81)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (513)
Games in Android Showcase (119)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (575)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
    Home     Help   Search   Login   Register   
Pages: [1]
  ignore  |  Print  
  License for commercial project  (Read 2641 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline Gudradain
« Posted 2011-09-10 21:22:54 »

Is there a license that make your source code proprietary and that you can put your source code as open source?

I mean I don't care if anybody read my source code, learn from it, copy it for free project at limit. But I don't want anybody to use it for commercial things and I want to be able to use it for commercial things.

And of course, I want to keep resources (graphics and sounds) proprietary.

What type of license should I chose?

N.B. : Is creative-common good for that?
Offline cylab

JGO Ninja


Medals: 52



« Reply #1 - Posted 2011-09-10 22:02:56 »

You could make it GPL  Tongue

Mathias - I Know What [you] Did Last Summer!
Offline Gudradain
« Reply #2 - Posted 2011-09-11 04:22:01 »

Come on Cylab, once you sell it to someone you must provide the source code to that person as well. Then that person can do anything it want with the copy of the source code you just gave him. Even beginning to resell it to other persons. GPL is not an option.
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline ra4king

JGO Kernel


Medals: 350
Projects: 3
Exp: 5 years


I'm the King!


« Reply #3 - Posted 2011-09-11 05:06:56 »

Creative Commons would be good for this then.

http://creativecommons.org/choose/

Offline Nate

JGO Kernel


Medals: 149
Projects: 4
Exp: 14 years


Esoteric Software


« Reply #4 - Posted 2011-09-11 06:20:04 »

It sounds like the OP wants to use GPL.

Come on Cylab, once you sell it to someone you must provide the source code to that person as well. Then that person can do anything it want with the copy of the source code you just gave him. Even beginning to resell it to other persons. GPL is not an option.

Giving the world your software under the GPL means *they* can't use it without providing the source for ALL of their application. This means it probably won't be used in a commercial app, though it doesn't prevent it. However, you still own your software and you can use it yourself in your own commercial or closed source projects.

Note that if you GPL your code and other people contribute code to your project under the GPL, you can't use their contributions in a closed source app unless they also grant you a separate license. A lot of open source is actually for sale if you contact the owners, which is messed up if they accepted any contributions under the GPL.

Offline cylab

JGO Ninja


Medals: 52



« Reply #5 - Posted 2011-09-11 08:36:42 »

Thanks Nate  Wink

@Gudradain
I was not really serious with my suggestion, but as Nate already explained for me, putting something under GPL causes that everyone with closed source projects to drop your code like it's hot.

Mathias - I Know What [you] Did Last Summer!
Online nsigma
« Reply #6 - Posted 2011-09-11 09:02:24 »

Come on Cylab, once you sell it to someone you must provide the source code to that person as well. Then that person can do anything it want with the copy of the source code you just gave him. Even beginning to resell it to other persons. GPL is not an option.

Nate's right.  GPL is the a right way to do this.  Your comment here is a common, but misunderstood, response.  You could check out this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing for more info - it's basically the way projects like MySQL were commercialized.

I'd steer clear of Creative Commons for code (I think they say as much) but useful for your other assets.  I wouldn't bother with the "non-commercial" clause personally, because it's a complete legal grey area - the "share-alike" clause should be enough.

I was not really serious with my suggestion, but as Nate already explained for me, putting something under GPL causes that everyone with closed source projects to drop your code like it's hot.

Unless you provide the alternative of a closed-source license as well, in which case, why would they be bothered?

Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline cylab

JGO Ninja


Medals: 52



« Reply #7 - Posted 2011-09-11 10:06:51 »

Unless you provide the alternative of a closed-source license as well, in which case, why would they be bothered?
I was more refering to the behaviour regarding pure GPL, since I thought that's more or less what the OP wanted (protect his code from commercial exploitation).

Mathias - I Know What [you] Did Last Summer!
Online nsigma
« Reply #8 - Posted 2011-09-11 10:58:38 »

Unless you provide the alternative of a closed-source license as well, in which case, why would they be bothered?
I was more refering to the behaviour regarding pure GPL, since I thought that's more or less what the OP wanted (protect his code from commercial exploitation).
I read it that the OP wants to protect his code from commercial exploitation from anyone other than himself.  The common misunderstanding I refer to (and Nate does) that the OP made is that the GPL applies to the licensee, not the licensor.  As long as the OP is the sole copyright holder[1] then he can also commercially license the code without himself or the commercial licensee being bound by any of the conditions of the GPL.

[1] To be more precise, the sole copyright holder of any code that is GPL - 3rd party code under a more liberal license would not be a problem.

Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline Cero
« Reply #9 - Posted 2011-09-11 13:21:53 »

John Carmack of Id software always releases their source code, just as you want to release yours.
The latest one is / will be the doom 3 source code

They always use GPL.
Quote
... licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License ...

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29903/QuakeCon_id_Software_Releases_Source_Code_For_Two_Wolfenstein_Titles.php


Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline Gudradain
« Reply #10 - Posted 2011-09-11 15:59:05 »

Doom 3 was released in 2004 and they are only putting the source code now. Who would bother trying to steal a game that was done a few year back?

Giving the world your software under the GPL means *they* can't use it without providing the source for ALL of their application. This means it probably won't be used in a commercial app, though it doesn't prevent it. However, you still own your software and you can use it yourself in your own commercial or closed source projects.

Note that if you GPL your code and other people contribute code to your project under the GPL, you can't use their contributions in a closed source app unless they also grant you a separate license. A lot of open source is actually for sale if you contact the owners, which is messed up if they accepted any contributions under the GPL.

There is something I don't quite understand. Can anybody at any time take my GPL code and begin selling it if they want. Or do I have to sell it to them first so they can use it?

Anyway, I really don't care about the Open Source part. The only thing I care about is that I can be the only one using my code in commercial use. So if I have to do it closed source, I will do it. I guess I didn't formulate well my question.

So let's say I do it closed source, which type of license is good?

N.B. : I'm not making a module or a library to be use by other. I'm making a game to be sell.
Offline Cero
« Reply #11 - Posted 2011-09-11 16:23:27 »

Doom 3 was released in 2004 and they are only putting the source code now. Who would bother trying to steal a game that was done a few year back?
According to Carmack it's a huge legal mess to release anything so big and commercial as open source. So Rage might take up to 10 years if it's source is ever open sourced.
It's primarily for educational purposes anyway...


So let's say I do it closed source, which type of license is good?
None, that's default.
Something you create is entirely yours - and since you dont have to open source.
The creator, the copyright owner, obviously, has always the exclusive right to its own stuff, by default.

Offline Gudradain
« Reply #12 - Posted 2011-09-11 16:30:52 »

I'm the copyright owner just for creating it?
Offline Cero
« Reply #13 - Posted 2011-09-11 16:41:40 »

I'm the copyright owner just for creating it?

It's that simple.
In fact, speaking for german law here: In Germany the creator is always the copyright holder and cannot ever, while living transfer it. "Licensing" is the only thing you can do.

Offline Gudradain
« Reply #14 - Posted 2011-09-11 17:12:50 »

How does law apply if there are more than one person working on a close source project? Are both person the copyright owner? Do you need to set up some sort of contract to make sure that the other person don't run away with code?
Offline Cero
« Reply #15 - Posted 2011-09-11 17:28:23 »

well, again german law here, but I'm pretty sure, only one legal person can be the copyright holder.
legal person meaning real person or a corporation / organization which can also be one legal person.

Offline loom_weaver

JGO Coder


Medals: 17



« Reply #16 - Posted 2011-09-11 19:12:23 »

It sounds like the OP wants to use GPL.

I disagree here.  The GPL is used to keep certain freedoms including access to the source.  It does not in any way restrict the right to sell the software commercially.

If you release software as GPL then anyone using it can SELL the software as long as they follow the other parts of the GPL including to keep the source available.  This is in direct opposition to what the original poster wanted...

Here's a scenario.  You create a cool proof of concept game and release as GPL.  Later on Company X takes that GPL code, fully fleshes out the game, and sells it.  It becomes even bigger than Minecraft.  Company X is totally in their right because they adhere to the GPL by making the source available.  Company X doesn't owe the original poster anything.  OP, are you okay with this scenario?
Offline Gudradain
« Reply #17 - Posted 2011-09-11 23:36:30 »

Here's a scenario.  You create a cool proof of concept game and release as GPL.  Later on Company X takes that GPL code, fully fleshes out the game, and sells it.  It becomes even bigger than Minecraft.  Company X is totally in their right because they adhere to the GPL by making the source available.  Company X doesn't owe the original poster anything.  OP, are you okay with this scenario?

No that's exactly what I want to avoid.

well, again german law here, but I'm pretty sure, only one legal person can be the copyright holder.
legal person meaning real person or a corporation / organization which can also be one legal person.

So that mean I need to create a company of some sort so every owner of the company have some right over the code? Does it changes anything if not everyone is in the same country? Also, how do you state that the code is the property of the company? It's not like there is working hours and everyone code at his home so how do you distinguished between the property of the person and the property of the company?
Offline cylab

JGO Ninja


Medals: 52



« Reply #18 - Posted 2011-09-11 23:58:15 »

Here's a scenario.  You create a cool proof of concept game and release as GPL.  Later on Company X takes that GPL code, fully fleshes out the game, and sells it.  It becomes even bigger than Minecraft.  Company X is totally in their right because they adhere to the GPL by making the source available.  Company X doesn't owe the original poster anything.  OP, are you okay with this scenario?

This is a highly unlikely scenario, because comercial companies wouldn't touch GPL code - not even wearing gloves. GPL is a viral license, you don't want GPL code in a company. Every modification has to be opened under GPL as well, you can't copy code or even link with GPL code without opening yours. If someone copies over code from a GPLed project in good faith without thinking of the implications, you "infected" that project with the GPL - hence its called a viral license.

The only scenario is, that some hobbyist is taking your code, uses different resources and try to sell that, which would probably be fine with me.

Having said that. GPL is not the License the OP asks for. I don't know any standard license with this requirements, so he probably just has to pick one and add a non-commercial-use clause to it.

On the other hand, really successful games are made of content, which can be packaged and licensed separately. Raw code is probably not very important, if it's not the next big industrial strenght graphics technology - and even then...

Mathias - I Know What [you] Did Last Summer!
Offline Cero
« Reply #19 - Posted 2011-09-11 23:58:25 »

So that mean I need to create a company of some sort so every owner of the company have some right over the code? Does it changes anything if not everyone is in the same country? Also, how do you state that the code is the property of the company? It's not like there is working hours and everyone code at his home so how do you distinguished between the property of the person and the property of the company?

Companies are legal persons by default so they can be, as a whole, the copyright holder.
So if you don't have that, just name one person as the creator and sole copyright holder; obviously you can make groups... but I'm not sure when a group can be considered a legal person by law.
Where these people are should be irrelevant.
Also yeah... one can register a product for copyright somehow, buts its merely bureaucracy as all products are, like I said, protected by default.
Doesn't hurt to protect your copyright by signing everything with a name and stuff, but it's not required by the law.
If there ever is a trial, and there is doubt, one of those has to prove that he is the copyright holder / creator (I forgot which one)
And if you have created it ... there should be so much stuff... should be easy
Obviously it hardly ever comes to that case.

Fun fact: every picture you take, NO matter what quality, can be a shaken cell phone picture, is protected by copyright and you can sue people eventually if they, for example put it on their page and claims its their's

Online nsigma
« Reply #20 - Posted 2011-09-12 08:25:13 »

I disagree here.  The GPL is used to keep certain freedoms including access to the source.  It does not in any way restrict the right to sell the software commercially.

If you release software as GPL then anyone using it can SELL the software as long as they follow the other parts of the GPL including to keep the source available.  This is in direct opposition to what the original poster wanted...

Here's a scenario.  You create a cool proof of concept game and release as GPL.  Later on Company X takes that GPL code, fully fleshes out the game, and sells it.  It becomes even bigger than Minecraft.  Company X is totally in their right because they adhere to the GPL by making the source available.  Company X doesn't owe the original poster anything.  OP, are you okay with this scenario?

This is theoretically possible, but what company (or hobbyist) in their right mind is going to do this and think they can commercialize it when anyone can just give it away?!

This is a highly unlikely scenario, because comercial companies wouldn't touch GPL code - not even wearing gloves. GPL is a viral license, you don't want GPL code in a company. Every modification has to be opened under GPL as well, you can't copy code or even link with GPL code without opening yours. If someone copies over code from a GPLed project in good faith without thinking of the implications, you "infected" that project with the GPL - hence its called a viral license.

Disclaimer - I'm someone with a keen interest in the business possibilities of FLOSS.

+1 for emphasising the unlikelihood of the scenario, but the rest of that paragraph is bordering on FUD.  There are a huge number of companies that use GPL code all the time, depending on where it's going to be used - no problem using it on the server side of a networked game, for example.  If it's network based you could even GPL the client if you control the network (Second Life?)  Frankly, all third-party code comes with caveats and implications whatever the license, open or closed - any company that copies third-party code without a clear audit trail deserves all they get, and any employee who does so deserves to be fired!

Having said that. GPL is not the License the OP asks for. I don't know any standard license with this requirements, so he probably just has to pick one and add a non-commercial-use clause to it.

So tell that to the billion-dollar companies who've picked the GPL to achieve what the OP asked for.

I would steer well clear of the "non-commercial" clause.  As I mentioned above, there's an interesting (depending on your definition of interesting  Smiley ) report on the Creative Commons site about issues with the "non-commercial" clause, and the lack of a cross-jurisdictional legal definition.  I'd stick with a license that's had some legal testing.

On the other hand, really successful games are made of content, which can be packaged and licensed separately. Raw code is probably not very important, if it's not the next big industrial strenght graphics technology - and even then...

+1.  There's a 99.9% chance your code will be ignored anyway - stop worrying about it and get coding!  Grin

Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline cylab

JGO Ninja


Medals: 52



« Reply #21 - Posted 2011-09-12 09:15:01 »

This is a highly unlikely scenario, because comercial companies wouldn't touch GPL code - not even wearing gloves. GPL is a viral license, you don't want GPL code in a company. Every modification has to be opened under GPL as well, you can't copy code or even link with GPL code without opening yours. If someone copies over code from a GPLed project in good faith without thinking of the implications, you "infected" that project with the GPL - hence its called a viral license.

Disclaimer - I'm someone with a keen interest in the business possibilities of FLOSS.

+1 for emphasising the unlikelihood of the scenario, but the rest of that paragraph is bordering on FUD.  There are a huge number of companies that use GPL code all the time, depending on where it's going to be used - no problem using it on the server side of a networked game, for example.  If it's network based you could even GPL the client if you control the network (Second Life?)  Frankly, all third-party code comes with caveats and implications whatever the license, open or closed - any company that copies third-party code without a clear audit trail deserves all they get, and any employee who does so deserves to be fired!

I somewhat expected such a reply. Maybe I was too lazy to fully explain the various scenarios and implications. So let me clear things up:

- First, even that I used the term "viral license", I am not an opponent of the GPL at all.
  I simply wanted to illustrate the effect of copying GPL code, so forgive me the M$ FUD language...
  The facts are straight, however...

- Surely there are Companies that already adopted GPL for their own products, but even then,
  they mostly have a clear separation of GPL/non-GPL code and the teams working on it
  (like your client/server example)

- Most "traditional" Companies do stay away from GPLed code for "reuse", because of the "dangers"
  involved with handling the code. Especially game companies are committed very much to closed source

- The bigger a company gets, the less control and transparency they have about what's going on
  in the dev teams, so there often is a general constraint to stay away from GPL to don't take a risk

Having said that. GPL is not the License the OP asks for. I don't know any standard license with this requirements, so he probably just has to pick one and add a non-commercial-use clause to it.

So tell that to the billion-dollar companies who've picked the GPL to achieve what the OP asked for.

Maybe the GPL would achieve what the OP wants, but it was not what he asked for Wink

Also I doubt, that there are game companies or even many companies living of selling their own GPLed products in the list. Most companies making money with GPLed software are either distributors/resellers or offering commercial support for their products. The latter is not really a business case for an indie game company...

I would steer well clear of the "non-commercial" clause.  As I mentioned above, there's an interesting (depending on your definition of interesting  Smiley ) report on the Creative Commons site about issues with the "non-commercial" clause, and the lack of a cross-jurisdictional legal definition.  I'd stick with a license that's had some legal testing.

+1 for this clearification. It's a shame that you have to be a lawyer nowerdays...

Mathias - I Know What [you] Did Last Summer!
Offline loom_weaver

JGO Coder


Medals: 17



« Reply #22 - Posted 2011-09-12 09:44:42 »

I disagree here.  The GPL is used to keep certain freedoms including access to the source.  It does not in any way restrict the right to sell the software commercially.

If you release software as GPL then anyone using it can SELL the software as long as they follow the other parts of the GPL including to keep the source available.  This is in direct opposition to what the original poster wanted...

Here's a scenario.  You create a cool proof of concept game and release as GPL.  Later on Company X takes that GPL code, fully fleshes out the game, and sells it.  It becomes even bigger than Minecraft.  Company X is totally in their right because they adhere to the GPL by making the source available.  Company X doesn't owe the original poster anything.  OP, are you okay with this scenario?

This is theoretically possible, but what company (or hobbyist) in their right mind is going to do this and think they can commercialize it when anyone can just give it away?!

It's a fuzzy line these days.  Perhaps the OP released an engine.  Or perhaps it's a browser game and it's released under the GPL and not the Affero.  Or it's a library and it's LGPL.

Perhaps the "it becomes bigger than Minecraft" is extremely unlikely but that could be said for 99% of games regardless of license.  Basically, if the OP does not want people to commercially capitalize on the code then he shouldn't use the GPL period.
Online nsigma
« Reply #23 - Posted 2011-09-12 10:58:02 »

I somewhat expected such a reply.

Damn, I'm so predictable!  Grin

Maybe I was too lazy to fully explain the various scenarios and implications. So let me clear things up:

- First, even that I used the term "viral license", I am not an opponent of the GPL at all.
  I simply wanted to illustrate the effect of copying GPL code, so forgive me the M$ FUD language...
  The facts are straight, however...

- Surely there are Companies that already adopted GPL for their own products, but even then,
  they mostly have a clear separation of GPL/non-GPL code and the teams working on it
  (like your client/server example)

- Most "traditional" Companies do stay away from GPLed code for "reuse", because of the "dangers"
  involved with handling the code. Especially game companies are committed very much to closed source

- The bigger a company gets, the less control and transparency they have about what's going on
  in the dev teams, so there often is a general constraint to stay away from GPL to don't take a risk


I understand all that.  It was the implication in your statement that no company would use GPL code, period, which is patently false even in the gaming sector.  At the end of the day, it should all come down to cost / benefit analysis, and I stick by my point that a company needs to have good procedures in place for dealing with 3rd-party code wherever it comes from (GPL or not) given all the many other ramifications (licensing costs, patenting issues, field of use clauses, etc. - even just attribution).  Treating GPL as somehow different in this regard just seems foolhardy!


Maybe the GPL would achieve what the OP wants, but it was not what he asked for Wink

No, the OP asked whether Creative Commons would be suitable, and the Creative Commons FAQ specifically steers people away from using their licenses for code, and towards FSF and GPL!

Also I doubt, that there are game companies or even many companies living of selling their own GPLed products in the list. Most companies making money with GPLed software are either distributors/resellers or offering commercial support for their products. The latter is not really a business case for an indie game company...

No, but network subscriptions and/or commercial licensing parts of a game engine / library are potentially, even open code and locked assets is doable.  I shouldn't have used that $1bn market cap as an example!  Grin

I fear we may have drifted OT a bit ...  persecutioncomplex


Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline ruben01
« Reply #24 - Posted 2011-09-12 15:42:13 »

GPL code will not work for what Gudradain wants, Lugaru (wolfire, humbleindiebundle) release their code as GPL, and their game got into the apple store
they could get the game taken down because the ones that uploaded the other version of the game, used their assets which weren't available for comercial use

if your game is a huge game with lots of assets, then having just the code available might be enough to keep others from releasing your code as a new game, but if your game is something simple, like a match3, canabalt like game, tower defense, etc, whats is keeping anyone from creating some new assets, and uploading the game with ads just to see if it will work? it sure as hell will be shorter than developing a game from scratch, and as long as their art is better than yours, they won't mind releasing the source code as well, and even updating to your latest code to benefit from your bugfixes and new features.

Sure you can make like idsoftware and release years later so it doesn't matter so much, or just have your engine be opensource but your game be closed, but I don't think that is what Gudradain.

In my case with arielsan, we have the same problem, we want to develop our games in the open, even allow you to take parts of the code, and do whatever you want from it, but wouldn't be happy if you took our game, improved the assets and uploaded as yours, even if you had to share the source code.

So far the approach we took is, our games make no money so far (only 7 bucks from ads, wiiiiiiii) so we will keep them on github, so we can show code, ask for a review of something, etc, and if at some point the game starts to make money, we will see what we do, either start paying in github to get private repos, of host it somewhere else.

Something that could be closer to what we want, would be to release the engine and libraries, as opensource, and have the game with a license that forbids commercial use, so that you can see the code, learn from it, but that's it. The thing with that would be that even if someone just uploads it as a free app, with their art, it could still screw us, so the license should also prevent distribution of stuff made with that code.

Online nsigma
« Reply #25 - Posted 2011-09-12 17:19:42 »

GPL code will not work for what Gudradain wants, Lugaru (wolfire, humbleindiebundle) release their code as GPL, and their game got into the apple store
they could get the game taken down because the ones that uploaded the other version of the game, used their assets which weren't available for comercial use
Interesting way to illustrate your argument with an example of where it wasn't an issue!  Smiley

Gudradain would probably be better just keeping the project closed - he mentioned open-source and Creative Commons, not us!  The fact is, the GPL is a way of protecting (some of) your commercial interests if you really want to do this, which judging from his latter post is not highest on the agenda.

In my case with arielsan, we have the same problem, we want to develop our games in the open, even allow you to take parts of the code, and do whatever you want from it, but wouldn't be happy if you took our game, improved the assets and uploaded as yours, even if you had to share the source code.

So far the approach we took is, our games make no money so far (only 7 bucks from ads, wiiiiiiii) so we will keep them on github, so we can show code, ask for a review of something, etc, and if at some point the game starts to make money, we will see what we do, either start paying in github to get private repos, of host it somewhere else.

Something that could be closer to what we want, would be to release the engine and libraries, as opensource, and have the game with a license that forbids commercial use, so that you can see the code, learn from it, but that's it. The thing with that would be that even if someone just uploads it as a free app, with their art, it could still screw us, so the license should also prevent distribution of stuff made with that code.

This was the section that really made me respond.  Aside from sounding like you're screwing GitHub a little bit  Tongue , you do realise that the code you'd already released would still be open-source, right?  Once it's started making money sounds a little like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!

As I mentioned above, non-commercial licenses are a bit of a grey area.  And another grey area is how much learning from your code constitutes making a derivative work.  With all your caveats, I don't see why you're not just developing this closed, and opening up select snippets of the code through your blog or such? 

Praxis LIVE - open-source intermedia toolkit and live interactive visual editor
Digital Prisoners - interactive spaces and projections
Offline Gudradain
« Reply #26 - Posted 2011-09-12 19:35:14 »

GPL code will not work for what Gudradain wants, Lugaru (wolfire, humbleindiebundle) release their code as GPL, and their game got into the apple store
they could get the game taken down because the ones that uploaded the other version of the game, used their assets which weren't available for comercial use

if your game is a huge game with lots of assets, then having just the code available might be enough to keep others from releasing your code as a new game, but if your game is something simple, like a match3, canabalt like game, tower defense, etc, whats is keeping anyone from creating some new assets, and uploading the game with ads just to see if it will work? it sure as hell will be shorter than developing a game from scratch, and as long as their art is better than yours, they won't mind releasing the source code as well, and even updating to your latest code to benefit from your bugfixes and new features.

Sure you can make like idsoftware and release years later so it doesn't matter so much, or just have your engine be opensource but your game be closed, but I don't think that is what Gudradain.

In my case with arielsan, we have the same problem, we want to develop our games in the open, even allow you to take parts of the code, and do whatever you want from it, but wouldn't be happy if you took our game, improved the assets and uploaded as yours, even if you had to share the source code.

So far the approach we took is, our games make no money so far (only 7 bucks from ads, wiiiiiiii) so we will keep them on github, so we can show code, ask for a review of something, etc, and if at some point the game starts to make money, we will see what we do, either start paying in github to get private repos, of host it somewhere else.

Something that could be closer to what we want, would be to release the engine and libraries, as opensource, and have the game with a license that forbids commercial use, so that you can see the code, learn from it, but that's it. The thing with that would be that even if someone just uploads it as a free app, with their art, it could still screw us, so the license should also prevent distribution of stuff made with that code.

Yeah, we seemed to be pretty much in the same situation Ruben01 and I'm actually doing a Tower Defense game for the Android Market. Since there is really few graphical and sound assets, it would be really easy to copy the code, create new one and resell the game with new art. That is the scenario we want to avoid.

Also, Ruben01, since you are working in a team, do you have some sort of protection for your work inside the team or it's not needed? Do you just relly on mutual trust that one won't go away with work and fork the project?

Yeah, I know all these things are probably overkill to think about now and the chance of making lot of money is probably 1 for 1 million, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
Offline Cero
« Reply #27 - Posted 2011-09-12 21:07:51 »

Yeah, I know all these things are probably overkill to think about now and the chance of making lot of money is probably 1 for 1 million, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Actually I would say, it's just good to know these things


I work in a team of 5 currently. I manage it, I have the vision, I am the lead quite simply and also I trust those guys...
Then again, I know them all in person and we go to the same university...

Offline ruben01
« Reply #28 - Posted 2011-09-22 00:21:14 »

Sorry I haven´t answered here, I use google reader to read the forum, and somehow I missed this posts

nsigma: the intention is not to screw github, we are ok with developing our prototipes in the open, and we know that once the code is there, it is open forever, if we at some point feel that continuing to develop our game in the open is against our interest, we will make that change from that point on, not removing or closing the existing source.

Gudradain: we don´t have any protection, we trust each other, and so far we don´t feel that having to split our 7 dollars in revenue from ads will be much of a problem, we can share a pizza and be done with it :-)

Pages: [1]
  ignore  |  Print  
 
 
You cannot reply to this message, because it is very, very old.

 

Add your game by posting it in the WIP section,
or publish it in Showcase.

The first screenshot will be displayed as a thumbnail.

Longarmx (35 views)
2014-10-17 03:59:02

Norakomi (25 views)
2014-10-16 15:22:06

Norakomi (24 views)
2014-10-16 15:20:20

lcass (26 views)
2014-10-15 16:18:58

TehJavaDev (50 views)
2014-10-14 00:39:48

TehJavaDev (50 views)
2014-10-14 00:35:47

TehJavaDev (40 views)
2014-10-14 00:32:37

BurntPizza (63 views)
2014-10-11 23:24:42

BurntPizza (36 views)
2014-10-11 23:10:45

BurntPizza (75 views)
2014-10-11 22:30:10
Understanding relations between setOrigin, setScale and setPosition in libGdx
by mbabuskov
2014-10-09 22:35:00

Definite guide to supporting multiple device resolutions on Android (2014)
by mbabuskov
2014-10-02 22:36:02

List of Learning Resources
by Longor1996
2014-08-16 10:40:00

List of Learning Resources
by SilverTiger
2014-08-05 19:33:27

Resources for WIP games
by CogWheelz
2014-08-01 16:20:17

Resources for WIP games
by CogWheelz
2014-08-01 16:19:50

List of Learning Resources
by SilverTiger
2014-07-31 16:29:50

List of Learning Resources
by SilverTiger
2014-07-31 16:26:06
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!