5 ms·

Note that the engine is licensed under GPLv3. Which means that any game must be licensed as such as well.

by shezi 8y ago

hugoamnov 8y ago
Hi, the license is a temporary choice. I wish to release it under a permissive license in the future, I'd just like to secure a tiny bit of funding before that !
- halfastack 8y ago
  Just a note that if you accept any merge from anyone else, when changing the licence, you'll have to have their consent to change the license as well. Sounds like it might be a difficult thing to switch, depending on how many contributors you'll have when wanting to switch.
  - sbjs 8y ago
    Is that true though? I thought all third party contributed changes are licensed separately, with the contributor still having all rights, unless they explicitly say otherwise.
    - cpburns2009 8y ago
      IANAL: My understanding is the same as @halfastack's. > I thought all third party contributed changes are licensed separately, with the contributor still having all rights, unless they explicitly say otherwise. That's true, but it prevents the project owner from changing the license unless either the contributed code's license is compatible with the new license, or all contributors consent to the license change. That is, going from MIT to GPL is fine, but GPL to MIT is not. Projects concerned with this frequently require contributors to sign a CLA (Contributor License Agreement) where the contributor gives permission for the project to use the contributions and relicense them in the future. E.g., Ubuntu [1]. [1]: https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/contributors https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/contributors
      - bjpbakker 8y ago
        My understanding is a bit different, but also not a lawyer. > going from MIT to GPL is fine, but GPL to MIT is not AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. When you publish a patch under a certain license (that of the project at the moment of the contribution), you _only_ allow using your code under that license. This is why dual licensing is a thing. Except when you sign a CLA - mostly used by companies to gain copyright over your work. In that case the company can do whatever they want - even charge you later to use your own code.
        codetrotter 8y ago
        > AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. MIT licensed code can be relicensed under GPL with or without modification to the code. It is only the other way around that won’t work. The reason for this are the specific demands made in each license. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati... where the Expat license is listed as compatible. The Expat license is the same license that is usually referred to as the MIT license. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License: > The MIT license is also compatible with many copyleft licenses, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL); MIT licensed software can be integrated into GPL software, but not the other way around IANAL. Personally I encourage people to prefer the ISC/BSD/MIT family of license over GPL, but anyone that is set on using a GPL license is within their rights to do so for code derviative of said licenses (and several others as listed in the above linked list of GPL compatible licenses).
        gmfawcett 8y ago
        Possibly true... but wehther it can be done without modification to the code is a separate issue from whether a license change can be made without the consent of all contributors.
        codetrotter 8y ago
- intenscia 8y ago
  Investor funding or patronage?
  - hugoamnov 8y ago
    I need to investigate this question :) For now, I just setup a Patreon, but in the future, I might think of a more clever business plan.
    - ognarb 8y ago
      License your work under GPL3 and if someone want to uses your engine in a proprietary game, then you can sell him your game engine under a permissive license. Just be sure that the other contributor are okay with it.
nine_k 8y ago
GPL has great provisions against hostile forks, but as is it's a bit too restrictive for games as final products. I'd imagine that LGPL would give both an incentive to contribute to the engine, and a way to commercially release games based on it, without GPLing all the assets and all the game mechanics.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- reidrac 8y ago
  LGPL isn't great for games either. One of the most celebrated changes in SDL2 was moving from LGPL to ZLIB license. All the linking requirements of LGPL are a pain for games and distribution.
  - corysama 8y ago
    Then how about “GPL with the static linking exception” (used by glibc, which is statically linked by zillions of non-open softwares). AFAICT, that license comes down to “You only need to publish changes to our GPL code, not your own code that uses our code”. So, it’s non-viral.
    - reidrac 8y ago
      I think you meant "Lesser GPL with the static linking exception". IIRC glibc is "stock" LGPL 2.1 without any linking exception, so I may have misunderstood your comment and you mean just LGPL. The LGPL is not viral but it has some requirements that are inconvenient when distributing a game, specially it makes static linking impossible.
      - corysama 8y ago
        You are right glibc is LGPL. It's libstdc++ I was thinking of https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html Looks like what I'm looking for can be found in MPLv2 https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ Ex: http://zeromq.org/area:licensing http://zeromq.org/area:licensing is currently LGPLw/exception, but intends to move to MPLv2 because it is legally more clear.

Note that the engine is licensed under GPLv3. Which means that any game must be licensed as such as well.

by shezi 8y ago

Note that the engine is licensed under GPLv3. Which means that any game must be licensed as such as well.

Hi, the license is a temporary choice. I wish to release it under a permissive license in the future, I'd just like to secure a tiny bit of funding before that !

halfastack 8y ago
Just a note that if you accept any merge from anyone else, when changing the licence, you'll have to have their consent to change the license as well. Sounds like it might be a difficult thing to switch, depending on how many contributors you'll have when wanting to switch.
- sbjs 8y ago
  Is that true though? I thought all third party contributed changes are licensed separately, with the contributor still having all rights, unless they explicitly say otherwise.
  - cpburns2009 8y ago
    IANAL: My understanding is the same as @halfastack's. > I thought all third party contributed changes are licensed separately, with the contributor still having all rights, unless they explicitly say otherwise. That's true, but it prevents the project owner from changing the license unless either the contributed code's license is compatible with the new license, or all contributors consent to the license change. That is, going from MIT to GPL is fine, but GPL to MIT is not. Projects concerned with this frequently require contributors to sign a CLA (Contributor License Agreement) where the contributor gives permission for the project to use the contributions and relicense them in the future. E.g., Ubuntu [1]. [1]: https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/contributors https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/contributors
    - bjpbakker 8y ago
      My understanding is a bit different, but also not a lawyer. > going from MIT to GPL is fine, but GPL to MIT is not AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. When you publish a patch under a certain license (that of the project at the moment of the contribution), you _only_ allow using your code under that license. This is why dual licensing is a thing. Except when you sign a CLA - mostly used by companies to gain copyright over your work. In that case the company can do whatever they want - even charge you later to use your own code.
      - codetrotter 8y ago
        > AFAIK both are _not_ fine, eapecially because the licenses are totally incompatible. MIT licensed code can be relicensed under GPL with or without modification to the code. It is only the other way around that won’t work. The reason for this are the specific demands made in each license. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompati... where the Expat license is listed as compatible. The Expat license is the same license that is usually referred to as the MIT license. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License: > The MIT license is also compatible with many copyleft licenses, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL); MIT licensed software can be integrated into GPL software, but not the other way around IANAL. Personally I encourage people to prefer the ISC/BSD/MIT family of license over GPL, but anyone that is set on using a GPL license is within their rights to do so for code derviative of said licenses (and several others as listed in the above linked list of GPL compatible licenses).
        gmfawcett 8y ago
        Possibly true... but wehther it can be done without modification to the code is a separate issue from whether a license change can be made without the consent of all contributors.
        codetrotter 8y ago
intenscia 8y ago
Investor funding or patronage?
- hugoamnov 8y ago
  I need to investigate this question :) For now, I just setup a Patreon, but in the future, I might think of a more clever business plan.
  - ognarb 8y ago
    License your work under GPL3 and if someone want to uses your engine in a proprietary game, then you can sell him your game engine under a permissive license. Just be sure that the other contributor are okay with it.

nine_k 8y ago

GPL has great provisions against hostile forks, but as is it's a bit too restrictive for games as final products. I'd imagine that LGPL would give both an incentive to contribute to the engine, and a way to commercially release games based on it, without GPLing all the assets and all the game mechanics.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
reidrac 8y ago
LGPL isn't great for games either. One of the most celebrated changes in SDL2 was moving from LGPL to ZLIB license. All the linking requirements of LGPL are a pain for games and distribution.
- corysama 8y ago
  Then how about “GPL with the static linking exception” (used by glibc, which is statically linked by zillions of non-open softwares). AFAICT, that license comes down to “You only need to publish changes to our GPL code, not your own code that uses our code”. So, it’s non-viral.
  - reidrac 8y ago
    I think you meant "Lesser GPL with the static linking exception". IIRC glibc is "stock" LGPL 2.1 without any linking exception, so I may have misunderstood your comment and you mean just LGPL. The LGPL is not viral but it has some requirements that are inconvenient when distributing a game, specially it makes static linking impossible.
    - corysama 8y ago
      You are right glibc is LGPL. It's libstdc++ I was thinking of https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html Looks like what I'm looking for can be found in MPLv2 https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/ Ex: http://zeromq.org/area:licensing http://zeromq.org/area:licensing is currently LGPLw/exception, but intends to move to MPLv2 because it is legally more clear.