3 ms·

Why forbid commercial use? Wouldn't the GPL be enough and keep the software free?

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
Wouldn't it be possible for a company to take the GPL'd software, change the name, and sell it along with a non-GPL asset pack? In that case, the game being open source is immaterial
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I’m pretty sure that’s against the terms of the license.
  - fl0wenol 8y ago
    It'd be against the terms of the Descent source code license, but not the GPL.
    - pavlov 8y ago
      GPL states that a derivative work must remain under the same license. IANAL, but I don’t see why an asset pack distributed together with the original game would automatically evade that.
      - yorwba 8y ago
        The original game would remain under the same license, but you can distribute any separate additions (i.e. no modifications of the source code) without "infecting" them with GPL. It's equivalent to selling an Android phone with proprietary apps preinstalled.
        jordigh 8y ago
        I don't think so. I think selling the game together with non-free assets without which the game would be unplayable is a tighter combination than "mere aggregation". It seems to me like that would be derived work.
    - Jach 8y ago
      Maybe there's a big list I'm ignorant of but it's somewhat interesting that it doesn't happen more often. e.g. my favorite PC arena FPS as a teen was Tremulous; it was originally a mod but after Quake 3's engine was released under the GPL they turned the mod into a standalone game with it. Totally free, too, but I bet it could have had some financial success if the store model was as popular and accessible back then. Natural Selection is a similar game that did enjoy commercial success... But for better or worse the GPL seems to increase the likelihood of free as in beer releases, too. Maybe any potential revenue sharing model is just too hard for a lot of projects to set up (or was back then) since the GPL also can attract a wide set of contributors.
saagarjha 8y ago
GPL allows for commercial use, even if it is rare.
- jordigh 8y ago
  Right, that's what I'm asking. Don't forbid commercial use, just use the GPL so nobody else has an unfair advantage over the source code. I think a lot of people have an unfounded fear of someone else making money when a share-alike license would assuage most of their fears, without forbidding money.

Wouldn't it be possible for a company to take the GPL'd software, change the name, and sell it along with a non-GPL asset pack? In that case, the game being open source is immaterial

saagarjha 8y ago
I’m pretty sure that’s against the terms of the license.
- fl0wenol 8y ago
  It'd be against the terms of the Descent source code license, but not the GPL.
  - pavlov 8y ago
    GPL states that a derivative work must remain under the same license. IANAL, but I don’t see why an asset pack distributed together with the original game would automatically evade that.
    - yorwba 8y ago
      The original game would remain under the same license, but you can distribute any separate additions (i.e. no modifications of the source code) without "infecting" them with GPL. It's equivalent to selling an Android phone with proprietary apps preinstalled.
      - jordigh 8y ago
        I don't think so. I think selling the game together with non-free assets without which the game would be unplayable is a tighter combination than "mere aggregation". It seems to me like that would be derived work.
  - Jach 8y ago
    Maybe there's a big list I'm ignorant of but it's somewhat interesting that it doesn't happen more often. e.g. my favorite PC arena FPS as a teen was Tremulous; it was originally a mod but after Quake 3's engine was released under the GPL they turned the mod into a standalone game with it. Totally free, too, but I bet it could have had some financial success if the store model was as popular and accessible back then. Natural Selection is a similar game that did enjoy commercial success... But for better or worse the GPL seems to increase the likelihood of free as in beer releases, too. Maybe any potential revenue sharing model is just too hard for a lot of projects to set up (or was back then) since the GPL also can attract a wide set of contributors.

saagarjha 8y ago

GPL allows for commercial use, even if it is rare.

jordigh 8y ago
Right, that's what I'm asking. Don't forbid commercial use, just use the GPL so nobody else has an unfair advantage over the source code. I think a lot of people have an unfounded fear of someone else making money when a share-alike license would assuage most of their fears, without forbidding money.