4 ms·

I'm curious how this would play out in the case that the company paid to license some software component that they can't open source.

by tdeck 5mo ago

braiamp 5mo ago
Simple: that contract would be illegal. It's that simple. You can't put yourself into a position where you would be violating the law. The licensor would be on the hook for violating the law. This is "you can’t outsource compliance". Either your contract makes sure that you are compliant or a judge would make you both. This case illustrates this point fully: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/settlement-operator-post-secondary-schools-offers-education-about-lead-generation https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/settlemen...
- Dylan16807 5mo ago
  That's not a worry. You can always refund.
Dylan16807 5mo ago
Issues like that are part of why the law is only going to apply to new releases. If you still choose to license something you can't release later, and it's critical to the game's operation, then that's a deliberate liability and you'll need to replace it.
- tyleo 5mo ago
  That sounds like a bad incentive. Lots of games license software like Photon to run game servers. For many games, building something like that is a non-starter.
  - Dylan16807 5mo ago
    It's not like it specifically has to be open source. Photon can license their software in a way that allows for free servers that are still tied to the specific game. And then companies can buy that. And it's not expensive for Photon to do that, so I don't see why they wouldn't add that feature for a modest price or even free. (And that's assuming the license doesn't already allow it.)
    - tyleo 5mo ago
      I’m not sure what you mean. Photon makes money running game servers as a service. It wouldn’t surprise me if their business wasn’t viable selling software alone.
      - Dylan16807 5mo ago
        As far as I can tell, you can have Photon run the servers or you can license them to run yourself. Though they clearly prefer the former. Either way, there's not much revenue coming in to most games by the time the developer wants to abandon them, and Photon's not getting paid much either. There's a lot of ways to make this work out monetarily.
        tyleo 5mo ago
        It’s not that simple. Many of the newer products are designed cloud-first. I’d love to see you rise to the challenge. If you think there’s an opportunity to make money here, “lots of ways to make this work,” perhaps take it up yourself.
        Dylan16807 5mo ago
        Cloud first is fine as long as there's a fallback. Photon has a fallback. Can you name something that's stuck on the cloud on a technical level and also couldn't be substituted with a mild dev effort? Right now I don't think it's a good money making opportunity. Becoming one would need Photon or some other significant service provider completely refusing to license their software in a way that's compatible with this law, and assurance that they'll continue to refuse while I build my entire product around supplementing/replacing them.

I'm curious how this would play out in the case that the company paid to license some software component that they can't open source.

by tdeck 5mo ago

I'm curious how this would play out in the case that the company paid to license some software component that they can't open source.

braiamp 5mo ago

Simple: that contract would be illegal. It's that simple. You can't put yourself into a position where you would be violating the law. The licensor would be on the hook for violating the law. This is "you can’t outsource compliance". Either your contract makes sure that you are compliant or a judge would make you both. This case illustrates this point fully: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/settlement-operator-post-secondary-schools-offers-education-about-lead-generation https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/settlemen...

Dylan16807 5mo ago
That's not a worry. You can always refund.

Dylan16807 5mo ago

Issues like that are part of why the law is only going to apply to new releases. If you still choose to license something you can't release later, and it's critical to the game's operation, then that's a deliberate liability and you'll need to replace it.

tyleo 5mo ago
That sounds like a bad incentive. Lots of games license software like Photon to run game servers. For many games, building something like that is a non-starter.
- Dylan16807 5mo ago
  It's not like it specifically has to be open source. Photon can license their software in a way that allows for free servers that are still tied to the specific game. And then companies can buy that. And it's not expensive for Photon to do that, so I don't see why they wouldn't add that feature for a modest price or even free. (And that's assuming the license doesn't already allow it.)
  - tyleo 5mo ago
    I’m not sure what you mean. Photon makes money running game servers as a service. It wouldn’t surprise me if their business wasn’t viable selling software alone.
    - Dylan16807 5mo ago
      As far as I can tell, you can have Photon run the servers or you can license them to run yourself. Though they clearly prefer the former. Either way, there's not much revenue coming in to most games by the time the developer wants to abandon them, and Photon's not getting paid much either. There's a lot of ways to make this work out monetarily.
      - tyleo 5mo ago
        It’s not that simple. Many of the newer products are designed cloud-first. I’d love to see you rise to the challenge. If you think there’s an opportunity to make money here, “lots of ways to make this work,” perhaps take it up yourself.
        Dylan16807 5mo ago
        Cloud first is fine as long as there's a fallback. Photon has a fallback. Can you name something that's stuck on the cloud on a technical level and also couldn't be substituted with a mild dev effort? Right now I don't think it's a good money making opportunity. Becoming one would need Photon or some other significant service provider completely refusing to license their software in a way that's compatible with this law, and assurance that they'll continue to refuse while I build my entire product around supplementing/replacing them.