3 ms·

We are mainly distributing the source code so people can learn from it, but I would be happy if they used the code or even the artwork to make a substantially d

by embwbam 13y ago

We are mainly distributing the source code so people can learn from it, but I would be happy if they used the code or even the artwork to make a substantially different game. I just don't want someone to just slap a different name on it and out-market us or something. How could I word the license to give people more leeway while still preserving that intention?

toki5 13y ago
Just out of curiosity -- can you preserve that intention? Nothing really stops me from making my own clone of your game, changing only the assets to be my own, other than it's prohibitively time-consuming (i.e. expensive) for me to do so. If you release the code -- with any license on it at all -- and someone takes it, uses it, creates a similar game, and then changes the code in a sufficiently significant way to be able to claim that it's not "yours" anymore ... what recourse would you have?
- ajross 13y ago
  Making a legal argument that a game clone is not a derived work when the source code was literally derived from the original via development over time is a pretty sketchy argument. It's not impossible -- that's sort of what the first open source BSD versions were (AT&T code was replaced piecewise) -- but I wouldn't bet on it. Cloning of interface and operation (but not artwork) is widely held to be legal, but in general all successful clones are clean room clones.
tikhonj 13y ago
"Open source" has a very well-defined, widely accepted meaning. Part of this is that an open source license cannot restrict the purpose for which the code is used. This isn't making a value judgement on such licenses: it's just defining "open source". If you actually want your code to be open source, you should use one of the common licenses like the GPL or BSD license; this makes life easier both for you and people who would use your code. Since these licenses are common, people know exactly how they work and are willing to trust them. A custom license like yours seems much riskier to use: for example, how is "competes with" defined? You can license the code and the artistic assets separately. This is what Id does with its old Quake engines. This way the code is still open source in the strictest sense of the word, but somebody couldn't just resell your game as-is. You can license the assets under one of the Creative Commons licenses. These have well-defined and well-understood terms that you can mix and match to find something that suits your needs.
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  This comment needs more attention. Assets licensed with CC (use the one that requires permission) Code licensed with real Open Source (example: MIT license)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
logn 13y ago
Affero GPL might be ideal for you. It means that both network and local users of an app get the source code. So, maybe someone out-markets you, but the users still must get the source. But you won't necessarily get attribution if that's what you're after (CC is good for that).
coob 13y ago
Why not keep the code open and keep the assets on a normal copyright basis? That's what iD/Bungie do (did).

by embwbam 13y ago

toki5 13y ago

Just out of curiosity -- can you preserve that intention? Nothing really stops me from making my own clone of your game, changing only the assets to be my own, other than it's prohibitively time-consuming (i.e. expensive) for me to do so. If you release the code -- with any license on it at all -- and someone takes it, uses it, creates a similar game, and then changes the code in a sufficiently significant way to be able to claim that it's not "yours" anymore ... what recourse would you have?

ajross 13y ago
Making a legal argument that a game clone is not a derived work when the source code was literally derived from the original via development over time is a pretty sketchy argument. It's not impossible -- that's sort of what the first open source BSD versions were (AT&T code was replaced piecewise) -- but I wouldn't bet on it. Cloning of interface and operation (but not artwork) is widely held to be legal, but in general all successful clones are clean room clones.

tikhonj 13y ago

"Open source" has a very well-defined, widely accepted meaning. Part of this is that an open source license cannot restrict the purpose for which the code is used. This isn't making a value judgement on such licenses: it's just defining "open source". If you actually want your code to be open source, you should use one of the common licenses like the GPL or BSD license; this makes life easier both for you and people who would use your code. Since these licenses are common, people know exactly how they work and are willing to trust them. A custom license like yours seems much riskier to use: for example, how is "competes with" defined? You can license the code and the artistic assets separately. This is what Id does with its old Quake engines. This way the code is still open source in the strictest sense of the word, but somebody couldn't just resell your game as-is. You can license the assets under one of the Creative Commons licenses. These have well-defined and well-understood terms that you can mix and match to find something that suits your needs.

hayksaakian 13y ago
This comment needs more attention. Assets licensed with CC (use the one that requires permission) Code licensed with real Open Source (example: MIT license)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

logn 13y ago

Affero GPL might be ideal for you. It means that both network and local users of an app get the source code. So, maybe someone out-markets you, but the users still must get the source. But you won't necessarily get attribution if that's what you're after (CC is good for that).

coob 13y ago

Why not keep the code open and keep the assets on a normal copyright basis? That's what iD/Bungie do (did).