6 ms·

“I want to kindle the creative spirit in others,” Townsend told me over e-mail. “My games are open-source because I want people to learn from them, or use them

“I want to kindle the creative spirit in others,” Townsend told me over e-mail. “My games are open-source because I want people to learn from them, or use them to build their own things.” Notice how open sourcing their product had no impact on their sales. I'll be so happy when defensive software licensing dies after people realize code isn't worth protecting. (Some code is worth licensing. It was most of Id Software's revenue stream. I'm referring to all other code that isn't designed to be licensed, which people still insist on being paranoid about protecting.)

nanidin 12y ago
It's worth noting that the web version is open source, but the version for sale on the iOS Appstore is not open source.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- kiba 12y ago
  That didn't stop people from creating flappy clones.
  - coralreef 12y ago
    When was flappy open source?
    - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
      It wasn't. kiba's point was that just because it wasn't open source, it didn't stop people creating clones
- hmsimha 12y ago
  Shouldn't it be open source under the terms of the original game's license? (https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-(mpl-2) https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-(mp...) Or is a port not considered a derivative work?
  - _delirium 12y ago
    A port is a derivative work, yes, though the MPL has a kind of unique rule for derivative works. You can combine MPL-licensed source files with non-MPL-licensed source files, as long as all changes to the original MPL-licensed source files stay MPL. I think what's really happening though is that they're not relying on the MPL at all for permission to do the iOS port, but on a direct license from Townsend. It sounds like there is even some kind of formal business relationship (the article is a bit vague on it, but it sounds like Townsend is involved in the port and getting a share of the profits).
    - hmsimha 12y ago
      My impression (based on the article alone) was that the author of the ios version is pretty much benefiting from the sales exclusively. Perhaps I missed something or there are sources that provide more information on the matter, but Townsend saying 'of course you can adapt it for the iPhone' almost sounds like he left money on the table. If he isn't getting a share of the sales and didn't explicitly provide a license to release the ios app under different terms, then I feel it should be open source (at least the parts derived from the original).
      - _delirium 12y ago
        I was basing that assumption on this part: By [Townsend's] estimate, making one game a year that performs like A Dark Room would make it possible for him to quit his day job, but he’s unsure whether this whole experience was just a fluke. It's worded in a way that makes it ambiguous whether he means that as a pure hypothetical, or something like "I made about a year's worth of income from A Dark Room, and if that were repeatable I could quit my day job".
      - amirrajan 12y ago
        This is false. Of course Michael is benefitting from the sales and the work he put in.
        hmsimha 12y ago

nanidin 12y ago

It's worth noting that the web version is open source, but the version for sale on the iOS Appstore is not open source.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kiba 12y ago
That didn't stop people from creating flappy clones.
- coralreef 12y ago
  When was flappy open source?
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    It wasn't. kiba's point was that just because it wasn't open source, it didn't stop people creating clones
hmsimha 12y ago
Shouldn't it be open source under the terms of the original game's license? (https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-(mpl-2) https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-(mp...) Or is a port not considered a derivative work?
- _delirium 12y ago
  A port is a derivative work, yes, though the MPL has a kind of unique rule for derivative works. You can combine MPL-licensed source files with non-MPL-licensed source files, as long as all changes to the original MPL-licensed source files stay MPL. I think what's really happening though is that they're not relying on the MPL at all for permission to do the iOS port, but on a direct license from Townsend. It sounds like there is even some kind of formal business relationship (the article is a bit vague on it, but it sounds like Townsend is involved in the port and getting a share of the profits).
  - hmsimha 12y ago
    My impression (based on the article alone) was that the author of the ios version is pretty much benefiting from the sales exclusively. Perhaps I missed something or there are sources that provide more information on the matter, but Townsend saying 'of course you can adapt it for the iPhone' almost sounds like he left money on the table. If he isn't getting a share of the sales and didn't explicitly provide a license to release the ios app under different terms, then I feel it should be open source (at least the parts derived from the original).
    - _delirium 12y ago
      I was basing that assumption on this part: By [Townsend's] estimate, making one game a year that performs like A Dark Room would make it possible for him to quit his day job, but he’s unsure whether this whole experience was just a fluke. It's worded in a way that makes it ambiguous whether he means that as a pure hypothetical, or something like "I made about a year's worth of income from A Dark Room, and if that were repeatable I could quit my day job".
    - amirrajan 12y ago
      This is false. Of course Michael is benefitting from the sales and the work he put in.
      - hmsimha 12y ago