) - yes, I changed the name, graphics, music, etc... - and I want to know what license to release it under. What are the pros and cons of GPL? If my game is based on my usual game engine, can I use that engine (or, for that matter, other parts of my game) in other games of mine (potentially sellable)? Am I just better finding some other freeware license around where I would still retain the copyright?
Thank you for your advice.
GPL vs. freeware
August 31, 2003 09:40 AM
I''m nearing the completion of a clone of my favorite game (its better than the original, of course) - yes, I changed the name, graphics, music, etc... - and I want to know what license to release it under. What are the pros and cons of GPL? If my game is based on my usual game engine, can I use that engine (or, for that matter, other parts of my game) in other games of mine (potentially sellable)? Am I just better finding some other freeware license around where I would still retain the copyright?
Thank you for your advice.
) - yes, I changed the name, graphics, music, etc... - and I want to know what license to release it under. What are the pros and cons of GPL? If my game is based on my usual game engine, can I use that engine (or, for that matter, other parts of my game) in other games of mine (potentially sellable)? Am I just better finding some other freeware license around where I would still retain the copyright?
Thank you for your advice.
Zorx (a Puzzle Bobble clone)Discontinuity (an animation system for POV-Ray)
102
August 31, 2003 02:14 PM
If you want nobody (including yourself) to be able to ever use the souce in a closed source app, use the GPL.
If you''re not so foolish to think your source will never come in handy for a commerical project, go with the BSD license. It''s basially public domain but you (and anyone else) can use the source in a closed source app.
If you don''t want to release the source then go with freeware using the BSD "NO WARRENTY SO YOU CAN''T SUE ME" clause and nothing else.
The whole reason for these BS public domain licenses in the first place is because of our idiotic society that decided people should be able to sue you for damages if you put your source (or whatever) out there and it causes problems and you didn''t explicity state "NO WARRENTY SO YOU CAN''T SUE ME."
BSD is basically public domain with a "NO WARRENTY SO YOU CAN''T SUE ME" clause.
Our society is so retarded that you have to opt-OUT of a warrenty or you''re liable.
Back when people hadn''t demonstrated this new low of retardation you opted-IN to a warrenty. As a product creator if you didn''t say there was a warrenty it was assumed "NO WARRENTY SO YOU CAN''T SUE ME." Now it''s assbackwards.
Ben
[ IcarusIndie.com | recycledrussianbrides.com ]
If you''re not so foolish to think your source will never come in handy for a commerical project, go with the BSD license. It''s basially public domain but you (and anyone else) can use the source in a closed source app.
If you don''t want to release the source then go with freeware using the BSD "NO WARRENTY SO YOU CAN''T SUE ME" clause and nothing else.
The whole reason for these BS public domain licenses in the first place is because of our idiotic society that decided people should be able to sue you for damages if you put your source (or whatever) out there and it causes problems and you didn''t explicity state "NO WARRENTY SO YOU CAN''T SUE ME."
BSD is basically public domain with a "NO WARRENTY SO YOU CAN''T SUE ME" clause.
Our society is so retarded that you have to opt-OUT of a warrenty or you''re liable.
Back when people hadn''t demonstrated this new low of retardation you opted-IN to a warrenty. As a product creator if you didn''t say there was a warrenty it was assumed "NO WARRENTY SO YOU CAN''T SUE ME." Now it''s assbackwards.
Ben
[ IcarusIndie.com | recycledrussianbrides.com ]
1,088
August 31, 2003 02:43 PM
quote: Original post by KalvinB
If you want nobody (including yourself) to be able to ever use the souce in a closed source app, use the GPL.
You're allowed to relicense your own software to whomever you'd like under any license. If you license your source under the GPL to the public, you can still use it under any license you implicitly grant to yourself (and, of course, you can grant further licenses to the public if you'd like; of course, they'll normally opt to choose the "free-est" one). Edit: I can't type.
[edited by - Null and Void on August 31, 2003 3:43:34 PM]
August 31, 2003 02:49 PM
I suggest using LGPL or public domain.
The GPL is good if you have a political agenda, and want to force everyone else to use GPL for their software.
Public Domain is good if you really just want to enhance the public good with a specific library, and have no political agenda or care much about specifically how others derive benefit.
The LGPL is a good trade-off; the pieces that you release must remain open and under the LGPL, but the pieces other people add are not virally infested.
The GPL is good if you have a political agenda, and want to force everyone else to use GPL for their software.
Public Domain is good if you really just want to enhance the public good with a specific library, and have no political agenda or care much about specifically how others derive benefit.
The LGPL is a good trade-off; the pieces that you release must remain open and under the LGPL, but the pieces other people add are not virally infested.
100
August 31, 2003 02:58 PM
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
