I paid full price for visual c++. :( And I'm interested in your project Yann L.

Quote: I like it how people whine about not being able to use their Visual C++ on Linux... as if they paid for their Visual C++ in the first place.

Bought and paid for mine. One of the few MS products I actually felt was worth the money. And I'd like to see an IDE for *nix which performed at the same level.

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
I like it how people whine about not being able to use their Visual C++ on Linux... as if they paid for their Visual C++ in the first place.

Hey, i've paid €5 for the Visual Studio 2005 beta! ;o) I also bought vc6, but I wouldn't want to use that on Linux(or Windows) anymore.

Quote: Original post by GBGames
stuff

You don't get the point. Yes, author can try to sell it, _once_. But then, everyone else can copy it and sell, without paying anything to author, at all. In reality, it means, programmers are the least able to make money directly outta it because they are busy programming. Distributor might pay some small portion of money to developers if he likes, but then he are in disadwantage to other redistributors. It's because, under GNU licence, redistribution is okay.

You would not be able to make any money from game you developed if piracy would be legal. In fact, pirates selling copies would get more money than you. Same with GNU software.

There is, in fact, loophole in licence : publishers can publish installation discs that include non-open-source software together with open-source, and get money outta it. Even if that non-open-source software itself doesn't worth too much. Example of such software: readers for propietary and closed formats.

Also, nothing stop people from stealing pieces of your work and embending them into commercial applications. Even more, attempts to find out if work is stolen is illegal because of "reverse engineering is illegal" law.

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
You don't get the point. Yes, author can try to sell it, _once_. But then, everyone else can copy it and sell, without paying anything to author, at all. In reality, it means, programmers are the least able to make money directly outta it because they are busy programming. Distributor might pay some small portion of money to developers if he likes, but then he are in disadwantage to other redistributors. It's because, under GNU licence, redistribution is okay.

Here, let me quote part of what I said to you again:

Quote:
A lot of people complain that you can't sell software once it is free or open. That's bull. If you can't come up with a viable business model, it doesn't mean one doesn't exist. In fact, there are game companies using and selling open source and free software commercially. All within the GPL or whatever license they happen to use. I find it funny when someone claims that they refuse to look at open source because they can't sell service contracts for games. So what? Sell something else! Why does the term "open source" or "free software" somehow equate to "can only charge for support"?

So to paraphrase what you said: "I can't sell open source the same way I sell non-open source games, and I can't think of anything to do about it, so therefore you can't make money selling a GPLed game."

This is a situation that calls on you to either think outside the box for a little bit or avoid the debate. But don't say it can't be done, because it not only can be done, but it is getting done. For example.

Quote:
You would not be able to make any money from game you developed if piracy would be legal. In fact, pirates selling copies would get more money than you. Same with GNU software.

Going by your logic, the "pirates", who are doing nothing illegal in your example, would be able to sell copies of your game, but you can't? How does that make sense?

Quote:
There is, in fact, loophole in licence : publishers can publish installation discs that include non-open-source software together with open-source, and get money outta it. Even if that non-open-source software itself doesn't worth too much. Example of such software: readers for propietary and closed formats.

People will create open source installers to get around that. Not a solution to your specific problem.

Quote: Also, nothing stop people from stealing pieces of your work and embending them into commercial applications. Even more, attempts to find out if work is stolen is illegal because of "reverse engineering is illegal" law.

And nothing stops people from stealing pieces of your work and embedding them into commercial applications if you keep the source closed. You are stuck in the same boat, only now you have the illusion that because the source is closed, you're protected somehow. The only thing that protects either open or proprietary source is copyright law, and it protects both types of code equally as badly or as well.


Regarding the assumption that open source means you can only sell once: are you suggesting that if your code was closed, I could still make use of your game data? Could I resell your graphics or sound files? Legally I cannot. So what's the difference between an open source code base combined with proprietary data? You can charge for the data as much as you want to the exclusion of competitors. Legally they cannot resell or redistribute your game data unless you allow them to do so. Sure, they have access to the source code, but how easy is it to make a game from it? You are already one step ahead when you release your game, right? You aren't going to lose sales due to some other company taking your open code and working on making another game. And this is just one option you have when it comes to selling open source games. I'm sure it is possible for you to think of a number of others.

And why do you call it legalized piracy? If you open the source, you do it to purposely allow people to make use of it in the ways outlined in the license. If you don't want people to do it, you don't license it that way. No one is stealing or taking something illegally if they follow the license, and if you don't like that they can do so, you don't license it that way. Simple as that.

You can debate the merits of keeping the source proprietary over open. There are some good arguments to be made, and one of them is how much easier it is to sell them like you would a toaster. Open source gives the end user a lot more freedom, which is the point of the GPL, and you naturally have to work around that. Instead you throw up your hands in the air and complain that it makes piracy legal and that you can't make money (even though somehow everyone else can??). Your arguments are flaky at best. Arguments like yours are exactly the kind I was referring to in my post. Stop limiting what you can do, and stop spreading misinformation that suggests something can't be done.

Quote: Original post by GBGames
Going by your logic, the "pirates", who are doing nothing illegal in your example, would be able to sell copies of your game, but you can't? How does that make sense?

Dude, what on earth are you talking about? You spend five million dollars on developing a product. You have to sell it for, say, $20 per copy to break even. Suddently people who put no money into development sell it for $3 per copy on every corner. To summarize: if this was the case, you'd be fucked.

It makes sense to open source a product that isn't ready for market (e.g. people wouldn't pay a penny for it but they would use it for free). This *might* help your product mature so you can make money later by providing services. In this case GNU model makes sense. In all other cases releasing your code under GNU is the same as throwing the money you invested into development out the window.

Quote: Original post by GBGames
So being commercial software does not mean that it cannot be open source or free software.

Umm, but then you're not selling software... you're selling bandwidth, or warranties, or whatever other medium you use to provide the software.

Now, one profitable enterprise w/ open source might be providing the basic software open-source, and charging for customization/implementation, using the "free" advantage to increase your possible customer base. Even so, there's still too much risk involved, risk that could be eliminated by keeping the release free, but not open source, or at least closing off some of it (to prevent anyone from beating you at your own game).


On another note, as far as games are concerned, it'd be pretty easy to make a profit on an open source game if you set things up right by selling content (the whole episodic game deal). Of course, the game needs to be fun in the first place (hard enough as it is), and you need to be able to rapidly produce new content of a consistantly high quality.

Quote: Original post by CoffeeMug

Quote: Original post by GBGames
Going by your logic, the "pirates", who are doing nothing illegal in your example, would be able to sell copies of your game, but you can't? How does that make sense?

Dude, what on earth are you talking about? You spend five million dollars on developing a product. You have to sell it for, say, $20 per copy to break even. Suddently people who put no money into development sell it for $3 per copy on every corner. To summarize: if this was the case, you'd be fucked.

It makes sense to open source a product that isn't ready for market (e.g. people wouldn't pay a penny for it but they would use it for free). This *might* help your product mature so you can make money later by providing services. In this case GNU model makes sense. In all other cases releasing your code under GNU is the same as throwing the money you invested into development out the window.

O.K, I am sure there are plenty of reasons not to GPL a game, but this is _not_ one of them.

Maybe you should reread the post you responded to. The reason people don't sell copies of copyrighted software on the street is because it is *illegal*, not because they don't have access to the source. By the same token, I see ads every day in my email for cd's full of software for 10.00 (photoshop, winXP, etc...), so obviously withholding source access does not prevent people from reselling copyrighted, closed-source software at a lower price.

An example: The last 2 (about to be 3) versions of quake have been open-sourced, but the games *data* is copyrighted, so you can't just compile and sell your own version.

Long after the games had been on sale, and had made most of the revenue they were going to anyway :)

Note that in any case, you're not making money out of the sale of the Software, but of other stuff - like art or services.

I can see a game like WoW potentially being open sourced, assuming all logic is controlled from the server side to avoid hacking, since the fact it requires a server connection will still allow the developer to charge for the game, tho.

Quote: Original post by GBGames

Quote:
Going by your logic, the "pirates", who are doing nothing illegal in your example, would be able to sell copies of your game, but you can't? How does that make sense?

Dude, what on earth are you talking about? You spend five million dollars on developing a product. You have to sell it for, say, $20 per copy to break even. Suddently people who put no money into development sell it for $3 per copy on every corner. To summarize: if this was the case, you'd be fucked.

I'll give you that. Someone could undercut you and charge less. Still, why does making the game engine open mean you necessarily need to make the data, the game itself, open as well?

Anyway, my point is that if you spent that much money on development and gave it away, you knew what you were doing. People make arguments against open source as if the freedoms granted are accidents. You don't slap the GPL license on your code unless you want to do so, so stop making it seem like losing the ability to control who can redistribute is a side-effect. It's the whole point of the GPL, and you don't just slap any old license on your code unless you know what it means. You don't like the idea of giving away such freedoms? Don't use it. If I was arguing that the GPL works in all cases, I would be wrong and your argument would show it. But I'm not.

Quote:
It makes sense to open source a product that isn't ready for market (e.g. people wouldn't pay a penny for it but they would use it for free). This *might* help your product mature so you can make money later by providing services. In this case GNU model makes sense. In all other cases releasing your code under GNU is the same as throwing the money you invested into development out the window.

Your argument would be accurate if we assume that we can only make games from scratch. Can't I take libsdl or the Crystal Space or OGRE or the soon to be GPLed Quake 3 engine and make a commercial game from them? Yes, I can. Fully developed, well tested, working code, readily available. Just add data. Now you have a game that could be sold. Seems like the "GNU model", whatever that is, makes sense here too. If you decide that you are going to limit the possibilities of what I just said by putting arbitrary restrictions on it, such as releasing all or nothing under the GPL, or releasing millions of dollars worth of custom developed code, that's your problem, not necessarily an issue with the GPL.

Do you see the problem? When people assume that it won't work just because they can identify some situations where it won't, that's limiting their viewpoint. Proprietary software has issues too, but people don't say it doesn't work just because you can't find and fix bugs as easily.

Will you need to do things differently to make money using the GPL? Yes.
Can you use the GPL and expect no changes in your business practices? No.

How hard is that to get?

Yes, if I give away everything, then the result is anyone can also redistribute and sell everything. If I don't want that result, I don't do that. Why argue against the idea of the GPL as if you are somehow powerless to its draw?

I never see anyone argue against proprietary licenses: "But if I allow them to redistribute custom maps made in the editor provided, then anyone can do it!" "If I say they can't modify any of the files, then how will they be able to make mods?" Do you see how silly that is? If you do or don't want your customers to be able to do something, you tailor your license to that purpose.

When you program, if you made a logic error, it isn't the computer's fault, or the compiler's fault. It's your fault. It's funny to programmers to hear about the beginner who complains, "But that's not what I meant for the computer to do!"

Essentially that is what is being argued. "Legalized piracy" and talk about throwing away your million's worth of work shows that you didn't know what the GPL was meant to be used for. If you used the GPL in those cases, you are essentially arguing "But that's not what I meant for you to be able to do!"

Tell me: if you were worried about legalized piracy, or throwing away your work, what would have compelled you to use the GPL in the first place that merits the worry about its effects?