I plan on selling it - for profit.

There's about a thousand licenses I can use, ranging from "do whatever you want with it" to "if you so much as touch it, we'll sue every penny out of you." I can even sell it without anything except a copyright notice. The question is, Which license to use?

Also, which licenses CAN I use? I know that pretty much everybody can use the GPL in their programs, but I'm not so sure about other licenses.

I'm eyeing the Mozilla license, BTW.

So, what do you people think about open source? Good? Bad? Depends?

I guess I can at least make parts of the 3D engine available after it's finished. It can help future people easily integrate 3D and the ability to import models into their Java programs.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited December 13, 2002).]

Open source is great, if you want to share. It's obviously not a good way to make money. It all comes down to what you're hoping to achieve.

Edit: Made post coherent(wow, it's late!)

[This message has been edited by BKewl (edited December 14, 2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BKewl:
Some GPL licenses . . .

---

There's only one GPL licence, although there are many licenses that are similar . . .

I don't agree with the idea that ALL sourcecode should be "free". In fact, when I release my own programs, I make some open source, but keep the rest under wraps. I expect other people should be able to do the same with my source, although probably in an LGPL sort of way (they make any modifications to the open source portion public).

I'm not so much concerned with keeping technology secret (other than anti-cheating measures and network code) as I am copying.

I like the idea of being able to share code that could be useful, however. That way, wheels don't have to be reinvented all the time!

Although games DO have the advantage of handling artwork, 3D models, etc. as data, so the artwork, 3D models, etc. do not have to be GPL'ed, even if the program is.

--D-SIPL

------------------
=========================
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that suggests you tried

Graceworks Interactive

I think some of the logic here is flawed, too...

If you do want to make your game open source, so that other people can benefit, more power to you -- please do so!

Someone said that if something was open source, everyone would just get it and compile it and no one would buy it. That's where the flawed logic comes in.

Consider -- Quake 1 and 2 and (the original) Wolfenstein 3D are all open source (at this point) though they're restrictive about what you can do. Actually, the whole game isn't open source, just the *code*. Which leaves a lot out. As someone mentioned, the art assets (as in, any models, sounds, textures, etc) are still copyrighted, and if you want to "just compile and run the game" you have to buy a copy of said game to get those art assets. Sure, you could just pirate it, but if you're going to pirate it, you're not likely to buy the game, anyway, now are you?

Also consider -- anyone who expects to grab any of those, especially when they were first released in code form, and thinks they'll run a makefile and have a full playable game pop out will be in for quite a shock. There are a lot of files to deal with, including some in assembly (in the quake 1 example, at least) and then there comes the matter of having the proper compilers and knowing how to use them. Okay, maybe it's a cross-platform game. So there are probably compile switches that need to be changed or debug things turned off... Again, it's not like pressing a button and getting a full game for free. At this point, there are probably VC++ makefiles for all of the above, but I know when they were first released, even if you were familiar with compiling programs, you may or may not end up with something that ran. And then consider that you have to have the compiler that something is written in. Everyone who wants to play your game won't have [Director/VB/Delphi/Krylix/gcc/java/vc++/c#.net/whatever] and so they'll either have to get a pirated version, in which case, again, they're not likely to be part of your target market anyway (as they'd just pirate the game) or if they do get a copy of the compiler they need, again, it's not as simple as pressing a button to see that something works.

Anyone who has worked with open source software knows that it's typically not a drop-in replacement for off the shelf software for a whole slew of reasons. (I can go into them if anyone's not familiar and reasons don't spring to mind immediately)

All this to say... I think making a commercial game, and making it open source is a great idea. It's something I still toy with, and may do at some point. I think it would actually add value (and sales) to the game. The main people who would benefit from the source are people who are already working in a similar environment, and they may buy it just to support you or get at the code, or so they can have the art assets needed to run the game (as opposed to just compiling it if you have polished everything to require only a press of the button).

I don't think I'd make it completely open source, so that anyone could make derivitives from it and do whatever they wanted, but there are a lot of licenses out there that allow the initial creator to sell an app and still release the code, or let people do what they want with the code, as long as they don't sell it, unless they license it from the creator, etc.

I don't know of a good site offhand to direct you to about all the various licenses out there, but some of the ones that pop into my mind are GPL, LGPL (lesser GPL), BSD, and Mozilla. I really don't know much about the last couple, but I believe the LGPL allows people to keep some parts of the code proprietary if they reach an agreement with the code's creator... the GPL pretty much says anyone can do what they'd like with it as long as any additions or changes to the code are released to the general public, though don't flame me if that's not quite right.

Anyway, hope this helps and sparks some new thinking patterns.

-Ascent

Most money made from OSS, I believe, comes from people installing/setting it up, customizing it (and then releasing those changes to the public) and consulting. Many of the creators of open source software offer their consulting services to customers who need to set the software up, install it, keep it running smooth and make small changes (which, again, they release, in compliance with their GPL license, which is the popular one everyone tends to choose)

Take linux, for example. Everything about RedHat is free. I can download the newest version online right now. But, that company makes money (in theory, anyway ) by selling a boxed package, a printed software manual, tech support people that answer questions, etc etc...

-Ascent

I just found an article on Slashdot that talks about a new place that is set up to help people pick a license without wading through all of the documents. The site is here:
http://www.creativecommons.org/

And their "Pick a License" wizard is here:
http://www.creativecommons.org/license/

And the slashdot article (which I haven't read beyond the intro) is here:
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/12/16/162232.shtml?tid=99

Hope this helps...
-Ascent

quote:

---

Originally posted by D-SIPL:
If you love your code... set it FREE!! If you want to make money from it, then don't bother.

---

I love my code AND I want to make money from it .

quote:

---

Anyways, i don't think there is much call for you to open source your code. It would only be us lot here that would be interested in it

---

Since a 3D engine for Java is going to be involved, there might be some interest. I'd like parts of it to ba available anyway.

I've made a couple of contributions to the game BZFlag.

quote:

---

As someone mentioned, the art assets (as in, any models, sounds, textures, etc) are still copyrighted, and if you want to "just compile and run the game" you have to buy a copy of said game to get those art assets.

---

I believe I mentioned it . . .

The only compiler needed for my game will be Sun's J2SE, although libraries for the 3D side will be needed. It's a bit easier to re-compile Java than C/C++.

Creative Commons was interesting, but I think I'm going to go with the Mozilla Public Licence.

I'll make the final decision before I finish the game.

quote:

---

I love my code AND I want to make money from it .

---

--D-SIPL

------------------
=========================
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that suggests you tried

Graceworks Interactive