nesdev.org

blargg wrote:As for the GPL allowing commercial sales, given that all the source material must be available along with the product being sold, it will have to be pretty good to persuade people to pay for it even though they can get the source material for free.

Unless the game is structured so that only the code is free software, and the data that the program uses (tiles, maps, sound effects, music) is under a non-free license. In fact, I seem to remember a commercial total conversion of the GPL version of id Tech 3 (the Quake III Arena engine) distributed as an "aggregate" consisting of a free program and non-free data in the same package, which is explicitly allowed by the GPL.

I definitely don't like the modern way of doing things. I find it really sad that we have to waste time with all this bureaucracy when it could be much better spent on creative works. To me this license thing was a big demotivator the last time I tried to release something.

neilbaldwin wrote:... Someone else suggested getting in contact with bunnyboy about the possibility of a simplified PowerPak (single mapper support for example) ...

ahh, right, i wasn't thinking of the fact that the optimal solution would be to have a way of transferring saves from the cartridge for backup. obviously this wouldn't be an option with a regular cartridge. not sure if a custom simplified PowerPak would be a possibility or how cost effective it would be, so maybe the traditional PowerPak would be the best way to go. glad i have one, can't wait for the release of NTRQ(!!).

tepples wrote:

blargg wrote:As for the GPL allowing commercial sales, given that all the source material must be available along with the product being sold, it will have to be pretty good to persuade people to pay for it even though they can get the source material for free.

Unless the game is structured so that only the code is free software, and the data that the program uses (tiles, maps, sound effects, music) is under a non-free license. In fact, I seem to remember a commercial total conversion of the GPL version of id Tech 3 (the Quake III Arena engine) distributed as an "aggregate" consisting of a free program and non-free data in the same package, which is explicitly allowed by the GPL.

My personal take on artwork assets, is that I don't want my original work to be used by a monied/corporate interest, but have no qualms whatsoever if they modify the artwork, then use their own modified artwork for commercial purposes. (As long as they explicitly state that the work is derived from my free sources, and RESPECT those free sources.)

This would let them leverage my content for their financial gain, without claiming ownership of my own property.

My reasons for this kind of protection, is that I do not want my work to end up being a hostile commodity; I don't want the free artwork I release to be used as evidence in a copyright violation claim against me. (this CAN happen if you release to the public domain, rather than license! This is especially true if you release under a psuedonym like most internet artists do. Just try taking your original artwork to Kinkos to get it printed, if it is copyrighted under a psuedonym! HA!)

I am with Tokumaru on the whole "I really wish I didn't HAVE to license" issue. It is my opinion that there are just too many people all to eager to produce something then demand extortionate remitture for that work, and even more that are busy trying to find ways to snooker you out of your own work, to do the same. I would much rather have it so that if I released something to the public, the spirit of that release would be observed, and respected.

If I could be sure that any works I released to the general public as part of the public domain, would REMAIN in the public domain, and not get IP controls enacted upon it, then have high price IP lawyers attack people who use my work as source material for IP property violations, I would DUMP 3D models and pixel art creations on the public domain, like I was emptying a kitchen dustbin. (See Disney and EG, "Sleeping Beauty", or "Beauty and the Beast"; These stories were Public Domain, were scooped up by Disney, "Disneyized", Monetized, and now if you make a competing cartoon, it had better deviate STRONGLY from their story line, or else their lawyers will eat you alive. There is no restriction against a corporate interest doing the exact same thing with contemporary artwork or musical scores being scooped up, tinkered with slightly, then "enforced" with an iron cudgel, preventing the original artist from working with his/her own creation further.)

The added effort of trying to sort out which license is best suited to what material, how to ensure that the properties are respected the ways you want them to be, and all that SHIT, is VERY de-motivating.

I strongly suspect that it is one of the main reasons why there are so few prolific "Free" artists out there. It is just too hard to release for free.

I am very much against "perpetual exclisivity" of such assets. Current copyright is very intractible if you want to create a work that draws inspiration from an existing work, without the Copyright Cronies coming out of the walls like a swarm of angry bees. (look at the paranoia that Takumaru has over Sonic(C), and his tribute. It is very sad that he has to worry about such things.)

I don't want to tell people how to use or license things that they create; that is their perogative. Many people feed themselves with their work. I just wish that people would stop purpetuating a climate which is hostile to artists that WANT to produce product for free.


Wow.. That ended up being a red-faced rant...

Sorry about that. I just feel VERY strongly about this issue. didn't mean to create a wall of text like that.

i guess i might ask "what's the worst that could happen?" in a case like this if someone weren't to give much thought to the details of licensing? and even if it came to that, what could really be done about it?

in regards to Neil's proposed stipulations:

neilbaldwin wrote: a) do what you like with it as long as you don't try to commercially distribute it (unless I give you permission)
b) don't modify it unless you clearly state that it's been modified
c) make sure I'm credited if you plan to redistribute/modify it
d) don't misrepresent it as your own work
d) no warranty

has something like this ever really presented itself as an issue? i'm aware of several cases in the world of music and art where someone has passed off another person's work as their own, but has this ever really happened much (if at all) with homebrew games or software (especially for outdated systems)?

(i guess i could see a case where someone could modify the front end or some other details of a program like NTRQ to look a unique product, while re-using the main bulk of it, and selling it as their own. but again, i'm not sure i can think of a case where this has actually happened. even still, might releasing the source code be 'encouraging' something like this to happen?)

I know that ReactOS had it's code literally stolen before, and rebranded under a closed source project called "Ekush." They also tried to rip off Freetype, Wine, and pals.

had these projects been public domain instead of GPL (and appropriate licenses), they would have gotten away with it.

Wierd_w wrote:If I could be sure that any works I released to the general public as part of the public domain, would REMAIN in the public domain, and not get IP controls enacted upon it, then have high price IP lawyers attack people who use my work as source material for IP property violations, I would DUMP 3D models and pixel art creations on the public domain, like I was emptying a kitchen dustbin.[...]

Sounds like you want the GPL. It ensures that everyone has the freedom to use and modify the work, so long as they too make it freely available under the same conditions.

I agree that IP laws are in direct violation of physical property rights. They dictate what you can do with your own property, and erroneously treat copies of ideas as a scarce resource. They aren't even meeting their mandate, to advance science and the arts, so they should be eliminated and never brought back.

I know that ReactOS had it's code literally stolen before

Wow, all their backups got stolen too? They should have kept some copies at the developers' houses or something.

blargg wrote: Wow, all their backups got stolen too? They should have kept some copies at the developers' houses or something.

Don't be silly. They stole the code, in that they removed the copyright notices, removed the copy of the GPL, and then closed the source for their "fork", and claimed it all as original work.

However, they didn't change anything except the bootup screen, and so a binary comparison of the compiled binaries gave it away. (100% matches on major system files does not happen by coincidence.)

As for GPL for graphics and art-- Yes, if there was such a thing. You can't release "Sourcecode" for artistic works. (sorry, my brain meats stay inside my head. )

tokumaru wrote:I definitely don't like the modern way of doing things. I find it really sad that we have to waste time with all this bureaucracy when it could be much better spent on creative works. To me this license thing was a big demotivator the last time I tried to release something.

Yup, you're spot on. This really isn't the "modern way of doing things", I might add. It's just that everyone has become so paranoid and self-centred -- the "what if someone..." + "how dare someone..." combo. Everyone wants money. Everyone's paranoid of the other guy, and everyone's out to get everyone else. There's one country in the world you can thank for this, and that's the United States. If there's one thing we do well, it's make shovels and create unnecessary political or legal layers for things that don't need it.

Licensing is just another topic for OCD nerdfucks to argue and flex virtual nuts over. Anyone who tells you "well it's all because of legalities and lawyers, only they understand it" is full of shit -- if you have enough money and time you can accomplish whatever you want with an attorney.

It's why the WTFPL is so hilarious, yet so applicable at the same time. :D

Since we're talking about licensing, maybe someone can clear-up something about the GPL since I saw so many interpretation of it (I'm guessing Tepples must have the answer about this one).

Let say someone makes a module that is GPL. I decide to use this module in my program. My product could become a commercial one. I mention the fact clearly that I'm using their module. Does that mean my program becomes GPL and must give away the code or only the modification to the module, if any? That's one part that I see too many contradiction on the subject.

jbuonacc wrote:

neilbaldwin wrote:... Someone else suggested getting in contact with bunnyboy about the possibility of a simplified PowerPak (single mapper support for example) ...

ahh, right, i wasn't thinking of the fact that the optimal solution would be to have a way of transferring saves from the cartridge for backup. obviously this wouldn't be an option with a regular cartridge. not sure if a custom simplified PowerPak would be a possibility or how cost effective it would be, so maybe the traditional PowerPak would be the best way to go. glad i have one, can't wait for the release of NTRQ(!!).

Actually for years I have been advocating use of a USB/RS232 adapter (through the controller port) for this kind of stuff. No need to spend $100+ on a special cartridge when a multi-use adapter can be built with $3-$8 cost of parts. Especially since IMHO a direct link is far beyond preferable to swapping memory cards back and forth any time you want to load/play new songs!! In fact, lately chykyn designed a better type of controller port adapter and I'll be testing it out a prototype of it here soon. It would be a lot better than the asynchronous adapters I'd built a long time ago, and cost roughly the same to make.

Memblers wrote:

jbuonacc wrote:

neilbaldwin wrote:... Someone else suggested getting in contact with bunnyboy about the possibility of a simplified PowerPak (single mapper support for example) ...

ahh, right, i wasn't thinking of the fact that the optimal solution would be to have a way of transferring saves from the cartridge for backup. obviously this wouldn't be an option with a regular cartridge. not sure if a custom simplified PowerPak would be a possibility or how cost effective it would be, so maybe the traditional PowerPak would be the best way to go. glad i have one, can't wait for the release of NTRQ(!!).

Actually for years I have been advocating use of a USB/RS232 adapter (through the controller port) for this kind of stuff. No need to spend $100+ on a special cartridge when a multi-use adapter can be built with $3-$8 cost of parts. Especially since IMHO a direct link is far beyond preferable to swapping memory cards back and forth any time you want to load/play new songs!! In fact, lately chykyn designed a better type of controller port adapter and I'll be testing it out a prototype of it here soon. It would be a lot better than the asynchronous adapters I'd built a long time ago, and cost roughly the same to make.

Do it! DO IT!

Wierd_w wrote:I know that ReactOS had it's code literally stolen before

blargg wrote:Wow, all their backups got stolen too? They should have kept some copies at the developers' houses or something.

Wierd_w wrote:Don't be silly. They stole the code, in that they removed the copyright notices, removed the copy of the GPL, and then closed the source for their "fork", and claimed it all as original work.

Well, you did say "literally stolen". I wouldn't even call this figuratively stolen, since the ReactOS team didn't lose the ability to build their program. If my car is stolen, I have to arrange alternate transportation. If an unauthorized copy of it is made, I don't care (as long as they change the license plate on the copy, that is).

As for GPL for graphics and art-- Yes, if there was such a thing. You can't release "Sourcecode" for artistic works. (sorry, my brain meats stay inside my head. ;))

Aren't the graphics files the source code (especially for non-bitmap types, like vector/3D)?

Banshaku wrote:Let say someone makes a module that is GPL. I decide to use this module in my program. My product could become a commercial one. I mention the fact clearly that I'm using their module. Does that mean my program becomes GPL and must give away the code or only the modification to the module, if any?

If you use GPL code in your program, your program must be licensed under the GPL as well. But note that commercial use doesn't violate the GPL. The GPL isn't anti-money, it's pro-freedom (for users, that is). That's why using GPL code in your program obligates you to make your program free as well. The authors of the module don't want it contributing to non-free programs, so they use the GPL.

Well, you did say "literally stolen". I wouldn't even call this figuratively stolen, since the ReactOS team didn't lose the ability to build their program. If my car is stolen, I have to arrange alternate transportation. If an unauthorized copy of it is made, I don't care (as long as they change the license plate on the copy, that is).

Well in fact it sounds quite possible to literally stole code. If a thief comes into my house takes my computer and all USB keys that lies around with backups in them, I'd be left with a ~6 month old backup on family's PC (which sucks).
An on-line backup would be an option so that even if my house explodes I could still continue to develop, but it'd be even much more risky that people steal it.

Oh lord, my head is now spinning

I'd settled on the 2-clause BSD license but now blargg has me thinking about GPL3 again.

LOL maybe I just won't release it.