Yes, I don't think anyone is saying you should open your source.
Having said that though - noting you say "but when Ive finished and cleaned the code maybe I will open it up", I would say it is a good thing to release source if you've no reason to keep it closed. I know that one fear is that people will unhelpfully criticise the code - this used to be one of my worries - but I've never had anyone do this. It's a good thing to clean up source, but that's true whether it's open or closed, for your own benefit :)
Some of the benefits of open source are: allowing other people to more easily spot problems (if the people reporting bugs are also programmers); other people might port to other platforms; more interest from sites that cover Open Source games; being able to use various free hosting sites available for Open Source (e.g., Sourceforge, Google Code); easy backup for your source (the online source or repository is your online backup).
@cemkalyoncu: "Open source software is alot different from libre software in terms that the latter allow distribution and modification. Where as open source software can be restricted as you have stated. "
I don't think that's true. Both Free Software and Open Source cover more liberal licences like BSD - I think you're describing the difference between copyleft and non-copyleft. There is a difference in philosophy between Free Software and Open Source, though it's actually the Free Software Foundation that puts more emphasis on copyleft licences like the GPL (which they wrote) to preserve freedom for users; the Free Software movement also seems more focused on the ethics of software. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/276957/the-difference-between-free-so... for some discussion and links. In practice, the list of licences they each count as Free/Open seem pretty similar.
@mainsworthy: "open source isnt free, you may have to buy a licence even though its open source"
This would apply say, if it was a copyleft licence like GPL, but you wanted to distribute under different terms - in some cases, you can buy a licence with those rights (e.g., Qt is available under the Free LGPL, as well as a commercial licence). In other cases, you can't at all. Is that what you were thinking of?
"where does it end though, The game and source code I could give away free, but the compiler costs money has to be bought! so free software also limits your freedom of compilers, and graphics software!"
The issue is freedom rather than cost.
Yes, it's true that one can produce an Open Source program that still requires a closed source compiler to build, or a closed source operating system to run. I think there are various answers to this:
* The Free Software community have provided a Free set of tools, including graphics software, compilers, and even a complete operating system. The FSF might prefer that people write Free Software purely with Free tools, for Free platforms, but I guess there's a pragmatic view that Free Software on closed source platforms is still better than closed source software on closed source platforms.
* For people who release as Open Source, either for the benefits I list above, or because they believe it's right, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe every software must be Open Source (this is closer to my point of view - I develop on Windows and often use Visual Studio - porting to Linux is more because it gets more interest, than out of ethical considerations). Still, there is the practical point of view that you'll probably get more interest if people can compile and work on the problem with free (as in no cost) tools. But then, even closed source programs like Visual Studio Express and Paint.NET are no cost :) (And these days, the compiler differences between VC and GCC are fairly small.) I don't know what language you used - is it something that people would have to pay to get a compiler for?
It's good to look at other RPG rules, e.g. for inspiration, but not to hard to write your own system. (Personally I like to not overcomplicate the rules - it's tempting come up with complex rules, but that's often overkill if the game doesn't make use of those rules.)
I'd only worry about that if say you wanted copy the instructions themselves, rather than copying game rules. (IANAL!)
A licence that tried to say that the game as a whole would have to be distributed under the same licence as used for the rules would be pretty inconvenient in most cases, as most of the licences for documents or game rules aren't going to be suitable for software. (This is similar to the debate as to whether CC BY-SA for art would also affect the game software.)
And even if the OP isn't trying to make money, a non-commercial restriction on the game would make it incompatible with Open Source licences. (Again, the same thing applies to art - and is why non-commercial licences aren't allowed on this site.)
There's free as in no cost, and free as in freedom - not taking a point of view, but it's important to note that these are two distinct meanings of the same word. Furthermore, "Free Software" (as a term in itself - note the capitals - rather than the literal meaning of software that's free) often refers to that as defined by the FSF (similar to "Open Source" being that defined by the OSI).
I agree with bart's first reply. There are plenty of Free art licences that allow usage with non-Free software (indeed, possibly most of them), so there's not really a problem. But there might be the practical point that some people on this site may be more willing to create art for Free / Open Source games.
Would the requirement of using an existing game engine be a rule, or a recommendation? I mean, I understand it being good to encourage people to use existing tools (and indeed, for a competition, some people may think they're supposed to write it all from scratch). It's also good to disallow non-Open Source libraries. But making it a rule that one must use a 3rd party game framework brings the question of what's counted - if SDL isn't counted, it's hard to know where the line should be drawn.
I think the problem is more when people try to write yet another engine - not for their own game, but intended to be another engine that people use. There's a saying - "write games, not engines" - in that whilst it's good to write your code so it can be reused, the focus should still be on making a game, rather than an engine that no one will use.
One shouldn't reinvent the wheel - but at the same time, if one wants to write a game, choosing lower level APIs like SDL may sometimes be the better choice, than trying to mod a higher level engine.
(Plus there's the question of programmers who have built up their own engine over the years, so wouldn't be writing everything from scratch, but it isn't a supported or documented engine that's easy for others to use.)
I hope I'm not trying to complicate things, but you did ask for opinions :) I think that some kind of game competition can be a good thing, not just for creating games, but also the way that it drives game art. I note that LPC was good in that it provided a nice set of things like animated sprites and scenery that could work together in a game. Perhaps similar to "write games, not engines", I think there's an analogy with art - in that whilst there's plenty of good art of this site, even better results are achieved when there's a focus on creating complete sets of art for games.
I agree that cash prices usually aren't useful. Open source programmers tend not to be motivated by money, let alone merely a chance at money, as it will typically be small compared to what the commercial rate would be for a programmer's time. At worst, too small amount of money may be seen as an insult - check out the example at http://forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?t=2141 :)
"Also note that I'm quite familiar with both radical feminism and mens' rights advocacy. There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening."
Is there such a sub-category as "Radical MRA"? Maybe there is, in which case fair enough (a quick google didn't reveal anything).
I mean, Radical Feminism isn't simply "radical" in the dictionary sense (e.g., "a radical opinion" as you say later), that is "feminists who are more radical", but an established sub-category with distinctive views. The name also presumably comes from wanting a fundamental change in society, rather than simply being extremists. There are also people who identify as radical feminists. So this means we will see other feminists refer to radical feminisms and radical feminists.
Not on either "side" here, just noting that even if there will be people within MRA with more extreme views, that isn't comparable to Radical Feminism within feminism, so we wouldn't necessarily see criticism of them in the same way. Plus a lot of the reason why we see feminists decrying the views of radical feminsts isn't simply because they are more extreme, but because of fundamentally opposed views on issues - e.g., porn, transsexualism. (Although EternalArchon's response suggests there's plenty of MRA in-fighting anyway - I guess as it's not as large or as well known a group, there's less publicity about it. I guess Judean People's Front applies everywhere:))
If we're talking about a single shadow colour (not even using the palette), then that does seem uncopyrightable in my opinion - otherwise I could just release a colour map that copyrights every colour in a 24-bit palette :)
For an artist who makes use of a palette, there's perhaps some argument it's a derivative work. Though they'd have to admit it, or show some evidence of this - again, I can't just put up a colour palette and claim ownership of those colours, if people use them independently.
Brand identity would be to do with trademark law. I think colours could be trademarked, though this is more to do with commercial use (And who knows - it wouldn't surprise me if in the US you could get a design patent for something like a colour...) But I don't see how doing any of this would be anything in the interest of being Free or Open Source.
A name like "Dungeon Tactics" could well be made up independently (and I agree with gnudist it wouldn't and shouldn't be a copyright issue anyway). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41rtLDVxEsQ suggests the game has existed since at least 21 July 2012 - was that before or after the release of your game?
Either way, for a name made up by two existing words, coincidence is far more likely than malice in my opinion (whenever I've thought up names for games, searching for names often finds more than one existing game with the same name).
Attribution for the LPC art should be given however. Note that the game has been submitted to various sites for online games, and the contact http:// www. gamesgood. com/contactus/ seems to be for the site - so that's fine to ask them to take it down, but the other sites would have to be done separately. Although they might be able to say how to get hold of the author, perhaps.
http:// izismile. com/2012/07/27/dungeon_tactics.html has an online comments form, not sure if the author would be paying attention.
I agree with bart that friendly pokes are better than torches and pitchforks.
I noticed a similar oddity when I uploaded http://opengameart.org/content/freeciv-terrain - see water.png at 1217, much higher than the rest. But I recall that even when I first uploaded this, the file started off at around 900...
"As a rule of thumb, I expect colour ramps (as found somewhere in the LPC base assets) to be copyrightable, simply because it is difficult for me as a non-artists to create good ones."
My understanding is that being difficult to create is not sufficient to be copyrightable, but there must be a creative element. I guess one could argue there can be a creative element to a colour palette, though it's not really clear to me...
On anonymity - on the one hand, I agree there is the point that it allows people to be more vicious without having to worry. But I think anonymity is a good thing too, and this episode shows that aspect also: I don't want any risk of my employer being associated with any comments I make, or to be fired because people find out where I work. (I'm guessing this firing happened in states with at-will employment, something I disagree with...)
I think it's a good thing to have some rules about sexual talk in that kind of conference. Perhaps there should be some rules about taking photos of people without their consent...
Yes, I don't think anyone is saying you should open your source.
Having said that though - noting you say "but when Ive finished and cleaned the code maybe I will open it up", I would say it is a good thing to release source if you've no reason to keep it closed. I know that one fear is that people will unhelpfully criticise the code - this used to be one of my worries - but I've never had anyone do this. It's a good thing to clean up source, but that's true whether it's open or closed, for your own benefit :)
Some of the benefits of open source are: allowing other people to more easily spot problems (if the people reporting bugs are also programmers); other people might port to other platforms; more interest from sites that cover Open Source games; being able to use various free hosting sites available for Open Source (e.g., Sourceforge, Google Code); easy backup for your source (the online source or repository is your online backup).
@cemkalyoncu: "Open source software is alot different from libre software in terms that the latter allow distribution and modification. Where as open source software can be restricted as you have stated. "
I don't think that's true. Both Free Software and Open Source cover more liberal licences like BSD - I think you're describing the difference between copyleft and non-copyleft. There is a difference in philosophy between Free Software and Open Source, though it's actually the Free Software Foundation that puts more emphasis on copyleft licences like the GPL (which they wrote) to preserve freedom for users; the Free Software movement also seems more focused on the ethics of software. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/276957/the-difference-between-free-so... for some discussion and links. In practice, the list of licences they each count as Free/Open seem pretty similar.
@mainsworthy: "open source isnt free, you may have to buy a licence even though its open source"
This would apply say, if it was a copyleft licence like GPL, but you wanted to distribute under different terms - in some cases, you can buy a licence with those rights (e.g., Qt is available under the Free LGPL, as well as a commercial licence). In other cases, you can't at all. Is that what you were thinking of?
"where does it end though, The game and source code I could give away free, but the compiler costs money has to be bought! so free software also limits your freedom of compilers, and graphics software!"
The issue is freedom rather than cost.
Yes, it's true that one can produce an Open Source program that still requires a closed source compiler to build, or a closed source operating system to run. I think there are various answers to this:
* The Free Software community have provided a Free set of tools, including graphics software, compilers, and even a complete operating system. The FSF might prefer that people write Free Software purely with Free tools, for Free platforms, but I guess there's a pragmatic view that Free Software on closed source platforms is still better than closed source software on closed source platforms.
* For people who release as Open Source, either for the benefits I list above, or because they believe it's right, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe every software must be Open Source (this is closer to my point of view - I develop on Windows and often use Visual Studio - porting to Linux is more because it gets more interest, than out of ethical considerations). Still, there is the practical point of view that you'll probably get more interest if people can compile and work on the problem with free (as in no cost) tools. But then, even closed source programs like Visual Studio Express and Paint.NET are no cost :) (And these days, the compiler differences between VC and GCC are fairly small.) I don't know what language you used - is it something that people would have to pay to get a compiler for?
It's good to look at other RPG rules, e.g. for inspiration, but not to hard to write your own system. (Personally I like to not overcomplicate the rules - it's tempting come up with complex rules, but that's often overkill if the game doesn't make use of those rules.)
Regarding copyright, it's not really clear that game rules are covered. Even in the US - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html .
I'd only worry about that if say you wanted copy the instructions themselves, rather than copying game rules. (IANAL!)
A licence that tried to say that the game as a whole would have to be distributed under the same licence as used for the rules would be pretty inconvenient in most cases, as most of the licences for documents or game rules aren't going to be suitable for software. (This is similar to the debate as to whether CC BY-SA for art would also affect the game software.)
And even if the OP isn't trying to make money, a non-commercial restriction on the game would make it incompatible with Open Source licences. (Again, the same thing applies to art - and is why non-commercial licences aren't allowed on this site.)
There's free as in no cost, and free as in freedom - not taking a point of view, but it's important to note that these are two distinct meanings of the same word. Furthermore, "Free Software" (as a term in itself - note the capitals - rather than the literal meaning of software that's free) often refers to that as defined by the FSF (similar to "Open Source" being that defined by the OSI).
I agree with bart's first reply. There are plenty of Free art licences that allow usage with non-Free software (indeed, possibly most of them), so there's not really a problem. But there might be the practical point that some people on this site may be more willing to create art for Free / Open Source games.
Would the requirement of using an existing game engine be a rule, or a recommendation? I mean, I understand it being good to encourage people to use existing tools (and indeed, for a competition, some people may think they're supposed to write it all from scratch). It's also good to disallow non-Open Source libraries. But making it a rule that one must use a 3rd party game framework brings the question of what's counted - if SDL isn't counted, it's hard to know where the line should be drawn.
I think the problem is more when people try to write yet another engine - not for their own game, but intended to be another engine that people use. There's a saying - "write games, not engines" - in that whilst it's good to write your code so it can be reused, the focus should still be on making a game, rather than an engine that no one will use.
One shouldn't reinvent the wheel - but at the same time, if one wants to write a game, choosing lower level APIs like SDL may sometimes be the better choice, than trying to mod a higher level engine.
(Plus there's the question of programmers who have built up their own engine over the years, so wouldn't be writing everything from scratch, but it isn't a supported or documented engine that's easy for others to use.)
I hope I'm not trying to complicate things, but you did ask for opinions :) I think that some kind of game competition can be a good thing, not just for creating games, but also the way that it drives game art. I note that LPC was good in that it provided a nice set of things like animated sprites and scenery that could work together in a game. Perhaps similar to "write games, not engines", I think there's an analogy with art - in that whilst there's plenty of good art of this site, even better results are achieved when there's a focus on creating complete sets of art for games.
I agree that cash prices usually aren't useful. Open source programmers tend not to be motivated by money, let alone merely a chance at money, as it will typically be small compared to what the commercial rate would be for a programmer's time. At worst, too small amount of money may be seen as an insult - check out the example at http://forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?t=2141 :)
Things like publicity may be better rewards.
"Also note that I'm quite familiar with both radical feminism and mens' rights advocacy. There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening."
Is there such a sub-category as "Radical MRA"? Maybe there is, in which case fair enough (a quick google didn't reveal anything).
I mean, Radical Feminism isn't simply "radical" in the dictionary sense (e.g., "a radical opinion" as you say later), that is "feminists who are more radical", but an established sub-category with distinctive views. The name also presumably comes from wanting a fundamental change in society, rather than simply being extremists. There are also people who identify as radical feminists. So this means we will see other feminists refer to radical feminisms and radical feminists.
Not on either "side" here, just noting that even if there will be people within MRA with more extreme views, that isn't comparable to Radical Feminism within feminism, so we wouldn't necessarily see criticism of them in the same way. Plus a lot of the reason why we see feminists decrying the views of radical feminsts isn't simply because they are more extreme, but because of fundamentally opposed views on issues - e.g., porn, transsexualism. (Although EternalArchon's response suggests there's plenty of MRA in-fighting anyway - I guess as it's not as large or as well known a group, there's less publicity about it. I guess Judean People's Front applies everywhere:))
If we're talking about a single shadow colour (not even using the palette), then that does seem uncopyrightable in my opinion - otherwise I could just release a colour map that copyrights every colour in a 24-bit palette :)
For an artist who makes use of a palette, there's perhaps some argument it's a derivative work. Though they'd have to admit it, or show some evidence of this - again, I can't just put up a colour palette and claim ownership of those colours, if people use them independently.
Brand identity would be to do with trademark law. I think colours could be trademarked, though this is more to do with commercial use (And who knows - it wouldn't surprise me if in the US you could get a design patent for something like a colour...) But I don't see how doing any of this would be anything in the interest of being Free or Open Source.
A name like "Dungeon Tactics" could well be made up independently (and I agree with gnudist it wouldn't and shouldn't be a copyright issue anyway). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41rtLDVxEsQ suggests the game has existed since at least 21 July 2012 - was that before or after the release of your game?
Either way, for a name made up by two existing words, coincidence is far more likely than malice in my opinion (whenever I've thought up names for games, searching for names often finds more than one existing game with the same name).
Attribution for the LPC art should be given however. Note that the game has been submitted to various sites for online games, and the contact http:// www. gamesgood. com/contactus/ seems to be for the site - so that's fine to ask them to take it down, but the other sites would have to be done separately. Although they might be able to say how to get hold of the author, perhaps.
http:// izismile. com/2012/07/27/dungeon_tactics.html has an online comments form, not sure if the author would be paying attention.
I agree with bart that friendly pokes are better than torches and pitchforks.
I noticed a similar oddity when I uploaded http://opengameart.org/content/freeciv-terrain - see water.png at 1217, much higher than the rest. But I recall that even when I first uploaded this, the file started off at around 900...
"As a rule of thumb, I expect colour ramps (as found somewhere in the LPC base assets) to be copyrightable, simply because it is difficult for me as a non-artists to create good ones."
My understanding is that being difficult to create is not sufficient to be copyrightable, but there must be a creative element. I guess one could argue there can be a creative element to a colour palette, though it's not really clear to me...
I agree.
On anonymity - on the one hand, I agree there is the point that it allows people to be more vicious without having to worry. But I think anonymity is a good thing too, and this episode shows that aspect also: I don't want any risk of my employer being associated with any comments I make, or to be fired because people find out where I work. (I'm guessing this firing happened in states with at-will employment, something I disagree with...)
I think it's a good thing to have some rules about sexual talk in that kind of conference. Perhaps there should be some rules about taking photos of people without their consent...
Pages