| |
| Author |
Message |
|
| kelek |
 Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:34 pm |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 7
|
If you want other MMORPG developers to use this framework, why not put it under the BSD license instead? This allows people to use the content even for commercial purposes, and to add their own customizations as they see fit. Given that almost every MMORPG I can imagine requires their own customizations, it would seem each MMORPG would have to customize the GPL version to suit them, which means they'd have to release everything under the GPL anyway, which detracts from their IP for a viable MMORPG.
Ryzom had issues due to the 'market' and 'unforseen circumstances'. Wouldn't using a GPL solution doom the market of any new MMORPG using this from the start? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| cloudy97 |
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:44 pm |
|
|
Joined: 24 Nov 2006
Posts: 10
|
| I'm not a lawyer, but as I understands it, it will only make a difference on the client. Running a modified GPL-licensed server does not require you to post the changed/added code. It's when you distribute the program (and not the service) the GPL demands you to do make it public. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mildred |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:23 am |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 52
Location: France
|
I would like also a BSD licence (I love the MIT licence :) ) I don't specially want others commercial project to take the source of Ryzom but sometimes, I just feel that the GPL is too rigid and is incompatible to many licences.
Or, something like LGPL ? |
_________________
xmpp:[email protected] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| bluestorm |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:06 am |
|
|
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 15
|
Quote: If you want other MMORPG developers to use this framework, why not put it under the BSD license instead? This allows people to use the content even for commercial purposes, and to add their own customizations as they see fit.
GPL may allow code sharing and project unity better than a more permissive, BSD-style licence. At least, that's what Sun seems to think concerning Java (and that many other projects thought before).
Quote: I just feel that the GPL is too rigid and is incompatible to many licences |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kelek |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:28 am |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 7
|
Quote: I'm not a lawyer, but as I understands it, it will only make a difference on the client. Running a modified GPL-licensed server does not require you to post the changed/added code. It's when you distribute the program (and not the service) the GPL demands you to do make it public.
I agree that this would be overlooked for server code. So as long as the client code is released under a BSD (or MIT) license, then it should be fine. (However, as far as I understand, this is not the case currently.)
Quote: GPL may allow code sharing and project unity better than a more permissive, BSD-style licence. At least, that's what Sun seems to think concerning Java (and that many other projects thought before).
Sun adopted the GPL for Java so that it can be freely packaged with Linux distributions. (Although technically, I think LGPL would have worked fine, and been less restrictive on Sun.) One of the reasons why most Linux distributions could not include Java was because it was under a non-compatible license. Sun could have released it under a BSD license, but they basically currently sell it under this license to IBM for IBM Java.
In short, I agree that the server code could be GPL without having any issues, but the client code should be under a BSD license if you want any hope of any commercial MMORPG to adopt it. (Generally speaking) only those that plan to use it will help develop it. If the licensing makes this incompatible, noone will use it, and almost noone will end up helping the development.
If you truly want it community based, then maybe it should be under the Diku MU* licenses of old, which is even more restrictive than the GPL. (Even Diku licensed servers can't charge clients for access. GPL servers can charge clients for access.) However, I think that's the opposite end of the spectrum, and the wrong direction to go due to the higher hosting demands of graphic MMORPG servers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Xavier Antoviaque |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:32 am |
|
|
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 396
|
kelek wrote: In short, I agree that the server code could be GPL without having any issues, but the client code should be under a BSD license if you want any hope of any commercial MMORPG to adopt it. (Generally speaking) only those that plan to use it will help develop it. If the licensing makes this incompatible, noone will use it, and almost noone will end up helping the development.
Do not forget NeL is already licensed under the GPL license, and includes third party modifications. Also, we promised we would publish it under the GPL in the social contract, so this can't be changed. now that donation promises have been registered. |
_________________
Xavier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| mildred |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:40 am |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 52
Location: France
|
Xavier Antoviaque wrote: Also, we promised we would publish it under the GPL in the social contract, so this can't be changed. now that donation promises have been registered.
Still possible to release it with others licences :) like Mozilla which is released under MPL, GPL and LGPL. |
_________________
xmpp:[email protected] |
|
| Back to top |
|
| quim.rovira |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:41 pm |
|
|
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 100
Location: Barcelona
|
mildred wrote: Still possible to release it with others licences :) like Mozilla which is released under MPL, GPL and LGPL.
That wouldn't be fair-playing :)
Anyway, I think the GPL license has lots of advantages:
- On server side, modifications would not be required to be published, since offering service is not distribution of the server software. So a comercial company would have absolute control on the server code.
- On the client code, though, modifications would have to be open-sourced, allowing its improvements to transcend to the opensource community, improving the overall package.
What's left behind without noticing, is that the "content" of the game is what makes it genuine, as all the artwork, stories, and so on, would be propietary of the company that chooses to develop a game on top of Ryzom. And imho, that's the point - making possible to charge money for content and service rather than the software.
What could be discussed is an effor to try to move the skill system to the server side, or allow it to be slightly configurable at connect time, but those are just ideas that it's not the time to discuss, since we've got something to acomplish before ;) |
_________________
Free as in Freedom - More power to the players |
|
| Back to top |
|
| sfb |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:39 pm |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Location: Minnesota, USA
|
Xavier,
With regards to third-party modifications I know that 'Debug' and my group signed over our modifications/patches/bugfixes to Nevrax. This is theirs to give away. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| pipomolo42 |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:22 pm |
|
|
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 1
|
kelek wrote: (Generally speaking) only those that plan to use it will help develop it. If the licensing makes this incompatible, noone will use it, and almost noone will end up helping the development.
Hi,
Although I agree that not everybody will be able to contribute directly to the code, I also do not think the opposite is always true, just look at how Transgaming behaved with wine, or at what Charles Hannum told about wasabi some months ago ...
Personnaly, I would not have financially contributed if a more permissive license were choosen.
Regards,
Alex |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zero_tacg |
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:16 am |
|
|
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 17
|
quim.rovira wrote:
- On the client code, though, modifications would have to be open-sourced, allowing its improvements to transcend to the opensource community, improving the overall package.
doesn't that makes no sense at all?
let's assume they do change the server and therefor change the client as cause the server requires it if they then publish the client modifications they are pretty useless won't they?
PS: I don't know a thing about licenses XD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| quim.rovira |
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:19 am |
|
|
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 100
Location: Barcelona
|
| Not at all... let's say, as example, they add some functionality for their skill system and whatever (that would be useless as you said for the community), and some other optimizations on the graphic engine and network optimization (that could be analized and somehow applied to the main code branch).. As I said, it's just an example of what GPL would still permit to do. |
_________________
Free as in Freedom - More power to the players |
|
| Back to top |
|
| kelek |
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:24 pm |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 7
|
Again, I'm no legal expert, but something like this may be a 'loophole' to satisfy both parties:
Suppose you take the GPL client, and modify it without making your changes public. You make the resulting executables available to the public at no charge (not even a 'delivery' free as with some linux packages). However, you charge for access of using that client to connect to your servers.
(I may be confusing GPL with LGPL here, which allows for compiled libraries to be supplied, rather than source code.)
If I am wrong, then every cgi script, php script, etc., that is modified by from any open source package would also have to release their source code, which I'm guessing may not be the case (?).
Another 'loophole' is to have the core engine rely on secondary engines, that are not part of the GPL codebase, but can interact with it through some general API. In this way, physics engines could be added without forcing it to become GPL as well, since it is not included with the corge engine. This may be the only viable solution for those looking to protect some content, but may require design changes in the core engine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bluestorm |
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:35 pm |
|
|
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 15
|
Quote: Suppose you take the GPL client, and modify it without making your changes public. You make the resulting executables available to the public at no charge (not even a 'delivery' free as with some linux packages).
This can't be done. If you distribute a modified work of a GPL project, you *have to* release the source. And it's the main point of the GPL : it's not a loophole; and i, and lot of other peoples, think it's a very good thing.
The loophole is the server thingie : the current GPL was designed in a old time, when the "distribution" covered almost all case of non-developpement use of a program. Now, more and more peoples are using software server-side, without "distributing" it, and claim it's free. This is a loophole, because it's not in the spirit of the GPL : you have to give your work back to the community (althought some people may think it's a good think). By the way, this may evolve with the new GPL version coming (but it's not a concern for Ryzom for now).
Quote: If I am wrong, then every cgi script, php script, etc., that is modified by from any open source package would also have to release their source code, which I'm guessing may not be the case (?).
Quote: This may be the only viable solution for those looking to protect some content, but may require design changes in the core engine.
What do you mean by "protecting some content" ? If you're speaking about code, this should not happen : every code that was specifically designed to work with a GPL project, and is distributed with it, is a "derived work" and thus should go GPL.
If you're speaking about other work that is not code, like for example configuration files for specific server and so on, it's a bit different. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kelek |
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:45 am |
|
|
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 7
|
Quote: What do you mean by "protecting some content" ? If you're speaking about code, this should not happen : every code that was specifically designed to work with a GPL project, and is distributed with it, is a "derived work" and thus should go GPL.
If you're speaking about other work that is not code, like for example configuration files for specific server and so on, it's a bit different.
Linux is under the GPL for the most part. Does that mean you can't write code on a Linux box that isn't under the GPL? Nope, you can write commercial code on Linux, which is my point.
KDevelop is GPL, but code written from KDevelop doesn't have to be. Several other examples exist. Apache servers can communicate with Oracle databases without Oracle having to be GPL, etc.
So here's an example. Let's say the core engine server communicates with other servers to operate. Let's say one other server is a physics server. The physics server tells the core server where people, objects, etc. can and can't go, and takes this information from the core server. In this case, the physics engine/server could be non-GPL, and is perfectly ligitimate to distribute, sell, or license as you see fit.
There is a difference between a modified work of a GPL project vs. a separate component that uses the GPL code 'as-is', but provides an added functionality without having to be GPL as well.
Also, OGRE (3D Graphic renderer for some games) is LGPL. They used to be GPL, and once they switched to LGPL it's caught on quite a bit more. Other MMORPG engines such as Planeshift are released entirely GPL, and seem to be dying.
Just my 0.02 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
15 of the 38 posts of this topic were archived; the rest were never captured by the Internet Archive.
|
|