hmm, ok so you want to make a commercial stand a lone..
If I am understanding the spring guys correctly...
you will have to generate your own mod entirely.
all sounds textures and models have to be your own.
Sellable?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Targ Collective
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 14:16
-
Drone_Fragger
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 04 Dec 2005, 15:49
Not true. The engine itself is under the GPL, which means that any changes they make to it would have to be. However, they don't necessarily have to release these changes publicly. The GPL allows for private changes. All it says is that anyone who can get a copy of your modified program has to be able to get a GPL'd copy of the source used to build it. Which means that he only has to hand out the source to his customers and while they can redistribute it, they're not required to.Targ Collective wrote:More importantly, changes to the engine itself would have to be under GPL, meaning that, for example, work to include an extra reource would be unpaid.
hmm, so if I implement a dll that sues spring headers, and use it to provide a second set fo ehaders and itnerfaces that are then used by my own dll the second oen contianing all the code, I cna then do whatever i want, without worry about the GPL status of the engine given that the middleman dll using the spring headers has its source available?
I don't think so. If I understand right, you're suggesting something like this?AF wrote:hmm, so if I implement a dll that sues spring headers, and use it to provide a second set fo ehaders and itnerfaces that are then used by my own dll the second oen contianing all the code, I cna then do whatever i want, without worry about the GPL status of the engine given that the middleman dll using the spring headers has its source available?
Middleman DLL: Imports Spring headers, provides appropriate interfaces for Spring, provides another interface for your code.
NTAI: Uses Middleman DLL to talk to Spring.
Because of the way the GPL works, the Middleman DLL has to be GPL'd. And that means that NTAI has to be GPL'd.
ok then, but then doesnt that pose a problem?
When I finish my new AI interface, what happens when it's under Glest aswell?
Does the middleman fall under NTai's license or springs now that Ntai in this scenario si not dependant on spring in order to be ran.
Also that would dictate that any libraries, API's, or dll's spring uses have to eb GPL'ed because they're using spring to get information for their runtime, even if ultimately spring is using them. Thus Windows needs to be GPL'ed, aswell as everything filtering down the chain from everywhere else till we get to the hardware...
Now that doesnt sound right.....
When I finish my new AI interface, what happens when it's under Glest aswell?
Does the middleman fall under NTai's license or springs now that Ntai in this scenario si not dependant on spring in order to be ran.
Also that would dictate that any libraries, API's, or dll's spring uses have to eb GPL'ed because they're using spring to get information for their runtime, even if ultimately spring is using them. Thus Windows needs to be GPL'ed, aswell as everything filtering down the chain from everywhere else till we get to the hardware...
Now that doesnt sound right.....
You've got it backwards. The important thing here is the notion of a "derivative work" - one work that derives from another. Normally you aren't allowed to create these at all without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. The GPL lets you do this... If the works you create are GPL'd. According to the FSF's lawyers, linking to a library or #including headers is enough to qualify one program as a derivative work of the other. (Though in some cases, linking to a library may not.)AF wrote:Also that would dictate that any libraries, API's, or dll's spring uses have to eb GPL'ed because they're using spring to get information for their runtime, even if ultimately spring is using them. Thus Windows needs to be GPL'ed, aswell as everything filtering down the chain from everywhere else till we get to the hardware...
Now that doesnt sound right.....
Now, this is where things get interesting. The "viral" clause depends on who's using what.
There's no problem with Spring using the Windows core libraries. In that case, Spring's a derivative work of them, and Microsoft has explicitly licensed them in such a way that anyone can create derivative works of them. (I think)
There's also no problem with Spring using, say, a BSD licensed library. Spring's then a derivative work of the library, and the library's license allows this.
The problem with NTAI is that it's a derivative work of Spring. You're using header files from the Spring project, and (if I understand right) linking to libraries from the Spring project. Mods are just content loaded and run by Spring, but NTAI is code that links against it.
I think that qualifies it as a derivative work. It sounds very much like the case for a Plugin.AF wrote:the only stuff I've used from spring are the headers for the itnerface.
Note, again, that this doesn't apply to Mods. Mods fill the same conceptual role as "shell scripts" or Python programs.
If I said that, I was wrong. I don't think anything in the GPL says that. I suggest reading The GPL FAQ. It explains pretty much everything about the license very concisely.But seems as you said anyone who redistributed Ntai would have to notify me I aint bothered now....
Okie doke... lemme put in my 0.02 here.
Trevor, for your group to make a Spring mod sellable, you need a way to protect your content.
Under the GPL, you have every right to download the current sourcecode, modify it, and release the modified Spring engine as your very own game engine. This is how the GPL works- it's why Redhat can release their own commercial versions of Linux, for example, and not release their source.
However, Spring doesn't have any ways to protect content, at all. Which, among other things, is why I haven't made a serious effort to gather a large group and build a major project with Spring at this time. Right now, anybody who feels like it can pass my mods around, break into them, copy them, or steal my content. I don't see any point in releasing anything for profit under those circumstances, and it's going to take fairly fundamental engine changes (on the Lobby end, as well as the game engine and client) to make this a reality.
I see very little market in making a game with Spring... without it being Spring. Think about it, for a minute.
Unless your coders in your group have enough skill (and spare time) to add content controls, a better GUI, fix all of the bugs in the current code, and also improve upon Spring's current graphical standards, people are much more likely to prefer Spring itself, which is more likely to keep improving over time than not.
Instead of going that route, I'd like to suggest a (profitable) alternative reality:
1. Have your coders begin work on a real content-protection schema, but within the Spring GPL and with the guidance and help of Spring's current coders. That will benefit everybody who might want to release a commercial game with Spring, and it'd be much easier to start/finish this large piece of coding, interface changes, etc., if you worked with the existing development community, as opposed to working outside, because, among other things, you're a lot more likely to get questions answered about what does what in the code.
2. Have your modding / content crew begin building a working mod that's a showcase for your talents, to drum up interest and potential sales. You already have a community here of people who are obviously very excited about games, and the people here tend to be a lot more savvy than average, because Spring is not exactly a gigantic, worldwide phenomenon yet. That'd help your crew get its feet thoroughly wet, get you introduced to the players here... and get through the initial hazards of building content for this engine. Speaking as a fellow content developer... I will only say this- until your people have sat down and learned how to work with S3O and BOS/COB, you're going to be behind the eight ball around here. This isn't like any of the commercial game engines you've probably worked with before, and learning how to integrate fully-functional content will take some time.
By the time a content-protection system is built and actually works... I suspect that the new UI (which is actually getting closer to releasable now) will be available- and it will offer a lot've customizable features that the current one doesn't. In addition, you'll have a lot've teaser screens or even a mini-build of your intial game design done and ready, and perhaps released for free to get some intitial feedback.
That's the solution to all of this stuff I'd recommend here. It'd be a lot less likely to annoy the Spring community... whose goodwill, frankly, is not exactly optional if you want to have a real chance of succeeding, unless you have a lot larger budget than I suspect. It'd support your fellow modders, to the extent that other groups wanting to make professional-quality games with Spring would have a secure way to deliver their content (think of Spring as Steam's distant neighbor, and you have an idea where I'm going here) and you could be the first of the pack to release a pro-quality game, giving you a great chance for a profitable outcome.
And one last option beckons here: you could make a deal with the Spring developers, and pay them some of the profits from your closed-source mod's sales, to pay the bills. Giving everybody involved a distinct reason to get along and help you succeed... and helping to keep Spring's content-distribution system (currently funded by a couple of really kind souls) up and running... and maybe buy SJ and Zaphod and the other guys some pizza and beer (or whatever it is that Scandinavian coders like to imbibe in their free time), without putting the GPL nature of Spring in jeaopardy.
In short, I welcome pro teams to try their hand at things, and to make money. I think it would be extremely exciting if Spring had a profit source that could help pay the bills around here, and the idea of Spring becoming a "springboard" for game-content distribution ala Steam, but with the specific goal of delivering kickass RTS games, is very exciting. Think it over- is it better to just take the source and run, or have people willing to help your team get their goals accomplished, as well as helping the community that provided the toys that are so tempting in the first place? This seems like a win-win for everybody.
Trevor, for your group to make a Spring mod sellable, you need a way to protect your content.
Under the GPL, you have every right to download the current sourcecode, modify it, and release the modified Spring engine as your very own game engine. This is how the GPL works- it's why Redhat can release their own commercial versions of Linux, for example, and not release their source.
However, Spring doesn't have any ways to protect content, at all. Which, among other things, is why I haven't made a serious effort to gather a large group and build a major project with Spring at this time. Right now, anybody who feels like it can pass my mods around, break into them, copy them, or steal my content. I don't see any point in releasing anything for profit under those circumstances, and it's going to take fairly fundamental engine changes (on the Lobby end, as well as the game engine and client) to make this a reality.
I see very little market in making a game with Spring... without it being Spring. Think about it, for a minute.
Unless your coders in your group have enough skill (and spare time) to add content controls, a better GUI, fix all of the bugs in the current code, and also improve upon Spring's current graphical standards, people are much more likely to prefer Spring itself, which is more likely to keep improving over time than not.
Instead of going that route, I'd like to suggest a (profitable) alternative reality:
1. Have your coders begin work on a real content-protection schema, but within the Spring GPL and with the guidance and help of Spring's current coders. That will benefit everybody who might want to release a commercial game with Spring, and it'd be much easier to start/finish this large piece of coding, interface changes, etc., if you worked with the existing development community, as opposed to working outside, because, among other things, you're a lot more likely to get questions answered about what does what in the code.
2. Have your modding / content crew begin building a working mod that's a showcase for your talents, to drum up interest and potential sales. You already have a community here of people who are obviously very excited about games, and the people here tend to be a lot more savvy than average, because Spring is not exactly a gigantic, worldwide phenomenon yet. That'd help your crew get its feet thoroughly wet, get you introduced to the players here... and get through the initial hazards of building content for this engine. Speaking as a fellow content developer... I will only say this- until your people have sat down and learned how to work with S3O and BOS/COB, you're going to be behind the eight ball around here. This isn't like any of the commercial game engines you've probably worked with before, and learning how to integrate fully-functional content will take some time.
By the time a content-protection system is built and actually works... I suspect that the new UI (which is actually getting closer to releasable now) will be available- and it will offer a lot've customizable features that the current one doesn't. In addition, you'll have a lot've teaser screens or even a mini-build of your intial game design done and ready, and perhaps released for free to get some intitial feedback.
That's the solution to all of this stuff I'd recommend here. It'd be a lot less likely to annoy the Spring community... whose goodwill, frankly, is not exactly optional if you want to have a real chance of succeeding, unless you have a lot larger budget than I suspect. It'd support your fellow modders, to the extent that other groups wanting to make professional-quality games with Spring would have a secure way to deliver their content (think of Spring as Steam's distant neighbor, and you have an idea where I'm going here) and you could be the first of the pack to release a pro-quality game, giving you a great chance for a profitable outcome.
And one last option beckons here: you could make a deal with the Spring developers, and pay them some of the profits from your closed-source mod's sales, to pay the bills. Giving everybody involved a distinct reason to get along and help you succeed... and helping to keep Spring's content-distribution system (currently funded by a couple of really kind souls) up and running... and maybe buy SJ and Zaphod and the other guys some pizza and beer (or whatever it is that Scandinavian coders like to imbibe in their free time), without putting the GPL nature of Spring in jeaopardy.
In short, I welcome pro teams to try their hand at things, and to make money. I think it would be extremely exciting if Spring had a profit source that could help pay the bills around here, and the idea of Spring becoming a "springboard" for game-content distribution ala Steam, but with the specific goal of delivering kickass RTS games, is very exciting. Think it over- is it better to just take the source and run, or have people willing to help your team get their goals accomplished, as well as helping the community that provided the toys that are so tempting in the first place? This seems like a win-win for everybody.
The simplest content control i can think of at the moment is making use of the password function fo the zip/rar/7zip formats to lock the mod/map files.
Of course then how do you deal with the keys? I know it's possible to have a password or set of passwords stored in the engine that arent opensourced under the GPL (I think it is under GPL 2.0, I remember it being mentioned in an article on GPL 3.0 when it discussed Digital rights management)...
Of course then how do you deal with the keys? I know it's possible to have a password or set of passwords stored in the engine that arent opensourced under the GPL (I think it is under GPL 2.0, I remember it being mentioned in an article on GPL 3.0 when it discussed Digital rights management)...
Man, you are crazy 
? You exept them to make a good protection when no other big society can? And even I Starforce work quite well, I don't think you want to make such shit.
The only good protection at the moment is cd-key for multiplayer. ( You will need to make a server wich will send you authorisation ).
It work good, and it do not annoy people who buy it.
Having a protection for solo game is impossible, and with the GPL it's really impossible :)
? You exept them to make a good protection when no other big society can? And even I Starforce work quite well, I don't think you want to make such shit.The only good protection at the moment is cd-key for multiplayer. ( You will need to make a server wich will send you authorisation ).
It work good, and it do not annoy people who buy it.
Having a protection for solo game is impossible, and with the GPL it's really impossible :)
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
It should be a LITTLE harder to copy a retail game then pressing copy paste IMO...Torrasque wrote:Man, you are crazy
The only good protection at the moment is cd-key for multiplayer. ( You will need to make a server wich will send you authorisation ).
It work good, and it do not annoy people who buy it.
Having a protection for solo game is impossible, and with the GPL it's really impossible :)
[edit] expecially since spring reads mods from a single file...
If you're selling it, you're presumably not using a free license. That means that you can sue people if they start lifting content.AF wrote:The point sint just that it can be copied easily, it's that the content itself cna be taken out and leeched with ease.
Say i dont want people seeing the innards of my mod but I want people to play it, how do I solve the problem?
-
Tim Blokdijk
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18
Content protection ... maybe as an anti-cheat feature..Argh wrote:Okie doke... lemme put in my 0.02 here.
... you need a way to protect your content.
... it's why Redhat can release their own commercial versions of Linux, for example, and not release their source.
... Which, among other things, is why I haven't made a serious effort to gather a large group and build a major project with Spring at this time. Right now, anybody who feels like it can pass my mods around, break into them, copy them, or steal my content. ...
I see very little market in making a game with Spring... ...
...
Instead of going that route, I'd like to suggest a (profitable) alternative reality:
...
Radhat releases the source, it's the trademarks that prevent people to outright copy the disks.
I think your idea's about how to make content for the Spring Project are the route of the dodo.
I think the way to make content for the Spring Engine is more along the lines of Project Orange.
IMHO content creation is going the open source way very fast.
But this is my own opinion (so prove me wrong!).
If memory serves, that's not the case. I think Red Hat has two distros going now - Fedora Core and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The incentive to pay for Enterprise Linux is support contracts, which are really important to the big businesses they're selling it to.Tim Blokdijk wrote:Radhat releases the source, it's the trademarks that prevent people to outright copy the disks.
Fedora Core's completely free in both senses.