Spring RTS Engine

It's released under the AGPLv3

We plan to finish some changes in the infrastructure, add cool new features and make a big launch of BA and CA rounds either in parallel or in the same galaxy.

It's an ambitious project and we can use all the help we can get :) We have a chance to make the best open source MMORTS!
People with skills in web development, .Net or Lua are welcome to join us.

Planetwars: http://planet-wars.eu/
Development page: http://licho.eu:8080/trac/
Source: http://licho.eu:8080/trac/browser
Previous thread: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... planetwars

AWESOME
Finally!

Guys, get into #pw and help us develop this thing further!

v3?

Nevermind then.

Do the differences matter whatsoever for this?

COOL@

Not getting into it, but perhaps.

what mod does it run?

Whichever choose to get involved.

Win guys, thank you. I see HUEG SWIW campaigns against them dirty rebels...

neddiedrow wrote:v3?

Nevermind then.

PW is operated as an online service so v3 makes sense, v2 lets you keep the source for software when you don't let the user get the binary, only access the interface over the network. In v2 any PW derivatives would effectively be closed source.

I don't necessarily think that derivatives should all be open source in turn. Generally I would advocate that, but when it comes to a system like this, the devil is in the details and opening the details seems rather foolish. Not that it will discourage people from doing interesting things on top of the basic system but it will reduce the competitive advantage of advancing it.

Lol ? So should we release under GPLv2 and keep the actual server/website sources closed - just releasing API description?
To keep "competetive advantage"?

You people are nuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_Gen ... ic_License

The only relevant change in GPLv3 is that you can link with AGPLv3 code, while GPLv2 can't link with the AGPL based off of it.

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

LIKE
A
BAUS

I didn't tell you to change anything. I said nevermind, then KDR questioned my knowledge of GPL indirectly and I had to respond. I responded to him. Now I've responded to you. End of conversation.

One last thing though, sorry. Is your nevermind reaction about it being v3, or about the things AGPL does? Because there is literally no reason it's v3 instead of v2. In fact, I would suggest quant change that to v2 for greater spring interoperability.

AGPL is an extension of GPL, not included by default.......

Right, this needs to be under the Affero GPL if you don't want people operating what amounts to a proprietary version on their own web server just because they don't meet the guidelines for "Distribution".

1) Thank you for open sourcing, it definitely sounds exciting.
2) I like the idea of giving games added meaning, and adding an overarching strategic element to an RTS is interesting.

That said, it's going to take some time and effort to get this right. I expect BA's first half dozen campaigns to fail horribly, as we've never really studied how to properly handicap games but still make them fun. Maybe this means some new experimentation about just how to do games where one player starts at a different part on the map, or is outnumbered, or whatever - it all sounds like fun. But it's going to be weird at first. Unlike CA, we've never really messed around with things like deployment mode or starting with anything other than a commander - it's plausible it could be easily balanced, but we simply don't know at this point.

Furthermore, integrating coop into this sounds like an interesting idea as well.


It all sounds very exciting and I look forward to working with you (when I find time for Spring that is - Wine and Ubuntu have me pretty tied up as it is ).

License changed to AGPLv3.