Spring RTS Engine

Hey. I was reading the open-source license, but one thing is unclear. Please enlighten me: If I create a game with TA Spring that does NOT use any Total Annihilation content, can I legally sell it as long as any modified source code is released for free along with the game? I really want to figure this out. Thanks.

The core appears to be GPL'd. Thus, let me direct you to the authority on the topic:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? from the GPL FAQ.

As long as you own the copyrights or have appropriate licenses to 100% of your content, including scripts, textures, models, maps, etc. then yes, you can charge money for it. You can even license your content under something other than the GPL, meaning that while anyone can redistribute the engine (or your modifications to it), they have to pay you for your content.

I think you can... if that's the licence we have then yeah... you could put the engine in a box and sell it on the street if you wanted... or make your own game out of it and release any script and code and give the project credit and sell that too... not sure if we are still under that licence.

Beautiful. Thanks guys, thats exaclty what I needed.

Noone will stoop low enough to buy it, mind.

Well if you can make money and mabey send some our way?

If he makes signifigant improvement to the engine because he can produce content that makes his project fiscally viable... I'm all for that.

SinbadEV wrote:If he makes signifigant improvement to the engine because he can produce content that makes his project fiscally viable... I'm all for that.

Precisely. And since the GPL requires him to release the source of his modifications under the GPL to anyone who buys his product...

Ya, I got no problem doin that. Ive got a small team of 9 people with different experiences modding so I have no doubt that the content will be good. Just wanted to make sure we could sell the game once we finished it. And I dont think a donation to the project if we get anywhere with our game is to much to ask for

Jsut don't forget that you will have to give the source code of the engine because of the GPL and everythings will be ok I think.

(IIRC IA must be GPL too, wich is bad ihmo, sad that the game is not LGPL)

I'm no lawyer, but the Spring devteam would probably be very unhappy about this.

Regardless of the law, you have an ethical responsibility to recognise the work the devteam have put in. Anything you create for yourself you have the right to sell. Unit models, unit scripts, anything you yourself create. But the new S3O format is the devteam's work in and of itself.

PM Zaphod or someone about it. You need to discuss this with the devteam.

There was a mod for OTA organised along similar lines. The modder eventually released it for free as business was so poor. Bear in mind you're up against many free mods which function well, and will need to work around four times harder to generate enough interest to make this work, even if the Devteam grant their blessing.

Good luck. I mean that; you'll need it. And if you make the grade I'll be watching you closely. I'm sure you have it in you to surprise us all.

I refuse to allow any of my groupAI's or Skirmish AI's be sold without recieving anything even as small as a penny (1.88 US cents).

I'm not a fan of watching other people profit from work I provide made using my time and effort which I agve for free.

I think he was asking about the engine - which, while bundled with the AI stuff, doesn't actually include it legally, AFAIK.

His proposal seems fair enough though, and it's not like he's trying to rip anyone off. The dev's have specifically licensed people to do stuff like this, and I imagine full credit would be given where due. :)

It could in fact help the project, not least by acting as free advertising.

He will not sell Spring, only the content of his mod.
Of course, it's natural to pack freely the Spring engine with it.

AF wrote:I refuse to allow any of my groupAI's or Skirmish AI's be sold without recieving anything even as small as a penny (1.88 US cents).

I'm not a fan of watching other people profit from work I provide made using my time and effort which I agve for free.

Your group AI use Spring header no? So it have to be GPL, thus it's free, thus you can't refuse anyone to pack it with his software.

If he make Professional content, it's normal that it can sell it. If it's good enough, that can surely bring more people and more developper for Spring.
If he make change to the engine, or AI, it's good for us cause he will have to give the source with.

Mandriva, Suse, Redhat, all make money with free software too. And nobody considere them as thief.

Torrasque wrote:Your group AI use Spring header no? So it have to be GPL, thus it's free, thus you can't refuse anyone to pack it with his software.

Depends. The Spring devs presumably own all the copyrights, so they can give people special licenses, or license some files differently, to allow for non-GPL'd AIs.

In practice that's impossible tho, because you have to count (ie. ask permission from) all contributors, even if they contributed just a 5 line patch, too.

E: the only solution I see for AIs is making a GPLed dummy AI which essentially is a network interface, so that a closed source AI can then connect (locally) to that.

Tobi wrote:In practice that's impossible tho, because you have to count (ie. ask permission from) all contributors, even if they contributed just a 5 line patch, too.

E: the only solution I see for AIs is making a GPLed dummy AI which essentially is a network interface, so that a closed source AI can then connect (locally) to that.

The networked approach is overkill, since then you must muck with firewalls. There are many systems for loading remote code that is generally aggreed to not require the GPLing of the remote code. For example, modules written in scripting languages are generally not GPL-requiring. So your dummyAI could be a Lua interpreter that calls a lua-script, which may, in turn, wrap around a closed library.

w/e, I frown upon people selling my stuf and not giving back a royalty even fi it's a puny amount as a symbolic token.

That and why dont we force krogothe and Submarine to show their source using the GPL spring headers arguement?

Tobi wrote:In practice that's impossible tho, because you have to count (ie. ask permission from) all contributors, even if they contributed just a 5 line patch, too.

Hm. Don't you only have to ask all contributors to that file? As long as the file's still available under the GPL, you can link it to any other GPL'd file (or #include it) without difficulty.

In other words, I think each file is a separate "work" and, effectively, licensed independently. But I can't remember for sure.

AF: Presumably to avoid community drama. And note that while they can sell your GPL-licensed stuff without giving you money, they do still have to credit you, and do still have to keep it GPL'd. So they can't claim they wrote your AI, for example, or prevent people from distributing or viewing any modifications they made. It actually works out fairly well, especially since you're the sole contributor to NTAI (right?) so you can negotiate the license with them easily.

Well, a bunch of people (3, I think) make NTAI buildtrees.