diff options
| author | neodarz <neodarz@neodarz.net> | 2018-08-11 20:21:34 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | neodarz <neodarz@neodarz.net> | 2018-08-11 20:21:34 +0200 |
| commit | 0ea5fc66924303d1bf73ba283a383e2aadee02f2 (patch) | |
| tree | 2568e71a7ccc44ec23b8bb3f0ff97fb6bf2ed709 /pipermail/nel/2001-February/000226.html | |
| download | nevrax-website-self-hostable-0ea5fc66924303d1bf73ba283a383e2aadee02f2.tar.xz nevrax-website-self-hostable-0ea5fc66924303d1bf73ba283a383e2aadee02f2.zip | |
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | pipermail/nel/2001-February/000226.html | 166 |
1 files changed, 166 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/pipermail/nel/2001-February/000226.html b/pipermail/nel/2001-February/000226.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7cfbe342 --- /dev/null +++ b/pipermail/nel/2001-February/000226.html @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.</TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:svferro%40earthlink.com"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="000227.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="000235.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.</H1> + <B>Sal</B> + <A HREF="mailto:svferro%40earthlink.com" + TITLE="[Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.">svferro@earthlink.com</A><BR> + <I>Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:50:42 -0500</I> + <P><UL> + <LI> Previous message: <A HREF="000227.html">[Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.</A></li> + <LI> Next message: <A HREF="000235.html">[Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#226">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#226">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#226">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#226">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>><i> I just want to make sure I understand this right... +</I>><i> I use this source code to build the base of my game... +</I>><i> I do all sorts of work to make my own game built around this core +</I>engine... +><i> I then try to get people to play the game... +</I>><i> People get the game (for free, or at least, for the cost of shipping it, +</I>but no profit can be made on +><i> that...) +</I> + The last point isn't necessarily true. You could likely sell your game +for as much as you want. As Red Hat sells Linux. The GPL only insures that +the source code to the binaries in your distribution must be made available. +It doesn't cover the media you make, the documentation you write. People +don't have the right to redistribute your custom media, or your custom game +manuals. Downloading the binary still won't grant you ability to play the +game... you need the media. Which is where the advantage is in the GPL game +market in comparison to something like an operating system, such as Linux. + + In short, you can still make money off of a GPL game. Though I would +rather see companies release all their artwork under an opencontent license, +they don't have to. + +><i> I charge for the monthly service to the game, and make boat loads of +</I>money... + +><i> But then, because of the way this license reads, someone else can request +</I>the entire source code to +><i> my game, set up their own game that's exactly like mine, and charge people +</I>to use it just like I am +><i> doing... +</I> + If I'm not mistaken, the things that define your game would mostly be +located in serverside databases. Yes any modification to the server _code_ +would have to be redistributed, but you could create pretty unique worlds +and plots by simply editing some serverside database. Which entails +creating maps, placing NPCs, possibly even defining rules such as what +skills players have. + + I'm pretty sure these databases would not be covered by the GPL. All +that people could 'steal' would be your binaries. And that does not mean +they can carbon-coby your game. Your rules, mapfiles, plot, etc. could all +be copywritten material. + + And if you were able to modify the Nel code to make a better game... +then someone that uses your code could likely make a better game yet. And +the code that they created, you could use yet again in your own server. +Opensource has many advantages related to software quality. Imagine how many +people would be working to fix bugs and improve the codebase that is +powering your world, in comparison to a proprietary codebase. + +><i> So if all of the above is correct... what is the point of me making my +</I>game using +><i> NeL in the first place? When someone can just steal my entire game (not +</I>just +><i> the NeL source, but all of the "derivitive works" that are packaged with +</I>it as a +><i> whole), and run the game service themselves... basically, taking me out of +</I>the loop +><i> entirely. +</I> + I think 'derivitive works' pertains to modifications of the Nel codebase +(not artwork, media. documentation, rules, etc.). And I think its fair that +you would be required to release your source changes, since its the hard +work of others that makes your game possible, and they just want to make +sure that your code improvements to their product will be made available. + + Again, your game could have plenty of copywritten material that would +not be easily 'stolen', and in fact, would be the equivalent of stealing the +ruleset and media from an proprietary game, such as Asheron's Call or +Everquest. Which is prosecutable. + + Say I downloaded the binaries for Everquest's client and server (imagine +they were GPLed). I still could not create an 'Everquest' game and put them +out of business, I would need to create an exact copy of all their media, I +would also have to mimic their ruleset, copy their maps, etc. And doing all +that would be illegal, since its all copywritten material. + + I also could not sell CD's of Everquest, because in order for their +client to be useful it needs all the copywritten material that comes on the +Everquest CD. + +><i> If I'm completely off here, I appologise. I'm extremely new to the whole +</I>"open source" +><i> thing... +</I> +><i> My main concern is that I have a bunch of gameplay concepts that I want to +</I>implement... +><i> having nothing to do with graphical quality, or any sort of innovative +</I>programming... +><i> I have plot, and I have what I consider a "bigger and better plan" than +</I>anything UO or +><i> EQ or AC have ever done... and this license is basically saying that I +</I>have to give all of +><i> THAT stuff up if I choose to use NeL as my core code? +</I> + Where you're mistaken is that the GPL doesnt force you to distribute +_everything_ for free. Just the material that is covered under the GPL, +which would be, the source code to the binaries... and the source to any +libraries used in conjunction with them. + + I'm not a lawyer, by any means. But I have some experience in developing +opensource gaming software. I think a lot of people share the same +misconceptions, which is why I felt compelled to reply. I'm of the opinion +that opensource and games are a perfect match. Its really a no-lose +situation, if you're thinking of developing your own game. + +- Sal + + + + +</pre> + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI> Previous message: <A HREF="000227.html">[Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.</A></li> + <LI> Next message: <A HREF="000235.html">[Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#226">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#226">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#226">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#226">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> +</body></html> |