[Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.

Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:50:42 -0500

> I just want to make sure I understand this right...
+> I use this source code to build the base of my game...
+> I do all sorts of work to make my own game built around this core
+engine...
+> I then try to get people to play the game...
+> People get the game (for free, or at least, for the cost of shipping it,
+but no profit can be made on
+> that...)
+
+    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 charge for the monthly service to the game, and make boat loads of
+money...
+
+> But then, because of the way this license reads, someone else can request
+the entire source code to
+> my game, set up their own game that's exactly like mine, and charge people
+to use it just like I am
+> doing...
+
+    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.
+
+> So if all of the above is correct... what is the point of me making my
+game using
+> NeL in the first place?  When someone can just steal my entire game (not
+just
+> the NeL source, but all of the "derivitive works" that are packaged with
+it as a
+> whole), and run the game service themselves... basically, taking me out of
+the loop
+> entirely.
+
+    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.
+
+> If I'm completely off here, I appologise.  I'm extremely new to the whole
+"open source"
+> thing...
+
+> My main concern is that I have a bunch of gameplay concepts that I want to
+implement...
+> having nothing to do with graphical quality, or any sort of innovative
+programming...
+> I have plot, and I have what I consider a "bigger and better plan" than
+anything UO or
+> EQ or AC have ever done... and this license is basically saying that I
+have to give all of
+> THAT stuff up if I choose to use NeL as my core code?
+
+    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
+
+
+
+
+