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

[Sal]

> 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