1 Reply by Scott

(26 replies, posted in Support)

Soeb wrote:

I just pointed that he is talking about distribution. However matricks will say what he meant.

And again read that line: "You are paying for the distribution and not the game itself."
I don't see sense if he talked about distributing in this line.

Hint: It reads "the distribution", not "distribution". Read again.

He was refering to the FSF Free Software Definitions. In that context the sentence has an ellipses: "Paying for distribution is okey, you are paying for the distribution (of the game) and not the game itself."

But you're totally right, matricks can point things out. Maybe he really talked about Linux distributions and just missed an 'a'...

Go to forum: Support

2 Reply by Scott

(26 replies, posted in Support)

Soeb wrote:

No, they refer to GNU/Linux disrtibutions.

The idea behind free software is a lot older than GNU/Linux distributions. Have you read the essay I just posted?
The FSF talks about distributing free software for a fee that can also be called selling.

Keep in mind why the FSF guys refer to "distribution" and not "selling":
The term "sell software" is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money is "selling"; but people usually associate the term "sell" with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use of the software. You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by saying either "distributing copies of a program for a fee" or "imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a program," depending on what you mean.

matricks wrote:

Paying for distribution is okey, you are paying for the distribution and not the game itself.

Ì think perfectly understood the line - maybe you should check wether you have understood it by explaining it - there's no better way to find out wether one has understood something than by explaining it to others.
Maybe I really got something wrong...

Hint: It reads "distribution", not "a distribution".

Go to forum: Support

3 Reply by Scott

(26 replies, posted in Support)

FireArrow wrote:

@Scott, when they say "distribution" they refer to it as a GNU/Linux distribution, like Red Hat or Debian.

No, they refer to the common form of distribution, that can also be a simple CD-R with just the software on it.

The Free Software Foundation has even an own article on selling free software that espacially matricks should read (due to his statement that I have not read the FSF definition correctly).

Go to forum: Support

4 Reply by Scott

(26 replies, posted in Support)

matricks wrote:

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.

Okey, again you not reading the license correctly. Paying for distribution is okey, you are paying for the distribution and not the game itself.

That's just knitpicking. Demanding payment for distribution is not far from selling. Actually very very close to it. I could charge $10 for Emacs or $10 for the distribution of Emacs. Absolutely no big deal and the FSF guys know that their products can be "sold" wink

matricks wrote:

EDIT: the distribution thing could be clarified, but if you intend to do something like that, you could just ask us.

I do not intend to sell your game. And if I would want to sell it, I would not need to ask you because your license allows the selling of your game (packaged with another game, for example) wink

I just like free software. Yours isn't, but very close to it. It's sad, but that's the way things go...

Only to clarify two things:
1. There would be no fuss if you would have chosen original zlib/libpng.
2. Your addition does not prevent anyone from selling your game, it only generates negative fuss that nobody wants.
3. If Point 4 is really just for pointing out that no one should sell the game except for you, a "please don't sell our game" on the homepage would have the same effect.
4. No one will sell your game, anyways because it's available for free. If someone tries to, he will have only little or no profits and stop the endeavour in no time.

Go to forum: Support

5 Reply by Scott

(26 replies, posted in Support)

Sorry, I should have re-read the Debian FSG before posting. Actually I wonder why they made a different definition for free software compared to the Free Software Foundation:

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.

Well, maybe some of the reactions you encountered are due to fact that the license contains this certain point Nr. 4.
If would have chosen BDS, GPL or something like that this would not have happend. And maybe you would have gotten more code (but that's just theory).

I wonder why you didn't chose those pre-existing licenses...

You should also consider that a befenit of making your software free software is support that comes in the form of free advertising. People liking your stuff will be spreading the word (me too). A game that benefited a lot from chosing a free software license was for example Nexuiz.

If you don't want that, make your game a freeware game and impose any restrictions you want. Tell your users what they should and shouldn't do.

I (and a few others) won't bother you again in that case wink

TeeTow: What do you mean by hypothetical doomsday scenario? The only hypothetical doomsday scenario I can find is point 4 of your license (and that is extremely hypothetical).
Trust me. No one would be able to sell your game even if that clause was removed, because you offer it for free. Nobody would pay something for it. And if someone finds out how to sell your game, just go the same way and make some money off it wink

Go to forum: Support

6 Reply by Scott

(26 replies, posted in Support)

matricks wrote:

It's mostly to communicate a point. If anyone earns money on the game, it should be us and not someone who just prints it on cds and sells them.

Well, but it's OK for websites, distributions and gaming magazines to make money from your game? If a magazine adds it to it's DVD, your game adds value to potential buyers, thats $. Same goes for distributions.

The most direct way money can be earned from your game is by offering it for download:

Example 1.
Example 2.

Don't underestimate how much money such sites can generate from you content just by advertisements. Probably a two-digit ammount of $ for each 1.000 Downloads.

Your current license does not prevent anyone from profiting from your product. Even if someone would put it on CD and sell it, he could add for example Wormux and it would be fine for the license.

What your license does prevent, though, is support from the Free Software Community (don't confuse it with the Open Source folks). For example, Debian won't add your game to it's distribution due to the license (it is a violation of the Debian Free Software guidelines). Since Debian is the base for a lot of other distributions, your missing a great chance just because you put that point 4 in your new license.

My advice: Remove point 4. Nothing bad will happen, you will get more support and appreciation, though.

matricks wrote:

Btw, that was a recommended sentence from some laywer guy smile

Fire that guy and get a lawyer who is familiar with free software wink
And let him read the opinion of Source Mage games guru, ruskie posted by astsmtl.

Go to forum: Support

7 Reply by Scott

(56 replies, posted in News)

frab26 wrote:

Yeah, but what's the license?

Is it REALLY open-source?

Enough so i could make an article about it on libregamewiki?

It is open source but not GPL compatible and violates the Debian FSG. I wonder why they chose such a license, espacially point 4 is weird:

4. Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original
  or modified versions, may be sold by itself.

Go to forum: News

8 Reply by Scott

(56 replies, posted in News)

What's with this new license? Espacially point 4? Why didn't you pick a free software license?

Go to forum: News