1 (edited by astsmtl 2008-03-23 13:29:54)

Topic: New license

license.txt wrote:

Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Magnus Auvinen

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty.  In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:

1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
  claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
  in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
  appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
  misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
4. Neither this software nor any of its individual components, in original
  or modified versions, may be sold by itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMPORTANT NOTE! The source under src/engine/external are stripped
libraries with their own licenses. Mostly BSD or zlib/libpng license but
check the individual libraries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

With that being said, contact us if there is anything you want to do
that the license does not premit.

Seems like it's still not free! sad Everything seems ok, except item 4.

GNU wrote:

More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

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. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

OSI wrote:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2

Re: New license

We don't restrict selling it as a part of a bigger distribution like ubuntu and stuff like that. What we are restricting is that you can't sell just teeworlds and take money except for the media cost. This license was discussed in great length and input were taken from some fedora legal guy (can't remember the name). The SIL Open Font Licence contains a similar statement and is considered to be free by the FSF guys.

3

Re: New license

Thanks for explanation! Now I'm happy, no need for .theprodukkt big_smile

4

Re: New license

http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=OFL_web wrote:

The OFL allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and
redistributed freely as long as they are not sold by themselves. The
fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded,
redistributed and/or sold with any software provided that any reserved
names are not used by derivative works. The fonts and derivatives,
however, cannot be released under any other type of license. The
requirement for fonts to remain under this license does not apply
to any document created using the fonts or their derivatives.

Wow, I didn't know that. It seems to be ok for GNU/FSF though:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ wrote:

The Open Font License (including its original release, version 1.0) is a free copyleft license for fonts. Its only unusual requirement is that fonts be distributed with some computer program, rather than alone. Since a simple Hello World program will satisfy the requirement, it is harmless. Neither we nor SIL recommend the use of this license for anything other than fonts.

I doubt though, that they would call a software license, that had the same conditions, free.

Do you think "by itself" is clear? (I'm not a very good English-speaker, doesn't "It cannot be sold by itself" mean, "It is not allowed, that it sells itself")

What are you trying to prevent? That somebody sells your game for monies?
This is still possible by adding a hello world program to the archive containing the game. - Don't you think?

I just want to understand why you think 4. is necessary.

5

Re: New license

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

6 (edited by astsmtl 2008-04-08 11:19:33)

Re: New license

Here you can read an opinion of Source Mage games guru, ruskie.

7

Re: New license

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.

8

Re: New license

Okey, I'm getting freaking tired of all these guys complaining about the license. I begin to think that the biggest misstake I've made with teeworlds is to make it open source. Seriously.

First of all, the laywer guy was someone over att Fedora. Secondly. IT DOES NOT FUCKING VIOLATE THE DEBIAN FSG.

From the Debian FSG:

Free Redistribution

    The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling 
or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.

Now, tell me EXACTLY were the fuck our license breaks down in conjunction with Debian FSG.


/tired matricks

9

Re: New license

Yeah, I'm starting to agree with this. Finding a license that pleases everyone's particular needs or ideology has so far detracted more time and energy from our actual development work than we have received from people contributing usable code. Maybe the balance will change down the road, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with matricks at this point.

Can I ask everyone to stay away from the hypothetical doomsday scenarios and retain some rationality? As long as we're actively developing the game, most of these points are moot anyway. If and when we decide to move on to other projects, we'll address the issue of finding a suitable post-mortem license, and we can have many of these discussions then.

Otherwise, we'll be forced to re-evaluate the benefits of open licenses, since I don't particularly approve of some of the attitudes that surround this discussion.

10 (edited by Scott 2008-04-11 19:45:38)

Re: New license

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

11

Re: New license

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. The only reason why you should bother with point 4 is if you intend to sell the game with profit. The license is derived from zlib/libpng with point 4 being the only addition. That addition was made so people just couldn't sell the game and to communicate the point that if anyone should sell the game it's us.

I will refer to this wikipedia article about this whole debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed

It's fucking pointless, takes my energy and motivation for making the game. I wanna make a good game, instead I'm discussing trivial questions to non-existing problems. I've discussed this in GREAT LENGTH before choosing license that fits what we want. I don't care a shit about marketing! We have done almost nothing to promote the game. I personally don't care about it. If it's good enough it will spread itself. The game could have been closed source for all that I care and perhaps it should have stayed that way to avoid all license/FSF/OSS/whatever-junkies that I'm getting pretty sick off dealing with.

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

12

Re: New license

So let's leave the developers ( especially matricks, because we can see he's angry ). I agree with them. And I don't see sense in pointing it because if you would think ( users, of course ) for a while about it, you will know. Magazines don't make money from game ( open-source game ), you only pay for magazine ( and anything else that  they needed to bought license ). So again let's leave them, and if you still can't get the sense of point 4. just don't think about its sense.

13 (edited by Scott 2008-04-11 22:25:50)

Re: New license

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.

14

Re: New license

A nice addition to the license would be a clause that says something like this
"Anyone complaining on the license is explicitly forbidden to use/modify/distribute it."

15

Re: New license

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

Used to be very active waay back

16

Re: New license

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).

17

Re: New license

No, they refer to GNU/Linux disrtibutions.

matricks wrote:

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

If you don't understand that line read it again and again and again till you'll understand it.

18

Re: New license

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".

19 (edited by Soeb 2008-04-11 23:07:06)

Re: New license

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.

20

Re: New license

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'...

21

Re: New license

If you don't like the license, don't play the game.

kkthxbye.

Official Teeworlds map developer and community moderator
Administrator for the Teeworlds community Teesites

22

Re: New license

The license looks fine to me, completely free.

23 (edited by Miry 2008-04-14 18:32:43)

Re: New license

I personally don't see why a disagreement about this is taken as personally by the developers as to get so angry.  It's not the first time I see this happening, this seems to be quite common especially among some game developers, and it also makes us working in the packaging and distribution of Free Software among the different distributions tired. At least me. I sometimes just don't start packaging a game simply for not asking the developers for clarification of the licenses, or I don't share my point of view with them -which might be right or wrong, but having different points of view involved is always a good thing- because I don't feel like fighting (I'm not talking about this game in concrete, I'm not the maintainer of this game, I'm just talking in general). I don't see why some developers are so aggressive towards different point of views coming from maintainers, as if we were the enemies or if they considered we wanted to attack them or their games or something like that. Perhaps you're angry about other people having different points of view about the license, but it makes me sad feeling that some developers seem to consider us distribution maintainers more as the enemy than being in the same team, and that sharing our point of view with them -some of us have quite a lot of experience with different licenses- is totally unwelcome. Sorry if I'm being so aggressive in this reply, I'm just tired of this situations. Oh, as a matter of fact, Debian considers that license free, so don't worry about it.

24

Re: New license

@Miry: I don't know if you are aware, but there have been quite a lot of nagging on the dev-team about the license. It started of back in the 0.3.x days, when the license was a bit more strict, and not to be considered "free". When they then changed the license to 0.4.x, some nagging just kept going on...

I can see this from your point of view, but I think most of the hostility from the developers are aimed at a selected few, who simply don't understand the current license and just keep on complaining (hint: read post #13 and down).

From what I have seen, there have been no complains on or from any distribution maintainer so far.

Note that I don't belong to the dev-team and that this is just my personal view on the topic. Please don't correct me unless you have more solid knowledge than I do in this topic.

Used to be very active waay back

25

Re: New license

FireArrow wrote:

From what I have seen, there have been no complains on or from any distribution maintainer so far.

Perhaps you missed my complain and the one of ruskie.