GPL'ed game script?
by Eric Roberts · in Torque Game Builder · 07/07/2007 (8:27 am) · 13 replies
Hello,
This is a matter of legal issues surrounding the EULA and software licenses in general, and this seemed to be the most appropriate place to post considering it has to do with scripting.
I'm interested in open sourcing my game that I've solely been writing in TorqueScript using TGB. I'd like to retain copyright, and ideally have a GPL license along with it. However, there's some ambiguity when it comes to both the GPL and EULA stated for TGB.
Notably in the GPL:
Interpreter FAQ 1
Interpreter FAQ 2
Seems to indicate that I probably can.
In the EULA:
Sections 2. d) and e)
Does the engine include "common" scripts?
So could I release both my "game" folder and the "common" folder under GPL?
If this has been asked before please kindly redirect me to the discussion.
Thanks for your time in advance,
- Eric
This is a matter of legal issues surrounding the EULA and software licenses in general, and this seemed to be the most appropriate place to post considering it has to do with scripting.
I'm interested in open sourcing my game that I've solely been writing in TorqueScript using TGB. I'd like to retain copyright, and ideally have a GPL license along with it. However, there's some ambiguity when it comes to both the GPL and EULA stated for TGB.
Notably in the GPL:
Interpreter FAQ 1
Interpreter FAQ 2
Seems to indicate that I probably can.
In the EULA:
Sections 2. d) and e)
Does the engine include "common" scripts?
So could I release both my "game" folder and the "common" folder under GPL?
If this has been asked before please kindly redirect me to the discussion.
Thanks for your time in advance,
- Eric
About the author
#2
question here is: why do you want to release the common directory, if its alredy included in every install of TGB?... have you made any mods out of it?... if so, i guess you CANNOT distribute it... but i might be wrong anyway.
07/07/2007 (10:04 am)
I dont know about the "common" folder, but you can distribute your entire "game" folder of you want.question here is: why do you want to release the common directory, if its alredy included in every install of TGB?... have you made any mods out of it?... if so, i guess you CANNOT distribute it... but i might be wrong anyway.
#3
Distribution of the /game dir, like Ehrlichmann says, is fine. Re-issuing our TorqueScript code under a new license is not.
07/07/2007 (10:13 am)
Big difference between distributing (under our EULA) and re-licensing the files under GPL.Distribution of the /game dir, like Ehrlichmann says, is fine. Re-issuing our TorqueScript code under a new license is not.
#4
I suppose the question now remains - am I still allowed to GPL my "game" script folder (any and all scripts that I've written independently of Garagegames) ?
Does the GPL allow this? As far as I can tell - yes. But I better make note of this comment:
I would assume GPL-incompatible facilities includes the GG common folder.
If you think there's a more suitable license I'm unaware of, let me know.
Thanks all for your time.
- Eric
07/07/2007 (11:40 am)
Whoops. That was silly of me. Of course I can't (and most definately shouldn't) re-release the common folder under a different license. That just makes no sense and would be a blatent violation of GarageGames' EULA/Copyright/etc.I suppose the question now remains - am I still allowed to GPL my "game" script folder (any and all scripts that I've written independently of Garagegames) ?
Does the GPL allow this? As far as I can tell - yes. But I better make note of this comment:
Quote:If you are writing code and releasing it under the GPL, you can state an explicit exception giving permission to link it with those GPL-incompatible facilities.
I would assume GPL-incompatible facilities includes the GG common folder.
If you think there's a more suitable license I'm unaware of, let me know.
Thanks all for your time.
- Eric
#5
The GPL is a very strong license, and is commonly used inappropriately.
For something like this, where your code is only viable for the Torque Game Builder, a 'roll your own' license would make the most sense ... to me, at least.
This way, you can be sure to cover all the oddities of use within your license while still holding your copyrights.
Keep in mind, the GPL is not a protection blanket that keeps the code 'yours' ... the GPL is simply a cookie-cutter (poor analogy?) license that anyone can use, it's already written and it's written for a specific purpose.
07/07/2007 (11:53 am)
Eric, personally, I think a custom license written by you would be best -- a license that identifies you as the author of the custom scripts, and identifies GarageGames as the author of any code available in your scripts -- which then permits the free use of the code (where appropriate) so long as your license is included with it.The GPL is a very strong license, and is commonly used inappropriately.
For something like this, where your code is only viable for the Torque Game Builder, a 'roll your own' license would make the most sense ... to me, at least.
This way, you can be sure to cover all the oddities of use within your license while still holding your copyrights.
Keep in mind, the GPL is not a protection blanket that keeps the code 'yours' ... the GPL is simply a cookie-cutter (poor analogy?) license that anyone can use, it's already written and it's written for a specific purpose.
#6
I'm interesting in releasing the source to my game - even if it's only applicable to Torque Game Builder license holders. I'm interesting in wrapping this project up and moving on. It's not a large project, but since I am as of now planning on releasing it for free, ideally I'd like to see what other people would do with the source if available. I want to retain my copyright, and allow people to freely redistribute along with the source just as long as they include the whateverlicensehere along and it tells them that any changes that they redistribute, that they also must allow access to the source as well.
I have been reading up on the GPL to make sure it is actually what I would want, and that it is applicable to my situation, and it comes awfully close with the exception of the possibility of some legal issues (hence the post).
I have no intention of keeping the code 'mine' - but I don't want it become someone elses when/if I do release it. I'd like protection against commercialization (probably not likely to happen, but just in case).
And I've been trying to avoid as much of a 'cookie-cutter' approach to this as possible. LGPL is not something I'd like, but the GPL is.
Thanks for your input.
- Eric
07/07/2007 (1:24 pm)
@David: I was considering this - but seeing as how I have no legal experience (nor am I'm really paying for any legal advice) there's only a few options I'm left with. I haven't the slightest clue on how to write a custom license, nor how I would enforce it.I'm interesting in releasing the source to my game - even if it's only applicable to Torque Game Builder license holders. I'm interesting in wrapping this project up and moving on. It's not a large project, but since I am as of now planning on releasing it for free, ideally I'd like to see what other people would do with the source if available. I want to retain my copyright, and allow people to freely redistribute along with the source just as long as they include the whateverlicensehere along and it tells them that any changes that they redistribute, that they also must allow access to the source as well.
I have been reading up on the GPL to make sure it is actually what I would want, and that it is applicable to my situation, and it comes awfully close with the exception of the possibility of some legal issues (hence the post).
I have no intention of keeping the code 'mine' - but I don't want it become someone elses when/if I do release it. I'd like protection against commercialization (probably not likely to happen, but just in case).
And I've been trying to avoid as much of a 'cookie-cutter' approach to this as possible. LGPL is not something I'd like, but the GPL is.
Thanks for your input.
- Eric
#7
How do you intend to 'enforce' the GPL license?
The GPL offers absolutely no protection to you what so ever, the only way the GPL protects you is if you yourself file a legal suit ... the GPL would then be the equivalent of the 'contract' that the other party had breached, in which you are seeking financial remedies for --
The OSF and other organizations that support the GPL may possibly help you, but it's extremely unlikely that they would fork over legal resources for this, especially due to it's special circumstances, etc.
Also, even if you released it under the GPL, you could not protect it from being commercialized or used inappropriately ... once you put the code out there, it's out there ...
Take for example this scenerio;
You release your code
I download your code
I read your code
I go, 'Oh, its GPL ... crap, gotta rewrite it myself'
I read your code again
I read your code once more
I make a mental note of the process you used
I open a script editor and start typing
I have the exact same outcome that you had as an end result
My copy is mine, your copy is yours
Now ... in this situation, I can take all the logic you used in your code ... and re-use it in my own code ... and you can't do anything about it ... on top of that, there's no way for you to tell that I didn't write the code myself to begin with ...
The GPL is only really good for protecting large things, source code bases such as OpenOffice and Pidgin ... where ... basically, it would be near impossible to 'read the code, and repeat' without doing a crap load of copy/pasting ... in this case, the original authors code (the code you copied) is now being introduced into your own project (the code you pasted) and you are now using GPL'd source ...
Hope this makes sense ...
Also, try to keep in mind ... large corporations such as Microsoft, Apple and IBM have been trying for years to figure out the best way to prevent people from copying there code ... and they still haven't come to a good conclusion ... the only real way that Microsoft prevents people who have access to the Windows Source from making there own OS's is by requiring the other parties to sign a non-compete contract, along with an non-disclosure contract and a few other things ... these contracts prohibit the other parties from a) making an OS that has any similarity at all to Windows, and b) telling anyone about the proprietary guts of the source they are reviewing ...
Microsoft also limits the source the other party has access too, for example, a third-party hardware vendor may have access to the source for the hardware driver layer but not to the windows kernel or core windowing code ...
So ... basically ... your attemping to protect something that, once it's out, it's out ...
There is no real protection, and such licenses are merely formalities and prevent the 'good people of the world' from abusing your work -- however, as we all know, most 'corporations' are not the 'good people of the world' ... so your protection is nil.
And yes, I know ... this post reads like a back handed stab at all the things I personally hold dear to my heart (Open Source Software) --
07/07/2007 (1:39 pm)
Eric, well, your first statement brings up an odd question ...How do you intend to 'enforce' the GPL license?
The GPL offers absolutely no protection to you what so ever, the only way the GPL protects you is if you yourself file a legal suit ... the GPL would then be the equivalent of the 'contract' that the other party had breached, in which you are seeking financial remedies for --
The OSF and other organizations that support the GPL may possibly help you, but it's extremely unlikely that they would fork over legal resources for this, especially due to it's special circumstances, etc.
Also, even if you released it under the GPL, you could not protect it from being commercialized or used inappropriately ... once you put the code out there, it's out there ...
Take for example this scenerio;
You release your code
I download your code
I read your code
I go, 'Oh, its GPL ... crap, gotta rewrite it myself'
I read your code again
I read your code once more
I make a mental note of the process you used
I open a script editor and start typing
I have the exact same outcome that you had as an end result
My copy is mine, your copy is yours
Now ... in this situation, I can take all the logic you used in your code ... and re-use it in my own code ... and you can't do anything about it ... on top of that, there's no way for you to tell that I didn't write the code myself to begin with ...
The GPL is only really good for protecting large things, source code bases such as OpenOffice and Pidgin ... where ... basically, it would be near impossible to 'read the code, and repeat' without doing a crap load of copy/pasting ... in this case, the original authors code (the code you copied) is now being introduced into your own project (the code you pasted) and you are now using GPL'd source ...
Hope this makes sense ...
Also, try to keep in mind ... large corporations such as Microsoft, Apple and IBM have been trying for years to figure out the best way to prevent people from copying there code ... and they still haven't come to a good conclusion ... the only real way that Microsoft prevents people who have access to the Windows Source from making there own OS's is by requiring the other parties to sign a non-compete contract, along with an non-disclosure contract and a few other things ... these contracts prohibit the other parties from a) making an OS that has any similarity at all to Windows, and b) telling anyone about the proprietary guts of the source they are reviewing ...
Microsoft also limits the source the other party has access too, for example, a third-party hardware vendor may have access to the source for the hardware driver layer but not to the windows kernel or core windowing code ...
So ... basically ... your attemping to protect something that, once it's out, it's out ...
There is no real protection, and such licenses are merely formalities and prevent the 'good people of the world' from abusing your work -- however, as we all know, most 'corporations' are not the 'good people of the world' ... so your protection is nil.
And yes, I know ... this post reads like a back handed stab at all the things I personally hold dear to my heart (Open Source Software) --
#8
07/07/2007 (1:42 pm)
Side note -- the microsoft info ... relates to the topic by showing how a company who is willingly and forcefully trying to prevent another entity from profiting from the work ... goes about doing it -- in this case, it relates to your wish for people not to use your code in commercial products and profit from your work without crediting you or providing you with fair share.
#9
My "protection" would be some form of protection - no matter how insignificant. I can't imagine too many people looking at the code anyway in the first place (if it all).
And I don't really want to discuss "my protection" when it comes to a possible violation of the GPL. I'm sure there are tons of discussions online elsewhere that discussion what sort of "protection" you get from releasing under a GPL.
I'm just interested in the legalities between the TGB EULA and any Open source licenses, and what I can do best legally for me and without harm to GG.
- Eric
07/07/2007 (4:18 pm)
I have no problems with sharing ideas and/or letting someone else learn from my code and apply it themselves. I'm all for sharing ideas, regardless of a commercial outcome. You're right, there is nothing stopping anyone from copy/pasting chunks of code and attempting to patch it all together, but that's a given for any open source product.My "protection" would be some form of protection - no matter how insignificant. I can't imagine too many people looking at the code anyway in the first place (if it all).
And I don't really want to discuss "my protection" when it comes to a possible violation of the GPL. I'm sure there are tons of discussions online elsewhere that discussion what sort of "protection" you get from releasing under a GPL.
I'm just interested in the legalities between the TGB EULA and any Open source licenses, and what I can do best legally for me and without harm to GG.
- Eric
#11
The software link on the site directs to the GPL.
Thank you though :).
- Eric
07/07/2007 (8:43 pm)
Creative Commons (AFAIK) cover only for media (sounds, music, art). I was looking into it for the media of the game, but I'm more concerned about the code right now.The software link on the site directs to the GPL.
Thank you though :).
- Eric
#12
Stephen Zepp's original response is accurate. Our EULA does not allow source written by GG to be released under GPL. You may do as Stephen says and "write around" the original source with a help file to demonstrate how to make your game once a user has Torque. So, you can take that as the "GG answer" for now. If you'd like to take a stab at a custom license, I'd be willing to review it at least once.
07/08/2007 (7:16 pm)
@ Eric:Stephen Zepp's original response is accurate. Our EULA does not allow source written by GG to be released under GPL. You may do as Stephen says and "write around" the original source with a help file to demonstrate how to make your game once a user has Torque. So, you can take that as the "GG answer" for now. If you'd like to take a stab at a custom license, I'd be willing to review it at least once.
#13
Thank you for your kind consideration. I'll keep note of it and send you (if) anything I may or may not change when/if I decide to go down this path. Right now I still have quite a bit of polishing to do, but if I plan on making it open source, I figured I'd better clean up the code a little too.
Thank you all for your input and help.
- Eric
07/09/2007 (2:11 pm)
@Brett:Thank you for your kind consideration. I'll keep note of it and send you (if) anything I may or may not change when/if I decide to go down this path. Right now I still have quite a bit of polishing to do, but if I plan on making it open source, I figured I'd better clean up the code a little too.
Thank you all for your input and help.
- Eric
Torque 3D Owner Stephen Zepp
One way you could probably do this and be within the spirit of the EULA would be to consolidate all of your TorqueScript (that you write, or modify) into separate files, and release those files under GPL, and provide a help file for making changes to the TorqueScript code provided with the demo.
Again, don't take the above as "GarageGames said I could do this"--I'm simply trying to explain a scenario that might protect your own TorqueScript without violating our copyrights.