2 people working together to make a game using torque script, but one cannot buy it?

#1 Your friend will need to create an account and purchase a licence. I don't think it's allowed for you to create an account on his behalf and pay for the licence, if he doesn't have internet access. But the guys at GG may be able to clarify that for you if you contact them via the drop down menu (Company)->Contact Us

#2 There used to be a studio license where you could temporarily assign your license to another person but not any more.

If you want him to be able to help you develop then he would need to purchase a license (or you buy one for him).

#3 I think from what I read correctly, he just cannot make edit to the source code. Only someone with the license can access the source code, but your friend can help you with the Torque scripts, art assets, ect.

IE: You build the engine in MSVS, and then send him the .exe, you just cannot send him the engine itself.

Just what I'm reading, I think a GG Associate should comment on this to correct this if I'm wrong.

#4 It use to be where those team members that required C++ source code access to the game engine must have a torque license each, and as for artists and scripters that wasn't necessary in that case and just needed the game/ directory and everything inside of it. But I am not sure about the in-engine tools such as the World Editor, Shape Editor, etc.. being allowed to be accessible to non-Torque licensed users.

#5 Those editors are available in the demos as well as the ability to edit scripts.

If there is a reason that your friend cannot help you, as long as he is not seeing the source code, then I think the functionality needs to be removed from the demos.

#6 The change to the pricing came with a change to the EULA. The engines ships with full source code to the game and editors, so there is no sharing of a license. Previously, there was a binary that was available for sell that was dedicated to artists and scripters, but that is no longer an option.

Both you and your friend will need a license.

#7

Quote:If there is a reason that your friend cannot help you, as long as he is not seeing the source code, then I think the functionality needs to be removed from the demos.

I agree this seems like a bit of a discrepancy.

#8 @Michael: Thanks for clarification on that part, however, if I may, would like to expand the question, possibly a suggestion as well here.

I'll start with the suggestion:
You should add a FAQ somewhere to the site for the basics of licensing questions (like above) so people can just drop there to see if they are in proper agreement.

Now the questions:

1. So let's say me being the licensee, do not ship my project to a friend (not a licensee), who has TS experience from say, Tribes 2 modding in the past. He would be in perfect arrangement to still write scripts for the project, right?

2. From the artist perspective, can an artist who doesn't own a license make models for the project, as long as they don't get a copy of the project?

Just from those two, I'm kind of curious how one would release their project (/game/ folder) to say a beta tester team to find any bugs in the Torque scripted side of the project, if from what I am reading (please correct me if I'm horribly mistaken), they would all need licenses to just run a beta test? That would seem kind of counter productive to everyone is that were the case.

If I'm understanding you correctly, one would be in perfect agreement if they disabled the Editors (IE: Delete /tools/ folder from release versions)?

#9 We do have a licensing FAQ, it's located under Company->Licensing FAQ

#10 *facepalm* sorry, didn't see that.

#11

Quote:How much does a Non-Game license?

How much does the spell check? ;)

I think that section is rather broad. It could also be played in the original poster's case that his friend is just modding his game, as there is no definition of what modding consists of. Since scripting only influences functionality that is present in the c++ source code, I would think that any form of scripting would therefore be modding. I am not trying to be a dick, I just would like to see some more clear and concise licensing and faq pages.

#12 At the same time, normal mods don't influence the production and release of the final product.

I'd presume that an excluded 3rd party would be allowed to play with scripts for non-commercial or personal usage(a mod to make weapons fire 200 bullets at a time, or whatever).
However, if the person is developing directly with the developer, with the intention of helping develop the completed, final product, then that would fall under the need for a license to develop with the engine.

#13 Oh I agree with you Jeff, just from a legal view though, no definition is just as bad as having said nothing at all.

My issue with torque licensing has always been that it is rather too short to fully state what is and is not kosher. The license definition of modding in the current license is, "(e.g., add new levels, etc.)." ETC. could mean a lot of things, anything in a license that is left up to reader imagination is not a good thing in any way, shape or form.

#14 Granted, it may be vague and insufficiently spelled-out in legal terms, but I'm pretty sure everyone here is clear on the difference between modifying an existing game and participating in the creation of a new one.

#15 And I am sure that for the most part, people know it is not their money they are stealing when they rob a store. Unfortunately the world does not work off of assumptions and an understanding that people will do the right thing. I was just making a point that if there are specific rules in place that are inherently agreed upon, that they need to be spelled out. The current license would never hold up in court against some of the more vague aspects of it. It is much better to fix the broken wires than to rig them together with paper clips and bubble gum.

#16 Indeed - our nation is supposed to be one of laws and not men. Clarity is our friend in every legal instance. I am a big fan of GG and I would never want to see something like this taken advantage of.

Personally, I create a shipping build of anything I want my friends to test. They have no access to any tools, scripts or source code - only what I would ship in the final product (assuming it works correctly - lol). They are in fact helping me to create a game, but they're not creating anything themselves. You know, that might not be legal either. Hope I'm not violating EULA.

#17 I'm not saying you should make that argument in court guys - just saying, it's pretty clear what the intent is, even though the legal folks need to dot some Is and cross some Ts in it.

#18 Laws are only useful when common sense fails, reliance on rules over common sense makes people and nations weak.

Thankfully I live in Europe, where the majority of US written EULA clauses are unenforcable.

That said, even with my poor attitude towards such legal discussions that americans seem to constantly debate over, i'll maintain my own moral high ground... considering that ive seen torque projects posted in public open source repositories like google, i forced my co-workers to buy a now completely useless binary version of t3d just so they could work on projects. I even bought a studio license which is even more useless because I cant even re-assign the seat on my binary version any more.

#19 Hey guys, allow me to clarify a bit. Disclaimer: please read the EULA as the final word. It has final say (I need this because this thread will last forever and our EULA may change).

A lot of this does have to do with the spirit and intention. There are so many different cases we have to cover when we write the language. And while most people share our best interest, some do not -and for those cases, we need to be a bit vague to protect the business.

The reason this discrepancy exists at all is that we need to protect ourselves from the case where someone distributes our product in a way that competes unfairly with our business. We spend millions to develop our software and if we aren't careful, someone can abuse our desire to sell low cost game development software in a way that can harm our business.

Modding, is one of those cases edge cases that create a back door for that abuse. We want you and your end users to mod your games. That's awesome. We don't want someone shipping our product as a development tool that competes with us.

So here's a casual opinion on how I interpret the language. 1) If you are making a game and you want people to mod it or change your game. No problem. 2) If you are doing something that might be unfairly competing with us, then you should err on the safe side and ask for permission.

I know it's a pain, but the sales from your friends really help us. We don't have the time to chase down cases of "maybe" EULA violations. I'm also sure that in some cases, "maybe" violations may also lead to a sale. It's a fair price...if you guys are working together on a game, your friends should buy a license. We rely on it to continually update your purchase.

Anyways, I hope our perspective of the issue helps to clarify why things are the way they are. It's not that we intend to confuse good people which whom we share an interest in low cost game dev.

#20 Thanks for the clarification Eric, much appreciated.