Another thread about T2D license...

#1 Gregory, you are correct. The T2D licensing differs from TGE's in this regard. Anyone who scripts or uses the T2D editors needs a license. it certainly sounds like you guys will qualify for indie licenses. :) Thanks for checking on this stuff before proceeding.

#2 Okay, that is what I thought. Thank you for the reply.

#3 I hate to say this, but isnt that a bit mean? All of the TGE developers may only need one liscence and me & my friends (14 yr olds!) will need to go out and spend 55 pounds each, for a supposedly less popular development platform*?! (No offence to Melv & the team, T2D is perfect for me, and 2D games are sooo much more fun ;P)

If this is true I'm pretty curious to know why...

Just asking the question :P.

From the EULA:

Quote:(a) The T2D Indie Game License fee for the Engine is $100 per each programmer using or accessing the source code to the Game(s) There are no additional royalties.

Yeah, but TorqueScript or C++ mods?

Quote:Licensor grants Licensee a single 'seat' to an individual, a limited non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Torque 2D ('Engine') for the purposes of making source code and object code for an unlimited number of electronic single or multi-user Games ("Games").

That isn't very specific... It says object code, but surely the C++ fxSceneWindow2D class is object code. And TourqueScript isn't mentioned at all...?

* Look at "The Sims2" and "Half Life2", etc, etc, notice how the 3D ones tend to be the ones to sell big?

Edit: Fixed brackets ;P

Edit: Quotes ;)

Edit: No Insulting T2D :P

#4 @Ricky: basically, the logic is that with TGE, to create a full game that's worth selling, you'll eventually *need* to modify the C++. And that everything in TGE that's torquescript related is already completely open to the world via every tribes2 website on the planet.

As an aside, T2D isn't a /worse/ engine so much as a /different/ one, that solves a different problem, just as well as TGE solves the problem that it does. Different tool for a different job.

With T2D, you probably *won't* need to modify the C++. As it goes, if everyone in the world knew how fxSceneObject2D and friends worked, then they could essentially create full & complete games, starting only with the demo, thereby completely reducing the urge for most people to purchase a license. In other words, to program a lot of the game in TGE, you need a license. To program a lot of the game in T2D, you need a license. What language you're programming in is a little moot in that regard.


And yeah, 55 quid is a lot when you're 14. Them's the ropes, and garagegames gotta make money somehow.

Gary (-;

#5 Well put Gary...

The price for Torque 2D pales in comparisson for other professional development tools, even in 2D respects. Flash MX runs a hefty $600 if I recall correctly. T2D is much easier to use than Flash with some of the same commercial polish.

Even the industry standard for making 2D images is Photoshop, running at about $600 by itself... $100 becomes very miniscule :)

Even when not comparing to commercial level products... Paint Shop Pro is often subed out for Photoshop, it runs around $100.


On top of this you will be using a very professional commercial quality engine - that can still be used for simple and fun hobbyist projects- (in Early Adopter) that also shares the same scripting language and structure as Torque Game Engine, a AAA 3D Game engine. Its a much easier step into Torque going through Torque 2D :)

#6 And then there's GiMP and it's FREE! ALL SOFTWARE JUST WANTS TO BE FREE!!!! (unless you're in China...then it wants to be $1.65).

PWN'D

Actually, I just wanted to write pwn'd today and raise the noise to signal ratio.

#7 I think it's kinda of sad that "software just wants to be free" is a moto of the open source community.

Software doesnt *want* anything (you could argue that it's a meme i suppose). In general, the people who use the software are the ones who want the software to be free, why? because people are selfish and like getting something for nothing.

I'm not saying its a bad thing, but people *do* like getting something for nothing... Though (un)fortunatly I dont like producing something for *nothing*.

Maybe some developers are motivated by an alturistic vision, but I for one am selfish, and am motivated by profit. If you tell me that anything I write I have to give away for free... would I write software?

#8 I'm motivated by the grim hope that I will suck less in the future than I do now.

And the dimmer hope that I can work on a T2D adventure game editor resource.

#9

Quote:I think it's kinda of sad that "software just wants to be free" is a moto of the open source community.

See, that's the thing. That's *not* the motto of the open source community. And if you're going to use that line, at least make it "software wants to be Free", with a capital F; Free as in Freedom, not free as in Beer. That's always been the *big* misunderstanding that non-open-source people [and some open-source people] don't get.

Stallman didn't want people to give him stuff for free; he wanted to share and share alike, and originally, just have the damn printer *work*. The GPL implicitly places no restrictions on you charging huge amounts for selling software, or what you do with it. [As opposed to explicitly stating things, which it lays down for source reproduction].


Note that lots of open source people nowadays *expect* things for free [as in beer], but most people who live in the real world at least accept that that's not the way it's likely to happen. Stallman very much recognises that commercial software exists and may well continue to exist, he just believes that selling *software* is a failing business model.


Anyways. Please don't blanket mischaracterise the open source community like that, it shows a misunderstanding on your part, and isn't appreciated by those of us who've matured slightly past the rabid open source zealot stage [And more and more people in the wider open source community now come under that category].

Gary (-;

#10 *sigh* Wait until I tell them tomorrow ;P.

I still feel hard treated :).

#11 Hey Gary, I kind of get what you mean,

but Maybe the definition of "Freedom" confuses me.. If you mean "increasing a users freedom" such as having things interop seemlessly, and *just work* then i agree with you, if that's not what you mean by "Freedom" then i could use a more thorough explanation.




I dont mind people giving software away for "free", (heck, i wish everything was free, cept for everything i write ;) ) and i really wish software was "Freedom"..

but quoting you:
[quote][/quote]

I really dont know how software development can be viable (financially) if you dont sell it.

Anyway, i dont want to rehash the debate on free vs pay... we all have differences.

#12 @Jason: Free as in Speech vs Free as in beer is a well-known open source comparison.

Free as in beer is the free as in not paying for something.

Free as in speech... well, let me defer to debian http://www.debian.org/intro/free. Mostly, to me, it's the freedom to modify [aka fix] stuff myself. There's lots more to it than that, but I guess that what everyone wants varies. If you're interested in delving deeper, I highly recommend you take this over to a general linux forum [on gg, if you want my input on it :-)].


I assume the quoting me bit was

Quote:Stallman very much recognises that commercial software exists and may well continue to exist, he just believes that selling *software* is a failing business model.

Selling software, as a whole, is a failing business model in some people's minds, because basically you can get for free [as in beer], better software than you can pay for. Obviously, this varies with what you want, but linux [the obvious example] is simply better than windows for most of what many people want. Same goes for openoffice, for example. I find linux and openoffice to be far superior products to their windows equivalents for my own uses. Obviously your uses will also vary, but windows and MS Office are basically total crap, to me; not because I'm anti-ms [another topic, and importantly, different to this one], but because I find them unusably crap. Just because you're familiar with something doesn't make it good.


What Stallman's working towards in this regard, is *services*. Redhat give what would traditionally be their crown jewels away for free; you can download redhat for free off the internet, including redhat's site. Where they make money [and it varies, but currently I believe they're making a lot], is selling services; support contracts, additional support and custom development, that sort of thing.

Anyways. I'm also clearly a pretty rabid zealot, so take everything I say with a pinch of salt, and go read about it elseplaces. If you wanna get really scary hardcore, start with Stallman's "Free as in Freedom". Otherwise, there are probably better resources for the new-to-open-source. If you're interested, I'll pull out some more examples [and avoid Eric S Raymond like the plague for your first few texts, because it can be hard to pull decent content from his thoroughly opinionated... stream]

Gary (-;

#13 Software may want to be free, but most programmers want to be paid.

#14 The discussion whether working on open source is a viable pursuit is an interesting topic. But it doesn't belong here. And this thread has gone off-topic far enough, I'd say.

#15 Okay, one more off topic post: I love windows, and microsoft products as a whole. Why? because of usability. MS products let stupid people (like me, i admit i'm stupid) "just do" the things they want.

Linux and/or other OSS stuff may (or may not) be more feature rich, and better in any other respect, but frankly if it's difficult to use, then Microsoft products, the "opiate of the masses" will take the day.

And I dont think there is any comparason on usability.. maybe certain features of OSS are easier, but end-to-end, for the first time user, Microsoft is renouned for their ease of use.

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

NOW, getting back on topic, I wish it was easy for people to "pay what is proportial to them" .. i really feel bad that there isnt a better tiered pricing model in place for Torque or most other products, (tiered more than it already is i mean) to allow 14 year olds to pay what they can afford...

But unfortunatly, economies are not that seemlessly integrated. GG has to pick what they think is a good price point, and too bad it's too expensive for a bright 14 year old in the UK.

But think about the bright 24 year old in Bangkok Thailand. There, the average monthly salary for a CS graduate is aprox (USD) $350 per month. Contrast that to the average pay in the USA, which is aprox $5,000 per month. If you think the pricing model for a 14 year old in the UK is unfair, dont ask the opinion of 66% of the rest of the world.

#16 $100 is nothing compared to what you get for this engine. It's actually very underpriced. If you want to make hobby games without financial obligations, there are free (as in beer) 2d engines available and this issue is irrelevant. If you want to sell what you make, $100 is a solid investment, and so is $300 for 3 licenses, if that's what it takes to get the game done. How much time is that $100 saving you?

My $.02.

#17 Now I know why I don't write more high-noise posts.

#18 Back on topic, there is a subtlety with this license and a question that I believe needs to be explored further.

Josh Said:

Quote:
Anyone who scripts or uses the T2D editors needs a license.

This does not appear to be true, according to the license.

Ricky already has quoted 2 sections from the EULA, but here is a third to add to the mix:

Quote:
(e) Licensee may not distribute uncompiled script code which defines any Torque 2D-specific functionality, including but not limited to creating or mainpulating sprites, tiles, particle effects, etc, in any manner, unless recipient also has a license to the Engine.

This seems to indicate I CAN distribute a *.cs file as long as it does not "define Torque 2D specific functionality", which I take it to mean calls any of T2D's api calls on the objects....but CAN use my own created API calls. It appears the EULA was written with this intent, for it appears pretty specific. Gary's response indicates he sees it this way as well. Matt gave Gary a "well put". Though I don't want to speak for anyone else, it appears others are interpreting it this way as well.

Does this mean that I can expose scripts with MY AI logic for users to mess with, for example, as long as it does not make calls on the fxobjects? I believe it does.

Also what about the famous ScriptObject....is that off limits? Do I need to make my own? Or is that something more "standard" with torque Script and not Torque 2D specific?

--Mark

#19 Anything that doesn't use the T2D script API's can be distributed any way you wish. Both ScriptGroup and ScriptObject are including in both TGE and T2D. So basically if it would work in TGE, you can release the scripts to the public.

#20 Anything not T2D specific is open season [script-wise]. Any script that runs in TGE is open season.

Quote:Anyone who scripts or uses the T2D editors needs a license.

To use the T2D editors you still need a license. But the rest of it should read something more akin to

Quote:Anyone who scripts with T2D-specific objects and features, or uses the T2D editors, needs a license

On the other hand, it'll be pretty damn hard to script with T2D if you're unable to actually output anything beyond echo(). Working on T2D AI isn't impossible, and is perfectly reasonable without a license, but that's probably harder than you think.


In general, gg are pretty damn honorable and sensible about the whole licensing thing [if they weren't, that would be the death of them], so you needn't really worry about it. Just run with the spirit of the license [as we described above] as opposed to the word of it, and it'll be good.

IANAL [very clearly, NAL], and that last paragraph is absolutely not sensible from a legal perspective.
Gary (-;