[img]http://i.imgur.com/MyrOL.png[/img]
with i300's generous help, i got ads mostly working on android ... just gotta fix up the size issues
[img]http://puu.sh/9Caa[/img]
Much better
I think it's still a bit too detailed, but it's better
Recently I was reading a Wikipedia talk page, and some guy pointed out that the GPL v3 shouldn't be considered a free software license as it imposes additional restraints on the software, unlike the restraints to ensure the software is free.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33500615]Recently I was reading a Wikipedia talk page, and some guy pointed out that the GPL v3 shouldn't be considered a free software license as it imposes additional restraints on the software, unlike the restraints to ensure the software is free.[/QUOTE]
Like what restraints? I'm not real familiar with the GPL, I prefer to use a BSD or zlib-type license.
I'm not really familiar with any of them. Is there some sort of page that sums up all of the most common licenses?
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33500776]I'm not really familiar with any of them. Is there some sort of page that sums up all of the most common licenses?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://sheehantu.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/free-software-licenses-in-a-nutshell/[/url]
[editline]29th November 2011[/editline]
LGPL is the best IMO
[QUOTE=DuCT;33500698]Like what restraints? I'm not real familiar with the GPL, I prefer to use a BSD or zlib-type license.[/QUOTE]
Some aren't GPLv3 specific but:
No DRM is allowed
You MUST display the GPL license in your program
You must grant a patent license
Modified source distributions must note the date of the changes (and possibly a changelog, can't remember)
Prevents Tivoization
Now, I understand that the GPL is meant to be free for the user, not for the developer (which is why I use the zlib license), but some of those obviously aren't needed.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33500960]Some aren't GPLv3 specific but:
No DRM is allowed
You MUST display the GPL license in your program
You must grant a patent license
Modified source distributions must note the date of the changes (and possibly a changelog, can't remember)
Prevents Tivoization
Now, I understand that the GPL is meant to be free for the user, not for the developer (which is why I use the zlib license), but some of those obviously aren't needed.[/QUOTE]
You also need to include the source code.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501006]You also need to include the source code.[/QUOTE]
That's kind implied for being an open source license.
Shouldn't free software licenses give you, you know, [I]freedom?[/I] Seems kinda hypocritical to lock them into not selling their product.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501006]You also need to [b]produce the source code on request to people you have distributed the program to[/b][/QUOTE]FTFY
Bleck. I was thinking about replacing the WAYWO November 2011 text with WAYWO and the programming king rating, but with an upscaled icon as a sort of in-place logo. I realize how hard it is to upscale from small images now.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/cv3NP.png[/img]
Should I use this for the video intro, or the more boldly-stated text-only look? I think this was a terribad attempt, but I tried for kicks.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501095]Shouldn't free software licenses give you, you know, [I]freedom?[/I] Seems kinda hypocritical to lock them into not selling their product.[/QUOTE]
..You can sell free software.
Fuck yeah! managed to build gstreamermm into a dll, no more access violation errors and no more deleting destructors exported through use of --export-all-symbols.
[quote][URL="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27714141/gstmm.png"][IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27714141/gstmm.png[/IMG][/URL][/quote]
Here's the batch file I used to build the .def file for the DLL, somebody else might find this useful, use this batch file as a pre-link build event and you're all set:
[code]@echo off
dlltool.exe %1*.obj -z %1temp.def --export-all-symbols -D gstreamermm
type %1temp.def | find /V " DATA" | find /V "??_G" | find /V "??_E" > %1gstreamermm.def
del %1temp.def[/code]
The FIND chain is to filter out deleting destructors (had to study the MS C++ mangling format to figure this one out) and DATA entries as they cause problems when exported.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501095]Shouldn't free software licenses give you, you know, [I]freedom?[/I] Seems kinda hypocritical to lock them into not selling their product.[/QUOTE]
GPL, etc., only require that you provide source code and that you allow users to make duplicates. They don't say anywhere that you can't sell copies of the software. While this might not make sense at first, consider computer games. You can GPL the code of your game engine, but use a less permissive license for all the art and game assets. Modders would have complete freedom to use your engine to build their own games, but they couldn't sell a complete copy of [i]your[/i] game.
At least, that was always my interpretation. 'I am not a lawyer' and all that.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XDBrq.png[/img]
I was working on a Dungeon Master clone. I don't feel motivated now that Legend of Grimrock is rolling around.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33501160]..You can sell free software.[/QUOTE]
Let's see Activision try selling their latest Call of Duty shit and hand out the source code. I'm sure that will go over well for sales.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501459]Let's see Activision try selling their latest Call of Duty shit and hand out the source code. I'm sure that will go over well for sales.[/QUOTE]
x_x
There's a reason that many games aren't open source;
The fact that the code is open source would encourage people to 'contribute' to the game by way of looking over the code and submitting patches. While this could in theory help the development for a game in a game where there is no looming deadline; however in the video game industry there is simply no time to spend looking over these patches and so it would just be a waste of time.
This is usually why the source code is release after the fact, it allows the game studio to create the experience they want without it being dulled by the 'designed by committee' problem that would result in just opening the doors, whilst also allowing people access to the code to do as they wish.
And finally: They wouldn't release the art as open source, and without it the source is useless anyway.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501459]Let's see Activision try selling their latest Call of Duty shit and hand out the source code. I'm sure that will go over well for sales.[/QUOTE]
What? That doesn't mean people can pirate the game.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33501471]What? That doesn't mean people can pirate the game.[/QUOTE]
It makes it easier when there's no DRM and you have the source code.
It works for the humble bundle, but that's because they have the "donate to charity" to guilt people into paying for it. But some assholes will still not pay.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501512]It makes it easier when there's no DRM and you have the source code.
It works for the humble bundle, but that's because they have the "donate to charity" to guilt people into paying for it. But some assholes will still not pay.[/QUOTE]
People will pirate regardless of whether or not the game has DRM in it, all you can do to fight pirates is:
A) Don't sell anything
B) Make your game a service (I.E. be valve)
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501512]It makes it easier when there's no DRM and you have the source code.[/QUOTE]
Yes because giving away the game's proprietary content for free is totally legal.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33501552]Yes because giving away the game's proprietary content for free is totally legal.[/QUOTE]
Shit, I forgot that GPL doesn't cover maps and models and such.
Carry on.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;33501627]Shit, I forgot that GPL doesn't cover maps and models and such.
Carry on.[/QUOTE]The GPL covers everything you want it to, regardless of what it is.
Jesus CHRIST. The auto video play thing just gave me a heart attack.
Why on earth does it even exist
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33501676]Jesus CHRIST. The auto video play thing just gave me a heart attack.
Why on earth does it even exist[/QUOTE]
Garry was dropped onto a 'Bad UX: Things you can do to piss people off' book as a child.
[QUOTE=danharibo;33501465]
And finally: They wouldn't release the art as open source, and [B]without it the source is useless anyway[/B].[/QUOTE]
Well I don't know whether I'd go THAT far.
Sure, content is huge, but source code is equally huge. It may in certain cases not even be overly difficult to simply remake all the assets.
In addition, the fact that someone could take you code, tweak it into a more marketable game, change the assets, and resell it is a valid reason to be afraid of using a open source license. Even if they couldn't or didn't resell it, they could still steal your audience after you put in all the work.
It may be [i]possible[/i] to sell a opensource product, but it seems to me like a bit of a nightmare. I'm in favor of tools being "free software", but art- which is what game programming is - maybe not. It's really up to the developer.
Also, to make sure we're all on the same page, I'm not talking about any license that could be called "open source", but specifically any license that allows others to modify and extend your code.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PTqvi.png[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
