Comments on: Looking for advice on open source licenses http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.php/archive/2009/02/05/looking-for-advice-on-open-source-licenses/ Thoughts on life, liberty, and information technology Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:43:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Chris G. http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.php/archive/2009/02/05/looking-for-advice-on-open-source-licenses/#comment-412609 Chris G. Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:36:13 +0000 http://www.sidesofmarch.com/?p=339#comment-412609 Unfortunately I do not know anything about open source licenses. I may have to do some research here to see if there is an acceptable choice for us. Unfortunately I do not know anything about open source licenses. I may have to do some research here to see if there is an acceptable choice for us.

]]> By: brian http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.php/archive/2009/02/05/looking-for-advice-on-open-source-licenses/#comment-412244 brian Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:56:49 +0000 http://www.sidesofmarch.com/?p=339#comment-412244 CSFBL will likely not be open-sourced -- at least, not in its current state -- but its successor, CSBB, will. Obviously, I will only expose code once it's practical that it won't reveal what shouldn't be revealed (e.g. algorithms that need more masking before being revealed). I wouldn't just air-drop all the existing CSFBL (messy and disgusting) code to the public; I'd only add things as they became practical to re-implement in CSBB. CSFBL will likely not be open-sourced — at least, not in its current state — but its successor, CSBB, will. Obviously, I will only expose code once it’s practical that it won’t reveal what shouldn’t be revealed (e.g. algorithms that need more masking before being revealed). I wouldn’t just air-drop all the existing CSFBL (messy and disgusting) code to the public; I’d only add things as they became practical to re-implement in CSBB.

]]> By: MeddlePAL http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.php/archive/2009/02/05/looking-for-advice-on-open-source-licenses/#comment-412199 MeddlePAL Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:06:40 +0000 http://www.sidesofmarch.com/?p=339#comment-412199 Brian, two other semi-related questions: (1) If you open source the code to CSFBL won't current CSFBLer's be able to see all the hidden modifiers? People would be able to calculate greed factors, etc. (2) What does this mean for the development of CSBB? Brian, two other semi-related questions:

(1) If you open source the code to CSFBL won’t current CSFBLer’s be able to see all the hidden modifiers? People would be able to calculate greed factors, etc.

(2) What does this mean for the development of CSBB?

]]> By: brian http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.php/archive/2009/02/05/looking-for-advice-on-open-source-licenses/#comment-411944 brian Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:31:06 +0000 http://www.sidesofmarch.com/?p=339#comment-411944 Your curiosity is one I share. I don't want people to take the code and start their own fee-based service using it -- that's outside the spirit of the game and of what I want it to be. I'm not sure how GPL handles that with regard to service-enabling applications (which is, in a sense, what CSFBL is). Hopefully someone can shed light on that issue (without me having to go pay a lawyer!). Your curiosity is one I share. I don’t want people to take the code and start their own fee-based service using it — that’s outside the spirit of the game and of what I want it to be. I’m not sure how GPL handles that with regard to service-enabling applications (which is, in a sense, what CSFBL is).

Hopefully someone can shed light on that issue (without me having to go pay a lawyer!).

]]> By: MeddlePAL http://www.sidesofmarch.com/index.php/archive/2009/02/05/looking-for-advice-on-open-source-licenses/#comment-411702 MeddlePAL Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:57:46 +0000 http://www.sidesofmarch.com/?p=339#comment-411702 The nice thing about the GPL is that if a commercial entity did want to use your source in their own app if they make any modifications it has to be made available. If you go with the 2 license route, you do lose that one perk - which is that a commercial team could potentially improve your software, and make the change available to other interested developers in the community However, I could definitely see being more than a bit annoyed if some company did pick up the CSFBL engine and turn it into a profit making game/service. One curiosity: Say you went the two license route, and a company wants to use the source code to open a CSFBL-clone service. This clone service charges $X. Now, they are not distributing a standalone version of the game, but rather a service. They are making a profit through the use of your work. Do they need to use the "commercial" license, or can they get away with the GPL licensed version? How does the GPL handle such a situation? Does it differentiate between a service provided and a standalone binary app that is sold/licensed. The nice thing about the GPL is that if a commercial entity did want to use your source in their own app if they make any modifications it has to be made available. If you go with the 2 license route, you do lose that one perk – which is that a commercial team could potentially improve your software, and make the change available to other interested developers in the community

However, I could definitely see being more than a bit annoyed if some company did pick up the CSFBL engine and turn it into a profit making game/service.

One curiosity: Say you went the two license route, and a company wants to use the source code to open a CSFBL-clone service. This clone service charges $X. Now, they are not distributing a standalone version of the game, but rather a service. They are making a profit through the use of your work. Do they need to use the “commercial” license, or can they get away with the GPL licensed version? How does the GPL handle such a situation? Does it differentiate between a service provided and a standalone binary app that is sold/licensed.

]]>