Developing commercial game using Glest ? (team's opinion)

[hardyvoje]

Hello,

I'm insterested in developing commercial game using Glest engine as basis during this year. Ofcourse, some things we'll have to improove (also, we'll share improoved parts of source with your community), and we are thinking about package format (way to pack and encript all resources: XML's, maps, g3d etc. - but to use it runtime)...

game will be based on The First Exodus universe: The Mars conflict story
(http://blog.thefirstexodus.com)

what you say?

[martiño]

We don't have any problem with it, however since the game is GPL i think your commercial game would have to include the source too, but I don't know the details about the license.

[hardyvoje]

My idea is to publish code whatever licence says, and if you (Glest team) like some of improovments to include modified code into your project. The metter of reserved copyrights will be only design, sound and story.

Idea is to contribute to Glest project, to promote it (for instance: splash screen with Glest powered) and to sell story, design etc.

Price for game will also be low, since main development goint to be based on open source.

Something like commercial mod, but with some more improovments in engine (we need some to build our story)

I would like to have published source on your project (if/when you accep changes), not to separate open source projects with no real reason.

another tech question: is there preffered windows complier? what are you using?

[hailstone]

I'm not sure if it is something new in GPL v3 but from what I remember all source including linked libraries needs to be under the same license unless it is separate entity such as two separate programs.

From the GPL FAQ:

Can I release a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free tools?

    Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues concerning the licensing of that source code.

    However, if you link non-free libraries with the source code, that would be an issue you need to deal with. It does not preclude releasing the source code under the GPL, but if the libraries don't fit under the “system library” exception, you should affix an explicit notice giving permission to link your program with them. The FSF can give you advice on doing this.

So that's doing it the other way.

I want to distribute an extended version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it enough to distribute the source for the original version?

    No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary. Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the same binary.

    Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to the source code for *the programs they use*. Those using your version should have access to the source code for your version.

    A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure that improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you release an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release the improved source code under the GPL.

That seems to be what you're asking. The following might clarify.

You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?

    Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination that you link). The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions.

This is probably relevant also.

I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this possible?

    The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL.

    The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the license that applies to your copy.

[AF]

Another point being that you cannot sell GPL content. You can charge for its distribution but not the content itself as it is by definition free. You can charge for the CDs it was burnt on or the bandwidth used, and there's nothing to say you cant charge a trillion dollars for every megabyte sent, but there's nothing stopping one enterprising user paying then redistributing free of charge.

[dekki]

You can sell gpl content, the cost of distribution thing is just a common misconception.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
But while you can sell gpl games, you can not prevent people from getting it from other sources then your pay services (pirating is no copyright violation). You also have to provide the source when someone asks for it.

[Duke]

I think the spirit of open source is:
If you can pay for the software you should do so to support the developers, but if you don't have the money you shouldn't be hindered to use the software.

But of course if you think to many of the target players don't care about this concept you can still make your artwork closed content.

[hardyvoje]

at this moment idea is:
1. Source is open
2. Artwork is closed

On CD we can have source code also,
but artwork will be copyrighted and closed.

if I remember well, Glest team also copyrighted artwork, but gave it for free.

Thanks on discussion, I've learned a lot.

[Speedator]

Remember you have to release the source code on a website or have to send it everyone if he asks via cd for free. Source code on the commercial cd is not enough.

[hardyvoje]

yes, i know.

[tux-gamer]

Wow, that sound promising and interesting, i hope the game will more addictive and enjoyable, like warcraft with a lot of special efect and good story.
i will looking forward for the game.

ps: i'am sory if my english is bad.

[hardyvoje]

you can learn about background story at
http://blog.thefirstexodus.com

(check The First Exodus Universe: Mars Confict)

About artwork, you can take a look on renderings of hi-poly models for first game (The Beginning) that will be peacefull economical simulation on moon, (browser based rts). Artwork for Mars Conflict will follow main design leads and quality of The Beginning, some buildings will be, probably, directly converted to it, expecialy when we talk about civilian buildings.

[The_Flying_Pig]

wow, i checked the blog, the pictures show sum promising work although i know its not the actual screenshot, it would be nice if it could look that good in gameplay.

[titi]

With this commercial thing we probably get a polished crossplatform multiplayer implementation !!! This really looks promising!