The reason I generally use GPL for things i release publicly is that I don't want people to use public code for commercial projects without getting a license from me or contributing back. I know GPL is a bit more heavy-handed as it forces everyone, commercial or not to release their code.
If someone knows of a license that basically prohibits commercial use but attaches no copyleft restrictions, I'd be happy to hear about it.
I had been curious for a while about GPL and other licenses, and as I'm *probably* going to finally start an insim project I'd like to ask some questions that come to my mind.
Would it be possible to write commercial applications based on insim? I mean, even if I write all the code myself, after all I'm using insim, which is a part of LFS, which is licensed by Scavier. Could I make a commercial insim application and make money selling it to server admins without any permisson from LFS developers?
Something similar with websites. Let's say I build up an entire LFS related website. For this website I use PHP linking to pubstats and also insim applications. This website I run it on my own, I'm not going to 'sell' it to anyone. Do I have to release the source code used if use a GPL licensed library for either the pubstats or insim part? What about if I charge people for using my web (I'm selling a service through that web, not actually selling the web itself as an application)?
These are just things that come to my mind and that I'd like to understand about software licenses. I'm not actually thinking about doing something to make money from, but even if I just make a free of charge insim application or website maybe I won't feel like releasing the source code.
I wouldn't worry about insim because that's a protocol. I'm hazy on the legals behind it, but you should just consider it open (do what you like), much like HTTP, etc. It's openly documented and you can't make any additions or changes to it since LFS the only provider. Think of it like trying to hold the rights to the entire english language - it's not really something that's done outside of solely proprietory products. If the developers wanted to close it down at a later date they could (say by applying a licence to it - which they can do, since they own the copyright).
You only need to distribute the code (under GPL2) if you do not distribute the code in any form (be it binaries, etc.). In the instance of a website you're providing a service, which means you're not distributing any code in any form, therefore you do not need to make your code available.
I'm hazy under GPL3, but I'm 89% sure it's the same, off the top of my head.
So I understand that using code for building websites is something much more flexible than using code for releasing applications.
As long as people don't download your website (or the part that made use of GPL-like licensed code) you are not releasing a product, and thus you don't have to release the code. I think some licenses may have some workaround about this to prevent building websites with licensed code (libraries or snippets or whatever) with intention of making it a commercial "product" -i.e. people being charged for using its services-.
With standalone applications it's completely different as you have to release them to the public for people to download and install/use them. In those cases you have to release the source code if you used licensed code that states so.
So, if I build a website and code my own insim applications that I run in my servers (people don't have to install anything), I can use any library/program under any kind of license that allows me to use and modify the source code, without worrying about having to release my source code, because actually I'm not releasing anything at all, I'm just providing services that people use without having to install or download anything.
With most utilities for games, such as LFS, its usually better that the utilities remain OPEN and the source available so if the original author goes away someone else can pick up the reigns.
I suspect you would be best served by getting a licensing agreement with Scawen, etc.
It'd have to be a heck of a InSim app to want to pay money for it anyways.
That is debatable. What many people do is release the code to the public after dropping the project in order to let anyone pick it up, but they keep it private while they are developing it actively. I don't see any problem with that. If I were to release any cool mod for LFS I would probably do it this way.
As someone said earlier in this thread libraries are a different matter, and I would release any SDK library with a MIT or similar license, but an entire application is something that you get attached to easily and possibly you don't do it for people to reuse it, but to enjoy it as you originally created it.
Not really. I've been around this "game" (not LFS, but the racing sim world, plus others) for way too long. Some people are very generous (i.e. sdsether, etc. Scawen goes into this boat too) and let their hard work be used by others to create cool things with. Others aren't always a generous, and yes sometimes they prefer to work "undisturbed" (I don't disagree... I've got several InSim apps that will see the light of day at some point). However that being said, one too many utilities end up having the original developer fade away (boredom, lack of interest, other things, life, death, etc.) and that application becoming unusable to the community.
Thats not the point. The point is that if you are making something available to the community for the community's enjoyment, then you should be generous enough to be able to drop it out there. Sure there are a lot of people who just take and use (how many phpnuke were forked off the same codebase?!). But the utilities that are a) done in a more complete and robust fashion and b) provide more features/options are the ones that are generally going to be used by the community.
Personally I am of the opinion that if you are going to be generous then you should force others to be just as generous if they are using your generously open code (i.e. the GPL). Yes, there are lots of ramifications of this, but nonetheless, it helps keeps down the #s of just rip-offs because then the code is visible and people can tell. It also allows people to contribute back and make the original application (once its been released in a stable fashion) more robust, more options, etc.
Thats all concerning APIs and utilities. "Applications" such as say the CTRA server application/utilities or the "Cruise" server applications can be a completely different matter. You are essentially providing a service and you don't really need to release that, but if you end up deciding to stop, making it available to the community to pick up where you left off, etc. would always be a positive. In this case I'd want to personally make sure that someone couldn't "close the door" on worthwhile modifications which means leanings towards GPL license as opposed to MIT, Apache, etc.
Then there are utilities or applications that use exploits. Things like that have surfaced for a long time now (aim-bots in FPS game, the old 'color the track' in NROS, etc). Those things should be just kept closed. Make people spend the time themselves to exploit, etc.
Sure thats fine, until the next patch of LFS breaks it and you aren't anywhere around to "fix" it, or just don't want to "fix" it. Then effectively the time you spent developing something for other people's enjoyment has been wasted because its no longer a viable application.
I myself am wondering how I'm going to stop people from taking the code I've released and forking it over to something else. With the LFS World SDK, I don't mind, take the code and run. However with PHPInSim, I want people to make plugins for it, but also be required to make the source code for that plugins available to the public. The GPL is the most common way of doing that, but I also don't like the legal hassle that comes with it, as if you use GPL'ed code, and your program requires GPL'ed code to run, then that program must also be GPL'ed. But then how am I going to stop some one from using the code, but then not releasing theirs?
I'm trying so hard not to stifle innovation in this community, I want people to have an open code base, I want people to share their thoughts and ideas. But I fell that some of the products we are making is only going to be used on some elite cruse server and that will be the end of it. I would want my product to become the standard across the servers not only to allow interoperability of game types, but also to allow for plugins to work together and not despite each other (In the case of the button interface debacle). These are problems the developer community must assess, and correct in order for this community as a whole to befit from our contributions.
This matter is very personal, and you can't say things like "I do it this way because it's the right way to do it". I'm totally against GPL and similar licenses as to me they are the anti-freedom licenses. Yes, the source code is available, but you are not free to use it as you like. I'm all in favour of licenses that give you freedom to do what you like with the code.
Some of you are in favour of everything being released to the community. I'm ok with that, I just don't share that opinion.
Anyway, if I ever release something to the community it will be to ask for help and improvements in the coding style, I'm quite a noob programmer and I'm not gonna make anything worth like some of the cool applications out there I know that if I ever release code I'll feel more embarrasment than anything
I know that if I ever release code I'll feel more embarrasment than anything