Under what license will it be released?

[oskar669]

Well, since there is no cvs or tarball, it's already obvious it's not going to be open source.

Have you considered releasing it under GPL? Or open the source code (since you don't need to go open source to open the... source... code...)

hehe

Best emoticon ever...

What's the gain in keeping it closed?

---

I hope the reason for not releasing a development version is because it really isn't playable yet. You could get a lot of feedback right now. I just know that the programs/games I enjoy the most are those build with a huge community effort. Reaper - which is a non-expiring shareware digital-audio workstation has become - by taking the suggestions of the community very seriously - an audio workstation that puts its competitors that have been around for over a decade, run by million-dollar companies to shame.

Nexuiz and Warsow are two great examples for games that have made it by serving the community.

I think there is great potential in involving the community more in the development process. - this has nothing much to do with licensing any more. But WTH

[janwas]

Hello and thanks for your interest!

Well, since there is no cvs or tarball, it's already obvious it's not going to be open source.

Have you considered releasing it under GPL? Or open the source code (since you don't need to go open source to open the... source... code...)

The programmers are sympathetic to open source and are indeed wanting to open the code. However, that can't happen with the entire codebase for security reasons.

We've come up with the following plan: releasing a open source playable/moddable version, and a separate, closed-source, slightly modified secure version for online play.

I hope the reason for not releasing a development version is because it really isn't playable yet. You could get a lot of feedback right now. I just know that the programs/games I enjoy the most are those build with a huge community effort. Reaper - which is a non-expiring shareware digital-audio workstation has become - by taking the suggestions of the community very seriously - an audio workstation that puts its competitors that have been around for over a decade, run by million-dollar companies to shame.

Nexuiz and Warsow are two great examples for games that have made it by serving the community.

That is indeed our goal We have valued community involvement from the start.

The main thing holding up an early release/beta program is that we've been wanting to improve the netcode first (moving from sockets to ENet to allow NAT punchthrough and fixing desync issues). This has gotten off to a slow start, but we'll get there.

Cheers!

[Kimball]

To my knowledge, most of the game will be open source. Only the game engine itself will be closed due to the ability to modify and release the game engine and call it your own. Aside from that, you could theoretically create your own RTS game with your own UI and everything using the release.

The main reason for not releasing a beta or pre-release is because the game simply isn't finished. There are lots of units and such to be made, and the way the game runs itself hasn't been perfected yet. Not only will the game be released "when it's done", but the beta will be available "when it's ready".

[qubodup]

The programmers are sympathetic to open source and are indeed wanting to open the code. However, that can't happen with the entire codebase for security reasons.

You probably know of the argumentation point "being open makes it easy to find security flaws". Having the source closed won't make cheating impossible, the only thing which I believe effectively can protect the game from cheaters is keeping the critical computations on the server. - I am a non-programmer though and might be misinformed/biased.

Great to hear that you're open-source friendly!

We've come up with the following plan: releasing a open source playable/moddable version, and a separate, closed-source, slightly modified secure version for online play.

Interesting plan. But I can imagine that some open-source freaks would add networking to the free software version (might split community maybe?)

To my knowledge, most of the game will be open source. Only the game engine itself will be closed due to the ability to modify and release the game engine and call it your own. Aside from that, you could theoretically create your own RTS game with your own UI and everything using the release.

A game consists of the game engine and gfx and sfx (and levels and text). If you're right that would mean that the non-code part of the game would be open source...

I don't see why the argumentation point 'game could be released under other name' frightens so many. You know that the license would have to be the same?

The main reason for not releasing a beta or pre-release is because the game simply isn't finished. There are lots of units and such to be made, and the way the game runs itself hasn't been perfected yet. Not only will the game be released "when it's done", but the beta will be available "when it's ready".

Betas and pre-releases are for not-finished games.. Units and game functions and balancing and missions are not important for pre-releases. Pre-releases are intended for the devs to get some feedback, since there's always something they can't see which the players can. (My opinion of course)

What will be the content's (media: gfx, sfx, levels etc) license? have you concidered one of the creative commons licenses? I (and many others) discourage the use of non-commercial or non-derivate creative commons licenses.. [i'm sorry if this question is anwered somewhere, I have no time right now to search, ignore if you think that I will find it]

Regards, qubodup

[janwas]

You probably know of the argumentation point "being open makes it easy to find security flaws".

heh. By that reasoning, we don't need or want to be open because one gaping security flaw is already apparent: the client has to be trusted, where the military definition of "trusted" applies (viz. someone can screw the pooch).

On the one hand, we have the lockstep simulation model (used by most RTSes) requiring all clients to know everything, and on the other hand we have the client hiding information from the player to prevent them from gaining a gameplay advantage. Obviously this can't be secure because the player can influence or even control the client.

Interesting plan. But I can imagine that some open-source freaks would add networking to the free software version (might split community maybe?)

If people manage to make the source code release network-compatible with the secured version, thus exposing all honest players to rampant cheating, may shame be heaped upon them.

Consider the secure version to be an extra effort - a bonus - to increase the chance of 'clean' online play for everyone using it. Of course people can do with the source code what they wish, but we'd be very disappointed if they were to take advantage of the source code availability to cause harm to the community.

What will be the content's (media: gfx, sfx, levels etc) license?

I don't believe we have a final word on that yet. While we had planned ahead on the source code side and all signed off on an agreement that grants WFG certain rights, I don't think that's been done on the art side. In the worst case, every contributor would have to be contacted and convinced, which may be difficult.

Cheers!

Jan

[feneur]

You probably know of the argumentation point "being open makes it easy to find security flaws". Having the source closed won't make cheating impossible, the only thing which I believe effectively can protect the game from cheaters is keeping the critical computations on the server. - I am a non-programmer though and might be misinformed/biased.

I'm not a programmer so I don't understand it very much, but there are ideas on how to make it difficult to cheat. Few things are of course impossible, but I trust them to make it difficult enough to encourage most people to try to break it.

Interesting plan. But I can imagine that some open-source freaks would add networking to the free software version (might split community maybe?)

Well, while that is possible I can't see the value of doing so. Would have to be freaks then I guess

Apart from being "more open source" the only (unless they'd add other things) difference between the two versions would be the possibility to cheat, or perhaps possibly less risk of cheating depending on how such individuals would think about it.

True, there might be a risk that the community would split, but personally I don't think that the number of people who would prefer such a version is large enough to make an impact on the general community.

Even in such a case it wouldn't be much of a problem to us. It might be negative to the community, but our goals with this game is more about creating a great game, and making people aware of the history of this time period, than getting as much attention to our own efforts as possible or anything like that

A game consists of the game engine and gfx and sfx (and levels and text). If you're right that would mean that the non-code part of the game would be open source...

That was said by a member of our Art team, so please forgive him for not knowing everything about the code. I don't know the exact details, but of course it's the engine that will be released as open source, just not all of it.

Betas and pre-releases are for not-finished games.. Units and game functions and balancing and missions are not important for pre-releases. Pre-releases are intended for the devs to get some feedback, since there's always something they can't see which the players can. (My opinion of course)

True, and of course we will not wait until we consider the game "finished" before releasing a beta, or whatever we'll name it, but still there are things we want to have finished before doing so. And regardless of whether or not the game is finished enough to release as a beta we do want to have the system setup to make use of the all the good things that comes out of it. As you state it's good for testing etc, but if we just release a beta we need to be ready to receive bug reports etc

What will be the content's (media: gfx, sfx, levels etc) license? have you concidered one of the creative commons licenses? I (and many others) discourage the use of non-commercial or non-derivate creative commons licenses..

I'm not 100% sure here, but it will most likely be restricted in one way or another. At least in that people are required to give due credit.

And let me finish off by saying that I personally believe that on a theoretical level any kind of restriction in distribution/reuse of ideas or material is negative as it lowers the speed of creativity. But I do also realize that most people don't like the idea of spending a lot of their time creating Art or other things and then not getting credit/someone else getting money for what they've done. So in reality I guess we need at least some level of restrictions on use. The people who create things for 0 A.D. retain copyright AFAIK, so as long as that's true (and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be, in fact I think I've read something along these lines somewhere here, but I'm too tired to check it up right now) it's not impossible for someone who's created stuff for us to release it under any license they choose regardless of what license the stuff released with the game itself carries. That does of course also mean that we can't release media under any kind of license without their consent as all they've agreed to IIRC is that we may release it with/and with the purpose of being a part of the game.

[Brent]

First off: I think it's great you're considering an opensource license. The community can use such topclass work.

But I do think you are not up to snuff on the intricacies of opensourcing. (which is very understandable, license-issues can be minefields). There are hundreds of licenses for starters, which can mean very different things, for end users and you the creaters.

I read that you fear people 'stealing' the game. With viral licenses like the GPL this is impossible. The 'new' game would have to be GPL too, and then pointing out that they're just copycats would be easy. Then again, if they're effectivily just redistributing, whats the problem? One of the points about opensource is that these things should be possible. If you just don't want that, maybe it's just better to keep it closed after all. If people cant effectivily do anything with the code/art, then no use making it OS under some prohibitive license.

About 'losing copyright'. Copyright is something that lies automatically with the original writers/artist. No action required on your part, ever.

I know many people equate open source with GPL, but that of course nonsense. You could choose BSD, LGPL or as I said, hundreds other or your own custom license.

I sincerely suggest contacting a legal advisor from (for example) the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/licensing). AFAIK they provide advice to developers for free for precisely these kinds of issues. Maybe others know of even more places to obtain advice (I'm not really into this either).