Bad, bad license

[BozoDel]

I hadn't thought about that, but Creative Commons is mostly for literary work, right? It'd be interesting to get Rodot's take on this.

Literary... or anything that isn't code. Although, now that I think about it, only the copyleft CC licenses are bad for code, because they don't specify that it applies to code and not just binaries. People who use non-derivative CC probably don't show their code anyway, CC BY is permissive and CC BY-NC would be uniquely non-commercial but otherwise permissive.

I've taken a better look at the github and it seems that quite different things are grouped together. For example, libraries for making games and the bootloader. They could be separated, so the bootloader could be put under a decent copyleft license (I assume that's rodot's intention), and the libraries, which become a part of game binaries, can be put under a more permissive one.

[rodot]

Really interesting topic, sorry I didn't answer earlier, I was having a week of finals.
Just one question : as long as Arduino is "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike" (CC BY-SA), and as Gamebuino includes Arduino code, it should be released under the same license, shouldn't it?

[BozoDel]

Really interesting topic, sorry I didn't answer earlier, I was having a week of finals.
Just one question : as long as Arduino is "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike" (CC BY-SA), and as Gamebuino includes Arduino code, it should be released under the same license, shouldn't it?

Oh my, only the Arduino board designs are CC BY-SA. From the FAQ: "The Arduino software is also open-source. The source code for the Java environment is released under the GPL and the C/C++ microcontroller libraries are under the LGPL."

Now, what parts of GB code have Arduino code in it?

EDIT: Here's an interesting topic on how LGPL libraries can be used in a compiled binary without making the whole thing copyleft. Also, as far as I remember, you don't NEED to provide code (or in this case, LGPL code plus proprietary object file), unless somebody asks for it.

EDIT: According to their GitHub, They use the GPL v2 and LGPL v2.1. Their credits page is rather short too, probably because git allows one to easily find out who are the contributors. So a similarly short credits page, with a link to the original, would suffice.

[DFX2KX]

Now, what parts of GB code have Arduino code in it?

The the Gamebuino lib includes the standard Arduino lib, as far as I can tell.

[BozoDel]

I wasn't aware of some peculiarities of the LGPL. Instead of reading the license itself, I went for the Wikipedia page, which seems very complete.

The first thing is, unlike the GPL, work derived from the LGPL doesn't need to be totally LGPL too. You don't have to use the same license for your code, but it should be possible for the user to change the LGPL parts and recompile, so you have to provide
1- the proprietary part as a linkable object, or
2- the code, even under a proprietary license.

Do any of you guys know how to make such a linkable object? It seems easier to provide the code. Showing your code is not the same as allowing anyone to use it as they want. For example, the Ludum Dare competition demands that competitors show their code, so that some disputes can be solved, and yet the author still has all rights to it.

As Arduino istelf has shown, it's possible to have more than one license in the same repo, but it has to be clearly stated what is what.

Ok, let's split this in parts.

gamebuino_boot was based on official Arduino code (LGPL) and some parts by thseiler (license not stated). Regardless of whether thseiler's code is based on Arduino or not, his permission is necessary. When that is solved, if the bootloader code never gets into a game, I think that the best license for the bootloader would be GPL. However, if there's a chance somebody might use code from the bootloader in their games, it's best to keep it LGPL.

libraries/tinyFAT is clearly marked as LGPL which seems to contradict the CC BY-SA stated in the main readme. Also, it looks like it came from somewhere else, but the author's name isn't stated anywhere. Maybe it's official Arduino code?

libraries/Gamebuino: is there any Arduino code in this folder? If so, is it in separate files, or totally mixed up with Gb code? If you're going to LGPL the whole thing (which is probably the best option), then it doesn't matter. If they're going to use different licenses, then they have to be clearly separated. Keeping it LGPL is simpler, and it's permissive enough so that these libraries can be used in proprietary games. Sure, using, say, MPL would be simpler, but that's no good if part of the libraries is already LGPL (that is, gamemakers will have to provide compilable parts).

And... I don't know about the rest, but this should help figuring out if anything has to change there.

[treflip]

The gambuino has Myndale to do the coding and BozoDel to do the licensing... it's has a pretty solid base to build on!

[Skyrunner65]

I have a idea for License Agreements:
1. The "Have Fun!" Agreement
I'm not sure what the real name for it is(can't remember right now), but it just says that anyone may have the app and its source code. If they modify and/or redistribute it, they must give credit to the original creator.

2. The "Play & Study" Agreement
This says that the app and its source code can be distributed, but it CANNOT be redistributed, whether modified or not.

3. The "Just Use it" Agreement
This says that only the app can be publicly distributed, and the source code can only be distributed by the creator under his own free will.

If any of the above agreements are not followed by, the user will be punished as fitting to the crime committed.

I've got some ideas for punishments:
-Banning from Certain Forums
-Deactivation of Accounts (which would only allow you to download apps[can that be something?])
-Loss of your soul (This is just a joke)

Moderator Edit : Topic moved from "Gamebuino Games". Seriously.

[DFX2KX]

I have a idea for License Agreements:
1. The "Have Fun!" Agreement
I'm not sure what the real name for it is(can't remember right now), but it just says that anyone may have the app and its source code. If they modify and/or redistribute it, they must give credit to the original creator.

2. The "Play & Study" Agreement
This says that the app and its source code can be distributed, but it CANNOT be redistributed, whether modified or not.

3. The "Just Use it" Agreement
This says that only the app can be publicly distributed, and the source code can only be distributed by the creator under his own free will.

If any of the above agreements are not followed by, the user will be punished as fitting to the crime committed.

I've got some ideas for punishments:
-Banning from Certain Forums
-Deactivation of Accounts (which would only allow you to download apps[can that be something?])
-Loss of your soul (This is just a joke)

Moderator Edit : Topic moved from "Gamebuino Games". Seriously.

A is similar to Creative Commons: Attribution. FSF has some software-variants with that take.

B This is a license for some software, but not as common. I think the Steam API is like this.... I THINK

C buying into the source code of a game engine like Cryengine results in a contract/license like this one. Only Crytek is allowed to distribute the source, if you buy access to it, you are allowed to distribute the apps you made with it, though.

[rodot]

gamebuino_boot was based on official Arduino code (LGPL) and some parts by thseiler (license not stated)

I contacted thseiler to confirm he accept we publish a modified version with GPL license.

libraries/tinyFAT is clearly marked as LGPL which seems to contradict the CC BY-SA stated in the main readme. Also, it looks like it came from somewhere else, but the author's name isn't stated anywhere. Maybe it's official Arduino code?

tinyFat is made by Hennig Karlsen and release under LGPL

libraries/Gamebuino: is there any Arduino code in this folder? If so, is it in separate files, or totally mixed up with Gb code? If you're going to LGPL the whole thing (which is probably the best option), then it doesn't matter. If they're going to use different licenses, then they have to be clearly separated. Keeping it LGPL is simpler, and it's permissive enough so that these libraries can be used in proprietary games. Sure, using, say, MPL would be simpler, but that's no good if part of the libraries is already LGPL (that is, gamemakers will have to provide compilable parts).

The library uses Arduino function like digitalRead() but doesn't directly includes code from Arduino, so I guess GPL is a good choice?

Finally, it seems convenient to distribute the whole project under LGPL or GPL licence (except for the external libraries like tinyFat). I think I prefer GPL over LGPL, dont you think it's better? There is just one thing I didn't find about GPL: does it require the user to give credit to the original source?
Any considerations about the different versions of GPL?

[yodasvideoarcade]

I don't know about all these different license-types. I can just tell what I agree to and what not:

- I agree to releasing my game either for free or paid, depending on what I decide for each title.

- I release my source codes if I want, but only if I want.

- I agree to people modifying my work for personal use if I released the source code, as long as they don't remove my name or anything like that or claim that it's their work or resell or re-publish it without my permission.

Now how do you call this type of license?

It would be nice to make a little cash with the games, but that requires of course that the games are really polished. With "polished" I mean that a game is really finished, with title, decent sounds, levels, good gameplay etc. not just a playable beta.