30 replies to this topic

[lynx]

Due to the Free/Libre software nature of GemRB, some disclaimers apply. No original data can be redistributed, so for any game effort, the art has to be done from scratch (modifying the original art does not exempt it). The game data is the biggest issue, since the engine can be extended much more easily from our (coder's) point of view. Scripting, story-telling and dialog is also something the modding community is well versed in, so it all comes down to classical art.

The rest of the information has been moved to the wiki!

This thread wants to become both the resource list and the coordination point for future efforts, so suggestions are very welcome!

Edited by lynx, 03 December 2011 - 04:29 AM.

[Maighstir]

The project I'm involved in is of the idea that our full game should be sold and closed source, however unless I'm completely mistaken it should be possible to have what's needed for a demo to be free/libre while keeping the rest of the data closed, or to dual-license the demo data and code (libre as part of the demo, and closed with the full game). Much of the code will be shared between them, and sharing data would only make sense so that people playing the demo see parts of the actual game, due to the closed parts I'm not sure how much we can borrow from existing libre data.

Now, there's very little of the game finalised, but I believe we have most roles we need for the team, a coder (me), a rules writer, a story/quest writer, and an artist (though I'm not sure of his ability to create backgrounds and areas, a few character animations have been shown). We don't have people to do audio, video or UI yet; though I've done the latter so far. Video might not even be necessary.

I have done work on character generation and finishing that isn't far off, then there's everything else that needs to be done...

[the bigg]

The GPL doesn't apply to the program data, so you can in theory have a libre engine using proprietary game data. However, proprietary code can't be linked to GPL libraries (so GUI scripts must be libre, but art, dialogue, BCS files etc. can be proprietary).

That said, in this sort of situation it's usually better to acquire a license to alter and distribute the Libre code under a restrictive license (most usually, by entering some monetary agreement with the Libre project itself) rather than tiptoing around legal definitions. Of course, it's up to Avenger to decide if he wants to enter in this sort of deal.

Edited by the bigg, 18 January 2011 - 05:18 PM.

[lynx]

That's the only way, otherwise you're infringing on the GPL. Good luck with that.

[Avenger]

the bigg, on Jan 19 2011, 02:14 AM, said:

The GPL doesn't apply to the program data, so you can in theory have a libre engine using proprietary game data. However, proprietary code can't be linked to GPL libraries (so GUI scripts must be libre, but art, dialogue, BCS files etc. can be proprietary).

That said, in this sort of situation it's usually better to acquire a license to alter and distribute the Libre code under a restrictive license (most usually, by entering some monetary agreement with the Libre project itself) rather than tiptoing around legal definitions. Of course, it's up to Avenger to decide if he wants to enter in this sort of deal.

Well, i'm not the sole author, but my policy would be more sensible than one can get from commercial engine creators
Mostly because I (and the other contributors) did this for fun, not to get rich.
The goal is to have IE-like games on Linux.

If someone creates a properietary dataset that would work with our engine without any change (basically if it would work with one of the original engines), then they can do anything with it.
If there is something to be modified in the scripts or the engine itself, then a deal should be reached with us.

[Maighstir]

My idea is that any changes we might make to the engine should be submitted back to the GemRB project, and any Python code we need should be independent from the code shared between the original games (which would mean, yes, that we'll need to reinvent the wheel at times). And since the Python code cannot be executed without its interpreter, even in compiled form, I thought that such an arrangement would make it possible to have it closed even though GemRB is GPL; kind of how GOG.com uses ScummVM for some games they sell (and DOSBox, though its "data" is stand-alone 16-bit DOS executables).

The legal issues and licensing matters are probably a later concern, however I am all open for distributing at least part of the code/dataset (a demo) with an open license.

[the bigg]

The python scripts are ultimately linked to the C++ engine (NB: linking != interpreting), hence your game's python scripts must be GPLd too. The game data (including BCS scripts) is merely interpreted by the engine (not linked against), so it can be closed source if you wish so.

[Avenger]

the bigg, on Jan 20 2011, 02:01 AM, said:

The python scripts are ultimately linked to the C++ engine (NB: linking != interpreting), hence your game's python scripts must be GPLd too. The game data (including BCS scripts) is merely interpreted by the engine (not linked against), so it can be closed source if you wish so.

Well, i don't think so. If someone manages to rewrite all python scripts, without using ours, i guess, they are in the clear. I don't think the python scripts are ever compiled and linked. As far as i know, Python is a bytecode interpreter.
There is no actual linking.

OUR python scripts are under the same GPL as the core engine, though. So it requires some work to have a new one without breaching copyright.
To be honest, the goal with the python scripts was to provide a very flexible interface to the core (and not only for coding purposes). The plan to delegate all d&d related rules to the scripts was decided for a good reason.

[lynx]

I think it's not just data, since they are engine bindings:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/g...nterpreterIsGPL

[Maighstir]

It was not my intention to turn this into a licensing discussion, save for the notice that for our project I'm not sure we can use freely available art (unless its license does allow for modifying and selling it) due to us ultimately wanting to sell the full game.

What I would like to avoid is making the complete game freely copyable (a libre demo is perfectly fine), a problem which would be solved by having the data closed even if the code is GPL'd. The demo should ideally be fully open so that people are free to learn and build their own stuff from it, hence the idea to double-license the data shared between the demo and full game.

Edited by Maighstir, 20 January 2011 - 05:15 AM.

[lynx]

gemrb has no network layer at all and will not for some time, so it's not really a good choice for an mmo.

[lynx]

this was already mentioned and infact it is the only bolded link in the first post.

[matt]

Are there any efforts being made to create a new game? Any volunteers enlisted?