Topic: Precursors, Open Source, GPL and community?

[Recon]

        I have a very basic question about precursors. What is you development model with regards to GPL and open source. Are you going to just use Crystal Space as a engine and have everything else copyrighted?

   If so I think you are making a mistake as a game of this size a complexity will prove nearly impossible to create with the resources you have. Many people have tried this before and failed. There are middle options that I think would serve you better. Go check out the PlaneShift licence  (http://www.planeshift.it/pslicense.html ). While this may not suit you, if you are realistic you should realise that to achieve the precursor universe you will need all the help you can get. and the more restrictive you copyright the less help you will get.

   I personally think that plane-shift have the right idea. By keeping copyright of all the content but making the code GPL. This has many advantages, and few disadvantages. The question is what are you gaols. Do you want to create the greatest space game ever, or are you trying to create a game development company?
   
   To make my position clear, If I manage to create a good solar system generator I plan to make it GPL. So that I can use all the open source resources that can help me and also so as many other people can benefit from it as possible. It would also allow other people to easily contribute to it as well.

   As a suggestion I would suggest that you make precursors a Non-Profit entity, with open source code and copyrighted content. The aim being to create a game for a community with a commitment to making it the best game ever while charging very little with all moneys generated being invested back into the game ( to cover equipment, wages for staff and developers ect.), this would also allow a community to form and support the game. Also it would give the game a long term survivability. I believe that most of the precursor team is currently in collage, when you finish your studies you will find it very difficult to give the time necessary to complete a project like this.

   There are literally hundreds of people who will contribute to a project like this if it is setup correctly. I suggest that a lot of though should be given to these issues.     
 
Regards

[Morgul]

Actually, we've done the rounds, and if you look at precursors' code, it's LGPL. The content will be our own, and basically what we'd be 'selling' would be the content and service of compiling the code and/or packaging it all on a CD with pretty pictures. (Downloadable version will be something like $2 - $5 once it's released.)

So yeah, we're one step ahead of ya

[whitelynx]

Well, the big thing we're actually selling (other than the content) is the usage of our servers.

[Recon]

Ok, does that mean that all of the precursors code has to be LGPL, cause that makes verly little sence to me and is going to create a huge amount of work. If precursors is going to be destributed like it's GPL, why not use all the GPL stuff that is out there. You can still have core parts of precursors under the LGPL and have no issues using GPL for parts of it ( I think, not a solistiter ).

Regards

[Rosencrantz]

Recon, I'm not an expert on this but I don't think you can mix LGPL and GPL like that unless the parts are independantly viable. What makes you think it's going to require a huge amount of work?

[contingencyplan]

Real quick, in case I decide to go to bed later:

Recon, if you could, go ahead and read through the text of both licenses. They are available here:
GPL
LGPL

Also, read though this article by Richard Stallman on why libraries shouldn't use the LGPL.

This is an important issue, so I'd also like morgul, whitelynx, and Caenus to read through these articles. I'll post what my views are on the situation as a whole later... maybe in a few minutes, maybe not till later today.

(Why Caenus? Because he's head of the art dept, and while he's not directly involved with licensing the code, he's still got a stake in how it's licensed, since that will have an effect on how the artwork is licensed and distributed - yes, even if we copyright and restrict distribution of the artwork.)

[whitelynx]

<whitelynx> as far as GPL vs. LGPL, keep in mind that GNE effectively is a 'proprietary software developer' even though we tend to do a lot of our stuff with open-source licenses whenever possible
<whitelynx> our end goal is to end up selling something in some form, so that we can make money to eat and maybe not need other jobs on the side
<whitelynx> personally i'd still like to be able to use any of our code in our proprietary products if/when needed
<whitelynx> for Precursors itself the current model we have in mind is for the code to be freely available (under LGPL) and then license the content and the use of our servers to the end users
<whitelynx> if we licensed the precursors source under GPL instead of LGPL it would effectively prevent us from using _any_ of that code in _any_ proprietary project down the road, even if we kept the original code (the GPL stuff) open-sourced

As far as the Stallman article... I'm not sure I agree with forcing people to open-source their code to be able to use a library. I'm all for open-source development, but I'm not really pat of the GNU community, just the open source community. I'd rather not start a flame war over GNU's tactics, but personally I prefer LGPL simply because it allows more freedom for everyone involved.

[Morgul]

I agree 100% with whitelynx. Personally, I see the LGPL as *the* license for freedom of use and code, not the gpl. Then again, that's me.