Hi all,
For a variety of reasons, I'm interested in building a web service for running
Full Thrust games. The idea is to have a single game server
that could communicate with various front-ends, and provide them with
a consistent:
- repository of ship designs
- way to meet other players
- movement and combat engine
There would also be a (more-or-less rudimentary) web front end for
purely online games.
Yes, I realize this is a complex, multi-year effort, but I need
something to keep me off the streets. :-)
The whole effort would be open source (probably in Python, hosted by Google
App Engine), so ideally the community could maintain and extend it over time.
I am already in discussions on the FTjava list about the technical issues, but
I wanted to check here to:
a) Ask Jon T. whether this is allowable under the terms of the publicly
released rules
b) See if anyone else has attempted (or would like to help) with something
like this
Thanks!
-- Ernie P.
> Hi all,
Provided this is not for any kind of commercial purpose, I don't have a
problem with it as long as all relevant copyrights and credits are quoted.
Jon (GZG)
> b) See if anyone else has attempted (or would like to help) with
Hi Jon,
> On Sep 18, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Awesome! Yes, it would be strictly non-commercial, probably under open
source and open content licenses.
Thanks,
-- Ernie P.
> On Thu, September 18, 2008 22:23, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
Technically, if it has a non-commercial restriction then it can't
be open source.
(you may put it to non-commercial use, but an open source license
says "anyone can take this and use/modify/sell it", so you wouldn't
be able to stop someone else doing a commercial site, which would be against
Jon's wishes).
You'd have to use something like an CC-NC license, which isn't
considered truly open source, or make sure the code (open source)
and content (non-commercial) is kept distinct and separate.
> Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
> running Full Thrust games. The idea is to have a single game server
> a consistent:
> it over time.
I would be interested in helping you with this project.
If you should take a look at
http://www.projectdarkstar.com/
Its an open source massively multi-player game back end. It takes care
of storage, persistence, client/server comm, and resource deconfliction.
It might save you some work.
Hi Jon & Sam,
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Samuel Penn wrote:
Ah, good point. I should have been more explicit.
Jon, are you requesting:
a) that *I* make sure my efforts are non-commercial?
OR
b) that anything we develop can *only* be used in a non-commercial
manner?
More specifically, are you comfortable with us releasing the source code under
(say) a BSD open source license, as long as the server *we* host isn't
commercial? For example, we could place a prominent notice on our website that
this server is run with the explicit permission of GZG, and not for commercial
usage [without restricting the source code itself].
Or, do you want us to place the source code itself under a non-
commercial license (CC-NC), so that it isn't legally permissible to
use in any commercial products?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
(or perhaps under the GPL, so it is at least difficult to commercialize)?
I'd be happy to call you on the phone to discuss this, to make sure we have
the appropriate protections in place
Thanks!
-- Ernie P.
> (you may put it to non-commercial use, but an open source license
> On Friday 19 September 2008 17:15:45 Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
No such license would restrict what the copyright holder can
do - they are free to relicense under a commercial license at
a later point if they so wish. If you really want Jon to keep control over
commercial aspects of it, then probably he would need to own the copyright on
it.
> (or perhaps under the GPL, so it is at least difficult to
Not true - this is a common misconception. Linux is under the
GPL, and Red Hat makes lots of money by selling it.
Just to complicate things further though, see:
US: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
UK: http://www.britishcopyright.org/pdfs/info/infosheet018.pdf
Basically, game rules can't be copyrighted. Text describing the rules, and
background flavour can of course be copyrighted. You could implement the FT
rules in a computer game, as long as you didn't use any of the descriptive
text from the FT books (probably including ship designs and graphics).
Of course, Trademark and Patents (see second page of UK document) still apply.
All the above ignores what people may try to enforce, and what may or may not
be considered polite by various people. Also, don't assume that I actually
know what I'm talking about. I've merely seen these sorts of discussions
before.
Hi Sam,
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Samuel Penn wrote:
I think you're missing the point. I (as copyright owner) am already
promising to obey Jon's request to keep it non-commercial (and if I
can't be trusted, the whole issue is moot :-). The goal of the
license terms is to keep malicious and dishonorable people using our code
inappropriately.
> (or perhaps under the GPL, so it is at least difficult to
Sigh, OK, let me be more precise. Yes, it *is* possible to make money of GPL
software, just more difficult. Red Hat makes money by *packaging* and
*supporting* Linux, not selling it per se. If we made "libfullthrust" GPL,
then it would prevent (say) game companies from creating a proprietary product
and selling it (without releasing the
source -- which undermines most traditional business models).
If you really want to be picky, we should actually release the game server
under the Affero GPL, so that people couldn't even host the server without
posting back source changes.
Again, it really depends on what Jon's concerns are, and what level of
protection he is comfortable with.
The route I'm currently leaning towards is:
a) making relatively generic (though FT biased) game engine, with the actual
"rules" encoding *declaratively* in XML or equivalent.
b) have the server store the various rulesets declaratively (e.g., XML), as
submitted (and modified) by various people.
c) establish server *policy* requiring CC-NC for all submitted data,
so that the end result is owned by the community and not usable commercially.
d) Release the generic server itself under a true open source license; since
it contains minimal FT knowledge, it shouldn't impact Jon's Intellectual
Property that strongly.
Would that work, Jon?
-- Ernie P.
> On Friday 19 September 2008 22:23:50 Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
No, I don't. I was just trying to be helpful in clarifying things.
> Hi Sam,
I'm afraid that this is all starting to get way beyond either my knowledge
(I'm neither a lawyer nor a computer gamer!) and my available spare time
(effectively nil!) to worry about it......
At the end of the day, we (GZG) survive by selling metal minis. If any
proposed project will support and promote that, then it's good for us.
If it's a stand-alone computer game that allows play WITHOUT minis,
then at best I'm neutral about it, at worst if it damaged or reduced the minis
sales then obviously that would be a bad thing. I don't necessarily think that
would happen, but it needs to be considered. On the other hand, if such a
project raises interest in the game as a whole and causes some folks to seek
out the minis to play the "real" (tabletop) version, then that's got to be
positive.
What I can't do, right now, is to spend a lot of time and effort working out
what effects this may or may not have, and sorting out legal and licensing
ramifications; so, if other members of this list want to point out any real or
hypothetical concerns about which they have genuine knowledge, that's going to
be useful.
> Samuel Penn wrote:
Things need to be discussed at that level of detail (i.e. "picky") --
because, if we don't think about this, and you put this up there, and a black
hat who is "picky" finds the loophole and makes money of your efforts and Jon
T.'s IP, everybody loses (except the bastard who found the loophole to make
money.)
So, be prepared for much pedantic detail discussion, because, that's where the
devil is, and that's the type of discussion you need to have to protect Jon
T.'s work.
I unfortunately can't help much -- IANAL, and my professional
computer experience is with single source or licensing setups, for closed
commercial use. I have no experience of what the potential loopholes are when
you're building source on somebody else's IP, especially when you want to make
the source open source without opening up the rights on the IP as well.
JGH