Open Source Licensing

[mirhagk]

Hello all,

I am currently working on a video game library. I'm using a series of tools and functions I made while attempting to program various games. The library is coming along very nicely, and I personally love the way I designed it. In a few months I will be wanting to release the video game library to the world.

For a while I was torn between whether I should release it as free (as in price) and open source, or as proprietary. I personally love open source projects, and want to support the ideals, but I am not a religious fanatic about open source. The reality is that while I'd love to make it free and open, I am poor and need money for university. I simply could not justify spending that much time on something, and then not being able to afford university because of it.

Recently however I have been looking at ways of having my cake and eating it too. Namely licensing it in such a way that it's 100% free to use for open source projects (not like there is many games that are open source, but still), but require a royalty to be used in commercial games. There is also the option of providing it free, but then offering services for a fee, much like Red Hat does, but the library is targeted more towards smaller indie games, and most of those are made by people who do it as a hobby or for fun, and would rather figure it out on their own then pay someone.

I have looked at different licenses, and I think what I will do is include the GPL license with the library. I believe that means that no one can use the library for commercial purposes (correct me if I'm wrong). I think I can then sell non-GPL licenses that don't restrict to open source projects for a fee.

Does anyone know if the GPL allows me to do this? Or if putting the GPL license on it somehow takes away my right to license it for commercial purposes? If that's true is there another license that is free to open source projects, but charges commercial ones? Can I make my own from altering the GPL (I don't think I can, I believe it says I cannot alter it, but if I don't call it the GPL I wonder if that'd be okay).

[ProgrammingFun]

Do you mean something like this?

[mirhagk]

Okay so since I am the owner of the code I can release it under GPL and then sell my own licenses to people who want to use it commercially? That's great.

Also thanks for the article so that I know that I can't accept people's contributions to the project unless I have 2 different versions.

Also what would happen if I had 2 different versions, and someone fixed a bug in the open source one? Does that mean I'm not allowed to use the same fix in the proprietary one? What if their fix was a really obvious fix for something like an index off by one error?

[md]

mirhagk @ 2012-03-17, 1:09 pm wrote:

Okay so since I am the owner of the code I can release it under GPL and then sell my own licenses to people who want to use it commercially? That's great.

Also thanks for the article so that I know that I can't accept people's contributions to the project unless I have 2 different versions.

Also what would happen if I had 2 different versions, and someone fixed a bug in the open source one? Does that mean I'm not allowed to use the same fix in the proprietary one? What if their fix was a really obvious fix for something like an index off by one error?

See now you're getting into the nitty gritty details that make dual licensing basically impossible without a lot of extra work. If there is a bug in the opensource version and someone fixes it then you can't use their fix no. But if you see a bug report and it describes where the error is and what it is and your fix is *exactly* the same, well then it's ok because you didn't copy anything, you just came up with the same solution independently. Proving that you didn't copy the opensourced solution is somewhat of an issue, and without a lot of documentation it'd be impossible to win if you were ever sued.

The real issue is that anything you release as open source is likely going to be competing with already existant software which has an equally open or more open license. Given that environment, unless your writing something to deal with an extremely esoteric there is almost certainly no demand for a paid library. When it comes to anything related to games, your chances of selling anything at all are slim to none. You're best bet if you do want to try is to release your software as GPL and offer to write specific improvements for small sums of money. That way you get all the benefits of open source (aka other people fixing bugs, working on the library), none of the hassle of dual licensing, and still *might* make a *tiny* amount of money.

Now, just because you won't make any money doesn't mean that writing the library isn't worth it. There are a lot of ways in which you might benefit from open source without getting paid: experience, name recognition, boredom relief; all things which have a positive but non-monetary benefit.

[mirhagk]

I am currently in slightly significant credit card debt, and work 9-5 Monday to Friday for an unpaid co-op. I need to pay off that debt, and then raise another $10 000 for tuition, and more for books and living expenses. I wish I had the luxury of being bored. I was hoping to make a justifiable amount of money off a video game engine so that I could learn and be innovative, which I love doing, without sacrificing the money I could be making working.

Thanks for the heads up md, I guess I just won't bother releasing it, it will take too long to comment it and everything. Guess I will just make a couple indie games from it and try and sell those. Won't get very much, but maybe enough to justify the lost hours of working.

[md]

First, if have large amounts of debt and aren't making any money in your co-op position then perhaps you should be looking for a different job and working towards consolidating your debt. I'm also not sure where you're working, but if it's in north america then you almost certainly *should* be being paid as legal unpaid co-op positions are few and far between.

As for you library, I would argue that you should release it under the most open licensing terms you can live with. Don't bother with comments or documentation, just make it do what you want and leave it at that. If you choose to release some indie games using it then that's also a great idea. Your goal in releasing the code shouldn't be to make money (because you likely won't) but to get a reputation for getting things done, and to have accessible proof that you do know what your doing for the future. Anyone can say that they wrote a game library (I've written many!), but very few people can open a web browser in an interview and say "and here it is".

[mirhagk]

high school. Well high school postgrad. It's actually uncommon for high school co-ops to pay, and usually when they do it's not a wage, but a thank you $10 per day.

My debt isn't enourmous right now, and it's mostly all planned for and saved me money. (I won't disclose the actual amount but it puts me back a semester at university).

I can't wait until I do get paid for my co-op, but that won't be until I finish my 440 hours.

I was hoping releasing it open sourced might give the library some more reputation, and might actually make it possible to earn some cash off of it.