next »

[muku]

Basically I want a license that says there's no license. Do whatever you want with it, you're free to manipulated it for your own ends.

Sounds like you want to release it into the Public Domain.

Not a good idea. In many legislations, work cannot even be released into the public domain until a specific number of years has passed since the author's death.

[Ragzouken]

Wikipedia says 'It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear.'. But in either case, even if it's impossible to relinquish the copyright, there's nothing to force him to take action against an 'infringer' is there?

[muku]

But in either case, even if it's impossible to relinquish the copyright, there's nothing to force him to take action against an 'infringer' is there?

With that reasoning, if you want to put it under an invalid license, you could just as well forget about that whole licensing stuff. Just put it out there and promise people not to sue.

[Ragzouken]

Well really, if you claim to put it in the public domain, whether it's valid or not there's no way you're going to be able to sue someone. No court is going to let you change your mind just because you freely releasing it is not possible by law.

[Thorst]

Do the End User License Agreements you see in shareware and demos offer any advantages over a similar Creative Commons license?  I don't know whether to be skeptical of Creative Commons or of pricey legal services providers.

[Ragzouken]

The legal standing of EULAs is a bit shakey as far as I'm aware. You don't read them before you buy them is the problem. They are more like a contract whereas creative commons are copyright licenses I think. I'm no expert really, but I think Creative Commons is better than a EULA.

[Thorst]

I think people have criticized EULA for that reason, but they would not be the standard licensing mechanism if they were ineffective.

My question is if a Creative Commons license can be used in place of the licenses that you usually see when an installer asks you to check the box next to agree.

[increpare]

My question is if a Creative Commons license can be used in place of the licenses that you usually see when an installer asks you to check the box next to agree.

I wouldn't think so personally.  EULAs are usually targetted at people who are going to be using content for personal use, whereas CC stuff is targeted at people who are going to make derivative stuff based on or using the original material.

[Tobasco Panda]

My question is if a Creative Commons license can be used in place of the licenses that you usually see when an installer asks you to check the box next to agree.

I wouldn't think so personally.  EULAs are usually targetted at people who are going to be using content for personal use, whereas CC stuff is targeted at people who are going to make derivative stuff based on or using the original material.

Yeah according to the Creative Commons website, it is not recommended for software.

-from the site-
"We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.

Creative Commons has “wrapped” some free software/open source licenses with a human-readable "Commons Deed" and machine-readable metadata. You may use these "wrapped" software licenses to take advantage of the Creative Commons human-readable document as well as the machine-readable metadata while still licensing your work under an established software license. It is important to note that CC has not altered these software licenses in any way, but has simply bundled human- and machine-readable explanations of the licenses along with the original license text. Examples: GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, BSD.

Updated: August, 7th 2008 "

[Thorst]

Tobasco Panda: Thanks for that straitening out.

My goal is to make it easy to redistribute the game.  Some software uses an open source license just to lubricate its distribution, while its developer maintains tight control over the code, and does little to foster community involvement in the development process.

I would appreciate clarification on the goals of everyone here.

[muku]

Creative Commons has “wrapped” some free software/open source licenses with a human-readable "Commons Deed" and machine-readable metadata.

Wait... machine-readable licenses? What is this madness?

My goal is to make it easy to redistribute the game.  Some software uses an open source license just to lubricate its distribution, while its developer maintains tight control over the code, and does little to foster community involvement in the development process.

There's definitely a big difference between just putting a piece of software under an open source license and actually making it a community project. For the latter, you need some infrastructure like publicly accessible version control repository, mailing list/forum, bugtracker etc. Most important, however, is that the software has to reach some kind of "critical mass" of useful code before it will attract any kind of development community.

[Thorst]

There's definitely a big difference between just putting a piece of software under an open source license and actually making it a community project. For the latter, you need some infrastructure like publicly accessible version control repository, mailing list/forum, bugtracker etc. Most important, however, is that the software has to reach some kind of "critical mass" of useful code before it will attract any kind of development community.

Yes, and usually a game is too much of a singular vision for a community project.  Where licensing is relevant to game development is in distribution.  If you want people to play your game, you should make sure it can be legally copied and posted around the web.

Is an open source license overkill?  Is it sufficient to say your game is freeware?

[qubodup]

provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

To my understanding, the copyright notice has only to appear in source code distributions. And only in copies, not in modified versions. Copy != modified version. (at least I think so.)

Is an open source license overkill?  Is it sufficient to say your game is freeware?

There are advantages when you make your project free software/open source*
Others can pick up your game and create a different one, based on it. Others can improve your game.

Distribution is extremely easier, as (open source) operating system distributions will be able to include the game in their software package. Your game will persist, because the terms are clear under which distributions is allowed, so it can be mirrored on other pages / f343tp fold2343rs / torr33242nts / etc without questions, even if the page is for-profit (some people consider pages with ads on them to be for-profit pages).

If you use a copyleft* license, you additionally get the security, that if the game gets modified and released, it too will be free software.

For all considering non-commercial and non-derivate licenses: There is a project which tries to define what a "free work" (free media to be honest) is. I don't think they make a very good job at providing a readable definition, but it's usable.

Wikimedia Commons, the media hosting page of Wikipedia and related projects, uses this definition to differentiate between free and non-free. Non-commercial and no-derivate licenses are non-free.

If you are willing to read an article about why non-commercial is considered unfree, I recommend this one.

*Not smartarsing, just making clear what definition I use.